I think what you are saying is that both sides can claim to be for financial “reform” - ‘d’s for moving the current bill,
and ‘r’s for continuing the debate and modificications. But, ‘d’s are turning off debate in the sense that they deem to have sufficient consensus to move to the next step (voting). Perhaps the confusion is that ‘r’s vote against cloture could be interpreted to either be for furthur debate ... or, for killing the bill.
Confusion between "more debate" and "no more debate" is common, as to public understanding of the function of a cloture motion.
I'm sure, in the specific context of S. 3217 (Dodd's Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010), that the Republicans want to kill the bill - no more debate on this bill. But rejecting cloture is technically a call for more debate.
Their sentiment would be emphatically in favor of taking up and passing a bill on economic reform, if it was a Republican bill for economic reform.
For the time being, it looks as though Reid wants to keep the prospect of S.3217 in front of the Senate, based on his moving to reconsider the cloture vote and providing the procedural foundation for a do-over vote. Seems a silly procedural move, because there in no limit on the number of cloture motions that can be filed at any given step. The Republicans file 8 or 9 cloture motions on a motion to proceed to a bill authorizing Whitewater investigation.