Rolling down The Hill

When people talk about framing in journalism, the use of loaded terms of particular portrayals that either mislead or greatly bias the takeaway, this is the kind of garbage they have in mind

But while some liberal activists say Democrats should ram legislation through the Senate using special budget rules that require only a simple majority vote, Democratic leaders have taken a different view.

Should the Democrats "ram legislation through the Senate using special budget rules"? Well that certainly doesn't sound procedurally fair does it. It's probably not procedurally fair to "ram" anything through anything else. That is what the word "ram" implies in this context. And the pairing with "special budget rules", which is true, certainly amplifies the perception that this is unfair, trampling the procedural rights of the minority and the perception that the passage of the vote would reflect an aggregation of preferences arrived at through an open, fair, and prior established and respected procedure. Even the word "simple" in "simple majority vote" is doing some extra work here. If it were just a majority vote, that might raise some cognitive dissonance: what the hell is "special" about "majority vote"? The qualifier "simple" helps to mute that, by subtly suggesting that majority vote is some way a reduction of the normal process.

Of course you never need 60 votes on final passage. You only ever need 51. Sure you need 60 votes for filibuster, and denying the opportunity for filibuster is indeed what make these special rules. But the reader has been primed by the word "ram" and everything that follows from that just builds on that initial characterization.

Beyond the problem of framing is the problem that Bolton either (1) doesn't really know what is being suggested for passage through reconciliation, or (2) he doesn't think it's important to let his readers know what is actually being suggested for reconciliation. Liberal activists are not at this point calling for passing the bill through reconciliation, although many certainly did throughout 2009. Rather, what liberal activists are calling for is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is: no procedural tricks, no "ramming", no "special rules" although in this case it would be a majority vote, although the qualifier "simple" would be irrelevant.

Bolton sets up some unnamed liberal activists, misrepresents what liberal activists are calling for, and then says that "Democratic leaders have taken a different view." Of course they've taken a different view. No liberal activists are taking that view. No one is taking that view anymore, other than Republicans who are deliberately mis-portraying what is being suggested and the journalists who are either not aware of what is going on or don't care to actually tell people. Sure back in March and even through until November, maybe December, there were people calling for passing the entire bill through reconciliation. They were wrong on the merits (it almost certainly would have been gutted by the parliamentarian) but they were advancing that position. Not anymore. The reconciliation process being considered is different than it was in 2009: it is a smaller bill with the specific objective of making sure that the legislation passed is reconciled with the budget that was passed.

As for the substance of the article, there is the continued suggestion that Republicans might be willing to compromise

“The bipartisan trade-off in a viable healthcare bill is obvious: Combine universal coverage with malpractice tort reform in healthcare,” former Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times last year.

This written before it became absolutely clear that there was no way that the GOP would accept this compromise. More importantly, it was written after the Republican leadership had explicitly rejected this offer.  As Karen Tumulty reported back in May 2009 (via Steve Benen)

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support for the bill. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by the Republicans and certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.
What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?
Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

I have no problem with this being included in the bill, but it should be clear that the only reason to do this would be to give House Dems currently buckling a little bit of cover. But Bolton does not make crucial things clear: (1) that the talk of reconciliation is now, unlike in 2009, about advancing not health care reform in total through the Senate, but rather in passing a few reforms that would make it more palatable to the House, (2) that the Democratic leadership has not rejected reconciliation, as the first paragraph highlighted implies, but rather have endorsed it, and (3) that this isn't going to get you a bipartisan bill.... it was offered, rejected, offered again, rejected again, all before Republicans had the nerve to insist that it wasn't in the bill!