Regular readers of this blog (both of you) may note I'm a fan of Keith Olbermann. He's a good writer. I like me some good writing.
But everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes people all up-and-down a chain of command make mistakes. This happened tonight, with Olbermann at the wheel, and his producers at his side.
It was part of his "first story on the countdown," supposedly the #5 story of the day but actually the most important for this is the conceit of the show. Olbermann went on-and-on about how significant it was that Republicans did not filibuster a vote on the Iraq war today, how they let the vote go forward, and how a proposal to end it "won" by a count of 50-48.
This had more errors in it than an early Mets game.
The most important error is that no filibuster was possible on the proposal in question. It was a Republican proposal, an amendment offered by Sen. Thad Cochran, a Republican from Mississippi, to the emergency Iraq spending bill. The Cochran amendment was that withdrawal timelines written into the bill be taken out.
You don't filibuster your own amendment. And you can't force a 60-vote majority on a spending bill you need in order to carry out your own policy. To do so would be both silly and counter-productive.
Since Democrats were given control of the chamber at the start of the year (control which would not now pass to Republicans if, say, Joe Lieberman joined them, because the rules of the Congress have already passed and there was no provision in those rules to give power back and an attempt to change the rules could be filibustered) Democrats controlled the bill. Their committee wrote it. Their majority leader put it forward. And that bill contained the withdrawal language, written after a great deal of negotiation with (no, not Lieberman) Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.
Nelson got the withdrawal language written in such a way that Bush can vitiate it. It's binding in that it's there. It's not-binding in that it can be ignored at the President's whim.
Anyway, the Cochran proposal to get rid of that language, weak though it was, failed 48-50. This was significant. It was significant not just because Nelson voted "nay," supporting the original language, but because Nebraska's Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel, also voted "nay," opposing his party. (Another Republican, Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted with Democrats in both instances.)
The defections of Hagel and Nelson reversed the count of a previous vote, a few weeks ago, on a non-binding resolution proposed by the Democrats, one that (since it was a resolution, non-binding, and contained no money) could be filibustered. To be precise, cloture could be invoked on the non-binding resolution, requiring 60 votes to move toward a real vote. The cloture motion failed 48-50.
So 48-50 a few weeks ago, 50-48 this time. That's the story. Nebraska changed its mind. (Go Cornhuskers.)
Can you explain that simply? Yes you can.
A Democratic funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan survived an attempt to gut it today, with Nebraska's two Senators changing their mind.
Let's review. You can't invoke cloture, that is filibuster, on a
funding bill you need to pass. The news is the Senate now favors a
withdrawal timetable, where before it opposed one. (The bloggers who spotlighted Hagel on this vote were wrong. It was Nelson who won the agreement Hagel finally signed off on.)
Oh, and while President Bush can veto the bill, once it goes to conference and is passed again by both Houses, that does not guarantee a "victory" for him. A veto would not be overridden, but in that case no $100 billion plus for Afghanistan and Iraq is appropriated. Such a bill must be passed by April 15 or Bush has to rob other Defense accounts every day to keep things going.
What is likely to happen? The Senate language will be agreed to in conference, the bill will pass both houses, and then (surprise) Bush will sign it. Then he'll ignore it. Because the language which brought Democrat Ben Nelson on board allows him to ignore it.
That's what happened. Olbermann's producer should have known that. NBC's Congressional correspondent is paid to know that. Olbermann himself was supposed to know that -- he went to Cornell for pity's sake. There were mistakes all up and down the MSNBC chain of command, and the American people were told convenient lies.
Wait. That was story number three.
Recent Comments