Posted on 11/23/2003 6:56:29 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
This weekend the entire national media reported that due to "arm-twisting" on Republicans in the House, the Medicare bill passed in the House after an unprecedented three-hour delay between the original vote and when the vote was gaveled to a close.
If everyone is saying this, it must be true, right?
Wrong. You cannot necessarily trust what you read in the papers, or see on network TV.
At 3 a.m., the original voting time on the bill, the tote board on C-SPAN showed that the bill would lose, 216-218. In that tally, which was not final until the gavel fell, 204 Republicans voted for the bill, but 25 voted against. At 5:53 a.m. when the vote was gaveled to an end, the bill passed, 220-215, with 204 Republicans voting aye and 25 voting nay. Contrary to the entire national press coverage on this issue, there was NO NET GAIN among Republicans in the House.
As the record revealed, to anyone who cared to watch the C-SPAN coverage of the event live, the entire change that ultimately passed this bill occurred on the DEMOCRAT side of the aisle. Three Democrats who originally voted against the bill changed their positions (as all Members can do before any vote becomes final) and voted aye. In addition, one Democrat, David Wu (Ore.) who had not voted in the preliminary tally, decided to vote aye.
How could the entire American press get the story wrong, when it occurred in public, in front of God and everybody? The blame belongs initially to one reporter for the Associated Press, Mark Sherman, who got the story wrong initially and in his follow-ups. Most of the 426 major print media stories on this subject (according to GoogleNews) simply picked up and reprinted the Associated Press story. So Sherman's erroneous statements became their erroneous statements.
Some news outlets went further than just the inaccurate AP story. Cable News Network reported repeatedly that "arm-twisting among Republicans" had produced the passage of the bill. David Broder in the Washington Post provided a breathless account of Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson "jawboning members on the floor," and of urgent phone calls from President Bush in the wee hours of the morning.
He also concluded that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert "switched two of the conservative [Republican] Members of the House," Representatives C.L. Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. The record of the vote itself shows that if any Republican votes were gained during the nearly three-hour wait for the final gavel, an equal number of Republican votes were lost. I don't need a calculator to realize that 204 votes aye at the beginning is the same as 204 votes aye when the vote became final.
There are indications in his article that Broder was aware of the truth, that this victory was due entirely to Democrat switches. At the beginning of his lengthy piece he is careful to identify all players by their names and party affiliations. But deep in his article he shies away from this. He refers to a "group of conservative Members" who were approached on the floor. He doesn't name them. He doesn't give their party affiliation. But it's clear from the vote changes themselves that these were not Republicans. They were Democrats.
Mr. Broder does not get caught up in the initial inaccurate reporting from the Associated Press. He does his own inaccurate reporting, by naming two Republicans who voted for the bill "despite their misgivings"as if this had anything to do with the final result. And right after that, he refers to the Democrat Representatives whose changed votes WERE dispositive, without either naming them or stating that they are Democrats.
In all honesty, as I watched the unchanging vote on the C-SPAN broadcast, hour after hour, I thought that arm-twisting to change the votes of at least two of the 25 nay votes among the Republicans would determine the outcome. Arm-twisting on floor votes that any Administration really wants has existed since the Administration of George Washington. It is literally as American as apple pie.
But the truth did not match the assumption. This vote wasn't a triumph of arm-twisting in the House. Instead, it marked the failure of arm-twisting in the House.
In the Democrat House Caucus before this critical vote was held, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned the Democrats that they should expect "negative consequences" if they did not vote with their leadership on this bill. I assure every reader that Nancy Pelosi understands hardball politics, and retaliation for those who do not maintain loyalty to their leaders.
Pelosi is a scion of the D'Alesandro family in Baltimore. Two D'Alesandros, Tommy Jr., and Tommy III, served as Mayors of that City. They wrote the book on hardball politics. They were able to shut down two criminal investigations, one for rape against Tommy III, and the other for corruption against both Tommy III and a close ally, Councilman Mimi DiPietro of East Baltimore. (In the latter case, the key witness simply disappeared, and reappeared in a Las Vegas casino with mob ties, right after the charges were dismissed for "lack of evidence." In case you're wondering why I am up on the D'Alesandro story, they were neighbors of mine, a long, long time ago.)
This was the political environment in which Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi grew up. She understands arm-twisting. But on this Medicare bill, her tactics failed.
On the initial tally of the votes, 12 Democrats broke ranks and voted for the bill. On the final tally, 16 Democrats voted aye.
Were there "arm-twisting," "strong-arm tactics," and "pursuit of Republican holdouts" as the various news accounts report? Absolutely. (Also, were such tactics used on the Democrat side of the aisle to hold Members in line? Absolutely.)
But were such tactics by the Republicans the cause of the passage of the Medicare bill? Absolutely not.
The numbers don't lie. Four more Democrats voted for this legislation at 5:53 a.m. than had voted for it at 3 a.m. That was the only net change.
How did the Associated Press and various networks, and various "leading" newspapers like the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post, blow the story so badly?
It would seem to me that any major, competent news organization – print or broadcast – would assign a couple of flunkies to watch the two C-SPAN channels whenever the House or Senate are in session. Admittedly, this would be a screechingly dull assignment. It would be similar to how I describe whitewater rafting: "hours of boredom relieved by moments of stark terror."
Still, there are only two ways to cover an actual vote in either House. One way is to be at the Capitol; the other is to watch it on C-SPAN. Either way, the watcher should have a book to read, or some other productive activity, while waiting for something to occur. When something does happen, the C-SPAN watcher should punch the TiVo button, and capture and transcribe what just took place.
This is plain as the nose on my face to this country lawyer, deep in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It ought to be equally obvious to the editors at the Associated Press, CNN, the Washington Post, etc. If those editors had done that, they would have reported this important story honestly and accurately. Because those did not do that, they are ultimately responsible for thousands of news stories that offered lies to the American public as if those lies were true.
How hard is it to watch television, and then write down on a piece of paper what you've just seen? Apparently for the American press on the Medicare vote story in the House, this was an impossible task.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
(C) 2003, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.
Yes admittedly I am still a bit upset at the passage of this bill and still more upset that less than 10% of Republicans made the stand for Constitutional values, of one I am sure was probably Ron Paul.
Prophetic tagline bump.
I agree with the concern, articulated well by both of you, that this is the wrong way for the GOP to go, but I lack your certainty that the bill is a net negative for limiting govt in the long run.
The 'Pub supporters are thinking that the pilot programs introducing competition into Medicare will perform so well that more widespread reform will be inevitable.
Additionally, the 'Pub supporters believe that this will hit the Dems politically like a cross hits a vampire.
Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, and some other Dems seem convinced that the 'Pubs are right about at least one of those points.
If the 'Pubs are right that this will lead to widespread Medicare reform, it is worth the price. If they are wrong, it is NOT worth the price.
Therefore, it is not quite as simple as "this bill promotes big govt." To some extent, it may be "this bill reforms big govt."
I sure would not bet against your position that this is, on net, leading towards bigger govt, but I am not certain. Time will tell.
I'll see if it is posted on rushlimbaugh.com this evening.
Hoohah!
John / Billybob
The transcript will be on Lumbaugh's site, with a click link to the whole article. It will NOT be on UPI (when I haven't heard from my editor there within two days, that means UPI will not carry the current article.)
John / Billybob
So if you have contacts in those areas, please feel free to forward the column to them. Also, apparently Rush used most, but not all, of the column on-air. What he did use will be on his website by 6:30. But the whole thing won't be there.
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Let the speculation stop there. That's all I'll say on the subject.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.