There is much uproar in the rightish wing of the Blogosphere today over the coverage (like here and here) of the Republican actions regarding one of the multiple resolutions being considered by the US Senate (just check out Memeorandum at 1:00pm eastern today).
For example, McQ at QandO discusses what he sees as Media mischaracterizes Senate Resolution vote. And, of course, Hugh Hewitt is most distressed.
However, the uproar in question is misplaced as it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the way the Senate works.
Specifically the issue that is on the table is a motion “to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 470; A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.” The bolded text is key. A “motion to proceed to consider” is defined as follows:
motion to proceed to consider - A motion, usually offered by the Majority Leader to bring a bill or other measure up for consideration. The usual way of bringing a measure to the floor when unanimous consent to do so cannot be obtained. For legislative business, the motion is debatable under most circumstances, and therefore may be subject to filibuster.
What this means is that while S.470 is on the Calendar, it has not made it to the floor for full debate and then a vote.
What is currently being contested in the Senate is whether or not to allow S.470 to move from the calendar onto the floor for a full debate. The Senate has been engaged not in a debate over the Resolution, but, rather, has been having a debate as to whether or not to have an actual debate (or to put it another way, they have been debating a procedural issue, whether to take the S.470 off the Calendar, rather than debating the content of the Resolution itself–although I will grant that in practical terms those items get mixed). As such, the GOP is blocking an actual debate that could culminate in a vote on the Resolution at issue. As such, the reporting on this issue has been accurate.
Unless I am missing something (and it is possible that I am), there is no room for outrage here. I have checked with a contact in the Senate to see if my reading is correct as well as with a colleague who teaches the Congress.
This is a different situation, by the way, from the judicial nominations as the cloture motions in those cases were about proceeding to a vote, as the rules of the Senate privilege the Executive Calendar (the one that contains nominations–some discussion of that here) and allows those items to proceed to the floor of the Senate sans a unanimous consent agreement or a motion to proceed to consider. Again, unless I am missing something, the Resolution in question is no privileged, and therefore has to find a way to the floor, including the likely route of a “motion to proceed to consider.”
In general, I find this whole affair (the outrage over the coverage) to be unseemly, but quite typical for politics, insofar as it is rather obvious that partisans of both sides are willing to go in guns a-blazin’ over support for minority protections in the Senate as it fits their desired outcomes. It is unsurprising, to be sure, but certainly underscores that many really do not have any true convictions on this question, treating it instead as matter of political expediency.
Update: Indeed, in reviewing the bill’s timeline at Thomas we can see that bill was placed on the Calendar on 2/1 (after the initial reading on 1/31). There was a motion to proceed to consider that failed on 2/1 and later withdrawn and then was made again yesterday (2/5) and the motion failed. The Majority Leader decided not to try again and the Resolution remains stuck on the Calendar, as happens with a great deal of legislation. As such, it would seem that my analysis above is on target.
Update II: Here’s C-Span’s rather straight-forward definition of a “motion to proceed.”
The uproar may not be over Congressional rules or procedure. It may be suspicion of using them as excuses for political advantage or cover.
McCain did not vote as was the case for two democrats and one other republican. I find McCain’s not voting more telling than a cloture vote.
Comment by Stanford Matthews — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 2:32 pm
How does that change the basic objection, which is that voting against cloture is not cutting off the debate? They are extending debate in hopes of getting other resolutions some consideration.
More importantly, the news coverage is not covering it as a motion to proceed, as your own need to check out what is really going on shows. It is being portrayed as the Republicans being obstructionist (which I often would hope they would be) when they are not doing anything differently than Democrats often did, where they received a very different characterization. If refusing to end cloture is obstructionism then that would be a consistent meme.
In a sense one could argue they are both being obstructionist. The Republicans are obstructing moving the resolution forward without other competing resolutions being up for debate as well, the Democrats are trying to block those resolutions being considered by closing debate. Instead we get headlines like:
“Republicans Block Senate Debate on Iraq”
That is not exactly a fair portrayal of the kind of complex maneuvering going on now is it? It is in fact a Democratic talking point. As I wrote at my place:
“Let me be very clear, I have no problem with the Democrats or Republicans legislative behavior here. The Republicans have every right to try and extend debate and include competing resolutions. The Democrats have every right to try and end debate if further debate is pointless. Obviously given the vote that is not true, but that is no problem for me, they have a right to have a vote to find out.
What I do have a problem with is claiming that something is going on that is not. That the Democrats are spinning doesn’t bother me, it makes it seem as if they have more support than they do, but heck, that is what the political class does. I do have a problem with the media adopting that narrative wholesale and at odds with how they have discussed similar situations in the past. I expect more impartiality and fealty to the truth than that.
Okay, that is wrong, I don’t expect it. I just feel I should be able to.”
Comment by lance — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 3:59 pm
[…] UPDATE: For a more reasonable and well argued defense of the media, I suggest Poliblogger. […]
Pingback by A Second Hand Conjecture » The Blue Putz Speaks on Cloture — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 4:06 pm
Fundamentally the press tends to either a) not understand Congressional procedure, or b) oversimplifies the situation for public consumption (especially the headline writers).
And to your initial point: the basic upshot here is that the GOP, by making this move, have made further debate on this particular resolution moot (and, as I understand, several others) as there is no reason to keep debating whether or not to have a debate if there is no reasonable chance of getting the 60 votes.
Does this kill any further discussion of the subject? No. Does it indicate that there is likely to be no Resolutions to actually make it to the floor? Yes. As such, the basic coverage is correct.
Now, a good deal of the rhetoric is over the top, if not wrong, but then again I tend to ignore that.
Ultimately I think you are missing the point about what “debate” means in this context and how a Resolution would actually make it out of the chamber.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 4:06 pm
Except, I don’t think the Republicans are going to insist on holding out for 60 votes. They are going to hold out for the other resolutions. If that happens they will let it go forward.
So, I don’t think that the coverage is accurate unless you buy the argument that you put forward above, and even then that is not really accurate because it is accurate in spite of the way it is being portrayed. It may be that the Republicans were blocking a debate in that case, but it bears little resemblance to what is described. Moreover, if the media had made that argument, then that is opinion, not fact.
That is fine, but it isn’t being labeled as opinion. It may be well founded opinion, but it is opinion. Now, if the resolutions go forward and then it gets to the point of being voted on and then the Republicans truly filibuster, I would have no problem with it being labeled as blocking the legislation. That hasn’t happened yet.
Comment by lance — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 4:54 pm
I don’t think I am. I understand very well, but the term has meaning in this case and it is not being blocked.
If you mean that you believe that I am confusing every day usage of the term debate with this, definitely not. The press is, for the next stage of debate has little to do with that either, but it is being pretended it does there as well.
Comment by lance — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 4:59 pm
The GOPers won’t hold out for the votes if they get the resolution they want, to be sure.
I will say this: since this entire enterprise really don’t mean much (i.e., it is simply over a non-binding resolution), I find the entire process to be an exercise in cynical politics. As such, I question the basic motivations of all the actors involved.
And in regards to the “debate” issue–I am simply saying that there is an important distinction here to be made, which is escaping most who are talking about it, between a debate that will culminate in another round of debates (which is currently where we are on S.470) and a debate that will culminate in an vote on passage or failure of a given resolution (which is what is being blocked).
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 5:03 pm
Others may be misunderstanding the term debate, I am not.
Also, the Republicans claim they will allow the resolution to go forward, as long as the Gregg resolution also does. I have checked. They may be lying, but at this point we have no evidence of that.
True, but then the original resolution started that. Once that was done sausage was going to be made. It is ugly. Feingold’s resolution (which I oppose) means something. I respect him for that. If we didn’t want cynicism, then we should have never had this resolution in the first place. It accomplishes nothing positive, only negatives. Embolden our soldiers opponents, strike at their morale while doing nothing to either improve their situation or end the war. Big surprise at the outcome.
I do find it heartening that you see the cynicism in all this. I have been pounding that theme for weeks.
Comment by lance — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 5:42 pm
[…] (This is a simplification of the post below). […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » It All Depends on the What the Word “Debate” Means — Tuesday, February 6, 2024 @ 6:25 pm
[…] What I can say is he had the good sense to link to some people who actually have a clue about this, Josh Marshal (via the carpetbagger report) and Poliblogger. They have some pieces to add to the puzzle, so lets leave the lightweight Greenwald and go to Poliblogger also known as Steven Taylor. […]
Pingback by A Second Hand Conjecture » The Blue Putz Responds-Let Us Restate Things — Wednesday, February 7, 2024 @ 1:14 am
[…] Emphasis mine, and it was the basic points I made in two posts yesterday: It All Depends on the What the Word “Debate” Means, which deals with the semantics of the situation as well as my more lengthy discussion of Senate procedures: Uproar over Coverage of Cloture is Misplaced […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Back to the “Debate” Debate (The Politics of the Senate Resolutions) — Wednesday, February 7, 2024 @ 11:20 am
The whole point is that the republicans wanted to continue to debate whether there should even be a debate and not not just debate what the actual text of the whining. Why for instance are they proposing this if they just finished unanimously voting for General Patreus and it is his request.
There should be outrage for that fact alone. The only insurmountable obstacles in this war are idiot policticians who craft needlessly restrictive rules of engagement and fail to support people they claim to have confidence in.
-I
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich — Wednesday, February 7, 2024 @ 2:43 pm
My point is that I see no room for outrage over a situation wherein the Senate is working exactly as the Senate always does.
It seems to me that most of the outrage is motivated by partisan allegiances more than an understanding of what has, or has not, happened.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, February 7, 2024 @ 3:48 pm
[…] Last week there was much uproar over the Senate’s lack of debate on a resolution concerning Iraq. This week there are no such problems regarding the House, as WaPo reports: House to Take Up Resolution on Iraq The House will begin debate today on a simple, tightly worded resolution opposing the deployment of additional combat troops to Iraq, even as Democratic leaders move forward on binding language that would curtail those deployments and begin to bring troops home. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Lessons in Comparative Legislative Chambers — Tuesday, February 13, 2024 @ 7:50 am
[…] (For a discussion of the “debate” debate go here, here and here). […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Another Round of Comparative Legislative Chambers (No Res Debat in Senate) — Sunday, February 18, 2024 @ 10:19 am