Lifted Entirely From Neal Boortz
MEDIA BIAS? NO WAY! (YEAH, RIGHT.)
Now let's sit back a bit here and watch the media at work.
Yesterday you saw headlines in newspapers and heard many TV talking heads telling you that the Republicans had blocked debate on an anti-war resolution in the U.S. Senate. But is this the way things really happened? Just where did the media get this story? Where did the mainstream media come up with the idea that the Republicans were trying to stop the debate?
Well .. it came from a vote. A cloture vote. Republicans refused to step forward and vote for the cloture motion, so it failed. But just what is a motion for cloture? Why, it's a motion to stop debate and vote on the issue in question! The issue in question here the Democrat non-binding resolution opposing Bush's moves in Iraq.
Are you following this? There's a debate going on in the Senate. The debate is over a Democrat-inspired resolution condemning George Bush and his latest actions in Iraq. The Democrats bring a motion to the floor to stop the debate and vote on the resolution. The Republicans vote against the motion. The debate goes on ... and suddenly the left-wing media is reporting that the Republicans are trying to block debate on the Iraq war in the Senate? On what level does this make sense?
If the situation were reversed and it was the Republicans bring a cloture motion to the floor of the Senate, with the Democrats opposing the motion, you can bet your first born that the mainstream leftist press would be blaming the Republicans for trying to stifle debate in the Senate.
The truth is that the Republicans have kept the debate going ... rather than blocking it. But Harry Reid gets up there and accuses of the Republicans of trying to block debate and the media grabs Reid's slant and runs with it. But what would you expect? Reid is the Democrat leader of the Senate! Do you really expect the media to do anything other than adopt his slant?
There is more to the story. Why are the Democrats so anxious to vote on their anti-war resolution and be done with it? Because the Republicans have another resolution they want considered. It's called the Gregg resolution and it was introduced by Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. The Gregg resolution would state that the Senate would oppose any reduction in funding for troops in Iraq. Harry Reid called Gregg's resolution a "diversionary tactic" and refused to allow it to come to a vote. So the Republicans have in turned refused to allow the Democrats anti-war resolution to come to a vote. The Democrats are afraid that the Gregg resolution would get more votes than their favored Warner-Levin anti-war version.. and that would make them look bad.
Now once again, and all together ... "there is no liberal bias to in the mainstream media!"
Yeah .. sure.
Typical Liberal deceit.
from the mind of... Eric | 7:54 PM
5 Comments:
Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com said it better than I could. "it's important to understand precisely what happened on the senate floor today, what parliamentary procedures were in play and why it ended up as it did.
The Republicans main aim here was to prevent a no-confidence vote in the senate on the president's war policy. They threatened a filibuster for a while until they finally came up with a rationale for the filibuster. And what they came up with was this ...
There were three resolutions in play today. The Warner-Levin anti-surge resolution. The McCain-Graham-Lieberman pro-surge resolution. Then there was a third resolution offered by Sen. Judd Gregg. The key is the Gregg resolution. All the Gregg resolution really said was that it's the Commander-in-Chief's duty to assign military missions and the Congress's duty to fund them. (Constitutionally, it's a ridiculous claim. But let's set that aside for the moment.)
Now, here's the rub. The Democrats wanted them all to go to a simple majority vote. The Republicans wanted each to go to a 60+ filibuster-breaking vote.
How do the two thresholds shape the debate?
If each goes to a simple majority vote, the anti-surge resolution wins, the pro-surge resolution loses and the Gregg amendment probably wins too. But the headline is the repudiation of the president. The Gregg amendment is an afterthought.
However, if each resolution goes to a 60 vote test, the thinking was that both surge resolutions (pro and con) would fail. And only the Gregg amendment would win.
So opposition to the president would lose and the only winning amendment would be one that gets the senate on the record saying that Congress is obligated to fund whatever missions the president chooses.
That's what happened.
Huh? Constitutionally it's a ridiculous claim that it is the President's job, as Commander in Chief, to assign military missions, and the Congress' job to fund them? Wha!?
Have you bothered to read the Constitution? Has Talking Points Memo bothered to read the Constitution!? If I had time before jetting off to Job No. 1, I'd look it up for you. Fact is, TalkingPointsMemo is the one making a ridiculous claim, to a ridiculously ignorant readership, that the Constitution does not say what it says-- I distinctly remember putting a copy of the Constitition in your box sometime last year.
What REALLY happened is Reid claimed Republicans were trying to stifle debate, and the MSM picked up the ball and ran with it. The point of a Cloture vote is to END debate and move to a vote. Rebublicans wanted the debate to continue.
Get off the Jabberwockey Pulpit and start speaking sense!
In regards to Reid, the Democrats, and Main Steam Media (to include TalkingPointsMemo) Al Franken describes it better than I could...
"Lies and the Lying Liars who tell Them"
Yep, That's the Liberal Establisment for you.
The most recent problem with the Democrats is that they not only oppose the President, but they are proactively working to achieve America's failure in Iraq (for reasons you can probably surmise). The problem with their plan is the clear and present danger it would create for all Americans.
As an "old school" journalist I have little respect for this new generation of reporters. They don't seem to want to take the time to investigate a story and report the facts objectively. The new version of "news" is to use a politican's opinion or quote as "factual" material.
This Lib-spin has no end due to the lack of journalistic credibility so effectively demonstrated by today's "drive by" media.
Thank you, MSUGal, for a journalists' perspective. It does seem that to most journalists in the MSM Liberals can tell no lies, and Republicans can tell no truth...
I wonder how long Liberals would last in positions of power if the entire MSM were genuinely UNbiased...
I've always been amazed that Liberals claim the media is right wing biased. I never have been able to understand how they come to that conclusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home