Political Animal
Blog
On the Senate floor yesterday afternoon, Senate Republicans killed a popular jobs bill, despite the fact that a majority of senators supported the legislation. But the public’s understanding of what transpired will be shaped by the media’s coverage — and some outlets were much more responsible than others.
The Associated Press, for example, got it right. Under a headline that read, “Senate GOP blocks Obama infrastructure plan,” the AP piece told readers, “Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.”
That accurately reflects what transpired. Reuters got it right, too. The headline read, “Republicans block another part of Obama jobs plan,” and the lede told readers, “Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $60 billion White House proposal to repair crumbling bridges, highways and other transportation systems as President Barack Obama’s job creation agenda hit another obstacle in Congress.”
So far, so good.
Others got the story very wrong. CNN’s headline, at least online, read, “Competing infrastructure spending measures fail in Senate.” Here’s the lede:
In a pair of votes aimed more at making political points than law, the Senate rejected competing Democratic and Republican proposals to boost construction of roadways and other infrastructure projects.
Politico’s report was even worse. The headline read, “Senate gridlock: Both parties block jobs bills.” And check out the lede:
Rival Democratic and Republican jobs bills failed in the Senate on Thursday, the latest sign of the partisan gridlock gripping Washington as Americans look for relief from high unemployment and a sagging economy.
No, no, a thousand times, no. This just isn’t what happened.
It’s really not that complicated. Democrats unveiled a real jobs bill, which was subjected to weeks of policy scrutiny, and enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in public opinion polls. It would have invested 50 billion in direct spending on transportation projects, another $10 billion to get the National Infrastructure Bank up and running, and it was fully paid for with a 0.7% surtax on millionaires and billionaires, representing just 0.2% of the population. Estimates showed the legislation would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, but literally every Senate Republican killed it anyway.
The GOP offered a ridiculous alternative, pushing the so-called REINS Act, which doesn’t even try to create jobs, and as Jonathan Bernstein explained, is “not even remotely serious.”
So why did Republican leaders push this yesterday as an “alternative” jobs bill? To get media outlets to tell the public that “both sides” presented jobs bills, even though that’s not true.
And as CNN and Politico helped prove, this little stunt worked.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on November 04, 2011 8:10 AM:
There's a new terrible legend in DC.
If the MSM doesn't blame both sides, then the ghost of David Broder will rise and haunt the homes of the Publishers and Producers who don't do that.
And terrible things happen.
WOOOooooooOOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOoooooo...
As a message, a spectral form hacks their pets in half in a bipartisan manner.
And threatens that their children are next.
The only other explanation is that we have a Fourth Estate that's about as useful as mammaries on a male bovine.
And we know that not to be true, don't we?
DAY on November 04, 2011 8:15 AM:
A lot of money is made by creating, promoting, and broadcasting conflict on the TeeVee.
I speak, of course, of Professional Wrestling. . .
sjw on November 04, 2011 8:18 AM:
Obama can cut through this corrupt MSM message. If he wants. He can go on a real media offensive and blast Republicans for blocking anything on jobs specifically and improving the economy generally, using words like "sabotage" and "unpatriotic." But does Obama have the stomach for this? I wonder.
sick-n-effn-tired. on November 04, 2011 8:29 AM:
CNN
What a fucking joke they have become.
They can't even do Faux light right.
The last debate they hosted tells you everything you need know.
They spent 20 minutes before the debate discussing the issues with esteemed political commentator Wayne Newton.
Wayne Newton????
It was compelling in a accident drive by sort of context.
You spent the entire time wondering if there was a big binder clip on the back of Wayne's skull pulling back the flesh.
I've seen shit in the wax museum that looks more realistic.
c u n d gulag on November 04, 2011 8:36 AM:
sick-n,
Wayne Newton!
No, danke schoen!
Poor Wayne.
From A-list in Vegas, to B-list on CNN because Pat Boone had a colon test scheduled, or his pecker catheter got infected.
martin on November 04, 2011 8:42 AM:
Credit where credit is due, NPR actually said the words "GOP Filibuster".
j on November 04, 2011 8:44 AM:
Different subject, Pensito review has a good story about how the state of Texas - also Huntsman's multi million dollar business worldwide are grabbing millions of dollars available to implement the Affordable Care Act.
geg6 on November 04, 2011 8:47 AM:
I have to say that I was happy to see a local newscast that characterized it as the Republicans filibustering the Democratic jobs and infrastructure bill. It was so unusual to have so much truth and perspective in a short segment from a local newscast.
Just Guessing on November 04, 2011 8:52 AM:
When I first came to the US I watched CNN regularly as a fairly responsible and informative news channel but they aren't even on the news radar any more. Obviously they think peddling crap is worth more than informed and inciteful news so like more and more people I get what I need from the Internet.
Ohioan on November 04, 2011 8:54 AM:
To be truly accurate, the headline should be:
"Republicans block DEBATE on another part of Obama's jobs bill".
I think it's becoming too easy to skip over the fact that Senate Republicans are too scared to even engage in debate over these measures.
mk3872 on November 04, 2011 9:00 AM:
Those "reports" by CNN & Politico are EXACTLY the reason why the GOP use these sort of legislative tricks like submitting a bill that has no chance or passage so that the media will call it "dueling" plans and use the old he said/she said fall back mechanism.
SW on November 04, 2011 9:02 AM:
What sort of nit wit uses Politico as a primary news source? And CNN? They just gutless cocksuckers. No other way to describe them. No pander to base for those assholes. Anything to sell pharmaceuticals and car insurance.
T2 on November 04, 2011 9:10 AM:
it is not a stunt. It is a orchestrated plan to obsfucate. The Media outlets consistently involved are part of the plan. Go look who owns them, and you'll see why their interest is in No Taxes on the Rich.
kevo on November 04, 2011 9:22 AM:
The new manifestation of yellow journalism - when MSM choose to piss on the facts, and hand us their shitty opinions 24/7! -Kevo
stormskies on November 04, 2011 9:27 AM:
And of course we all remember CNN's ejaculatory coverage of the Tea Party, even sending their CNN Bus out cover on an ongoing basis when ten people would meet here, 15 there, and so on. And of course their alignment with the Tea Party in everything they do, including co-hosting a Repiglican presidential 'debate' with the "Tea Party". No that Romney has spilled the beans about the Koch = Cock brother being the evil that created the 'tea party' in the first place it brings into perfect focus what CNN=TNN is really about. See below ....
**********
Romney campaign: Tea party movement fueled by Koch brothers
By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Koch brothers are the “financial engine of the Tea Party” despite denying they are “directly involved” in the movement, according to a Mitt Romney campaign memo.
Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, have long championed libertarian and free-market policies. They have been heavily involved in bankrolling anti-regulation politicians and organizations.
The liberal blog ThinkProgress hailed the memo as a confirmation of their claim that the tea party movement was orchestrated by the Koch brothers — not a spontaneous uprising of middle class voters.
The memo was obtained by The Washington Examiner. It suggested that the Republican presidential candidate hopes to court the tea party by by winning an endorsement from David Koch, who previously endorsed him in 2008.
Romney is scheduled to speak at the 5th annual Defending the American Dream Summit on November 4 and 5 in Washington, D.C. The summit is hosted by Americans for Prosperity, a group led by Koch.
max on November 04, 2011 9:53 AM:
Who can argue now with the GOPer claim that their focus is on jobs, i.e., eliminating jobs.
Evor on November 04, 2011 9:53 AM:
O look, somewhere there is a robot troll machine still spewing out the message that "Obama could stop all this GOP obstruction, if he really wanted to, with a real media offensive and the bully pulpit, but he doesn't really want to." Find that machine and re-program with the new "Occupiers should go get a job" loop!
Ads on November 04, 2011 10:35 AM:
Excuse me being non-american but, can anyone explain to me how the filibuster rule has gotten to this point? I mean, i get the concept... one side strenuously objects to something and engages in looooong empassioned debate which can be shut down by a 60 vote super majority.
I know the whole thing is just an abuse of process but, why hasn't anyone ever been made to actaully make the speech? As i understand it, they could just stand there and read the bible, tv guide or the phone book to pass the time, but wouldn't this work against them? I mean surely, in a situation where a popular bill has a majority of votes, they could be made to look like fools for opposing it?
How is it that the "threat" of the filibuster has made 60 the default? It's like its parlay.
Are the dems too lazy to do it because they'd have to stay late?
Am i wrong in my understanding that the process goes like this...
Winners "Ok 51-50, the ayes have it, motion carried"
Losers "filibuster"
Winners "nuts, motion defeated"
When did it become a magic word, not an actual thing?
bardgal on November 04, 2011 5:24 PM:
@sjw
"Obama can cut through this corrupt MSM message. If he wants. He can go on a real media offensive and blast Republicans for blocking anything on jobs specifically and improving the economy generally, using words like "sabotage" and "unpatriotic." But does Obama have the stomach for this? I wonder."
What planet are you on? Or do you just ignore the words coming out of the POTUS' mouth on a DAILY BASIS???
1. The GOP OWNS THE MEDIA.
2. PBO BLASTS THEM DAILY.
3. YOU, sjw, need to stop being LAZY. Google is your friend, and whitehouse.gov has an extended video archive.
Doug on November 05, 2011 10:25 AM:
Ads, the filibuster rules were changed in the 1980s.
As now, it required 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. However, THEN a filibuster could be defeated merely by the filibustering Senator ceding the floor to an anti-filibusterer. Maintaining a filibuster required those favoring it, as well as those opposed, to remain in the Senate chamber. The strain caused on BOTH sides tended to limit the use of the filibuster.
Nowadays it still requires 60 votes to overcome just the threat of a filibuster, but nowadays the burden is completely on those opposing the filibuster as 50 anti-filibuster Senators HAVE to remain in the Senate at all times, while those supporting the filibuster DON'T.
If the filibusterer calls for a roll-call vote, those opposing the filibuster HAVE to have enough votes on hand to pass the legislation or it fails and another filibuster can happen later on when/if the legislation is again called up for a vote.
The major change was that those Senators supporting the filibuster, as I presume the reasoning went, knew they would lose in a straight up-or-down vote, so THEY don't have to remain in the Senate chamber.