If there was any doubt that the mainstream media is in the tank for Democrats, the coverage of the recent cloture vote on the various non-binding Iraq resolutions in the Senate certainly erased it. In their zeal to spin for the Dems the MSM simply flipped the definition of cloture.
I knew what cloture meant at the tender age of 16, but I had a dramatic and memorable introduction to the word, I must admit. It was in June 1964 and I sat for three days in the Senate press gallery (thanks to my aunt who worked for Sen. Richard B. Russell at the time). I was there the day cloture was invoked against the filibuster of the Civil Rights Bill.
A group of Southern Democrats, led by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, was engaging in unlimited debate in an effort to kill the landmark bill. They were opposed by my political hero at the time Hubert H. Humphrey. To end debate, at least 60 senators had to vote for cloture. You see, that’s what cloture means. It always has. Its definition has never changed.
Until Tuesday, that is, when almost every serious MSM outlet — print and broadcast and online — decided that cloture meant continuing debate. The Republicans wanted to continue debating the Iraq resolutions, but the Senate Democratic leadership decided to have a cloture vote. The vote failed and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid immediately castigated the Republicans for — are you ready for this? — ending the debate.
Armed with my 1964-era knowledge of this rare parliamentary maneuver I laughed when I saw him say that on television Monday night. Yeah, that’ll fly, Harry. But, lo and behold, on Tuesday morning all of the so-called serious media were saying Republicans had stalled, blocked or otherwise shut off debate on the resolutions by failing to support cloture.
The New York Times’ headline was: GOP Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy. In the accompanying story, reporters Carle Hulse and Jeff Zeleny wrote (emphasis mine):
Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, leaving in doubt whether the Senate would render a judgment on what lawmakers of both parties described as the paramount issue of the day.
The Washington Post did no better. Its headline was “GOP Stalls Debate on Troop Increase.” Reporters Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray broke new ground in journalistic duplicity when they wrote (emphasis mine):
The Senate’s 49 to 47 vote last night to proceed to debate on Bush’s new war policy fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to break the logjam. Just two Republicans, Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), voted with the Democrats to proceed with the debate.
In The Washington Post’s new dictionary cloture has become a maneuver to “proceed to debate,” and it was, of course, Democrats who wanted to do the proceeding. Incredible.
ABC News’ Jake Tapper used the same sleight of hand when he wrote (emphasis mine), that the cloture vote was needed so “the Senate can proceed to debate over the anti-surge resolution.”
A little history here. How does the the Senate’s own Web site describe cloture? This is an account of the last morning I spent in the Senate gallery with my chin on the railing (emphasis mine):
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate.
As I recall, this was only the second time in history cloture had been invoked. That’s why it was such a memorable day. I had seen real history in the making.
But, you may think, maybe modern reporters just don’t know what cloture really means. Maybe they were too young in 1964 to have it emblazoned in their minds by the Civil Rights Bill vote. Sorry, no excuse.
As my daughter devastatingly pointed out on her blog this week, the Bible of the news business, the book that is referred to countless times a day by reporters and copy editors the world over, The Associated Press Stylebook, defines cloture thusly (page 50, 2000 edition):
cloture not closure, for the parliamentary procedure for closing debate.
Whenever practical, use a phrase such as closing debate or ending debate instead of the technical term.
Not only did the media simply reverse the meaning of cloture in their stories and coverage, they did it in blatant contravention of instructions in their beloved writing guide, the AP Stylebook.
I suggest the following be added to the foreword AP Stylebook: “Definitions and usages in this stylebook may change depending upon the political needs of the Democratic Party.”
Jon Ham is vice president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of its newspaper Carolina Journal.