The Washington Post catches up

On Wednesday, one of the big stories on Capitol Hill was about the Democratic efforts to change the House rules that have been in place since 1822 that allow the minority to make motions to recommit a bill back to committee if they can get the majority to support such an amendment. Many bloggers talked all about it on Wednesday and Thursday. I blogged about it here and here. The story received extra oomph when Drudge put up a flash on Wednesday.

On Friday I wondered why the Washington Post was slow to cover this story. It seemed that an effort by the majority to remove one of the few tools that the minority has, a rule that had been in place for 185 years might have merited some attention from the local newspaper of Washington, D.C.

Finally, today the Washington Post catches up with the blogosphere. Their story by Lyndsey Layton is notable for what it doesn't cover and the slant that it gives to the whole story. Layton's entire focus is how the Republicans have been using a parliamentary maneuver to thwart the rule of the majority.

House GOP Uses Procedural Tactic To Frustrate Democratic Majority
Motion to Recommit Employed to Delay or Alter Legislation

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 19, 2007; A04

House Republicans, fighting to remain relevant in a chamber ruled by Democrats, have increasingly seized on a parliamentary technique to alter or delay nearly a dozen pieces of legislation pushed by the majority this year.

And an election-year promise by Democrats to pay for any new programs they created has made it easier for Republicans to trip them up.

Tensions over the maneuvers reached a boil this week. Republicans used procedural tactics to stall floor debate for four hours Wednesday, and they are threatening to tie up future legislative action.

Yes, the Republicans have been using a parliamentary technique to their advantage. That is certainly part of the story. But it is not the entire story. What the Democrats tried to do to get around the Republicans is also part of the story, but Layton doesn't refer to it except obliquely at the very end of her story.

This week, Democratic staffers privately discussed a rule change to limit the Republicans' ability to make motions to recommit. GOP leaders were incensed and threatened to use all available procedural techniques to block every bill except war spending legislation. But Democrats are hampered by their promise to run the chamber in a more open fashion than Republicans did when in the majority.

As Republican Congressman Eric Cantor put it on his blog,

the Democrats are threatening to change a rule and deny Republicans any opportunity to offer a motion to recommit on the "paygo" provisions of their legislation. That’s a lot of wonky talk; bottom line - the Democrats are preventing their Members from having to vote on the tax increases that they are trying to impose on the American People.

It is simply stunning that House Democrats want to change the germanenss rule on motions to recommit; this would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

Apparently, the wonky talk went over the head of the Washington Post reporter so all that she could write about was what the Republicans were doing and she totally missed what the Democrats tried to do in response. Once again, I'd offer a comparison to how the media covered the efforts by the Republican majority in the Senate to change rules so that the minority couldn't filibuster a judicial nominee. There the emphasis wasn't on how the Democrats were thwarting the desires of the majority, usually a bipartisan majority, but how the Republicans were thinking of tinkering with sacred rules of the Senate. What a difference when the parties are switched.

Patrick O'Connor of the online site Politico wrote on Wednesday evening a balanced report on what was going on and was able to clearly explain the wonky talk as well as put all this back and forth into the context of what has been going on between majority and minority parties for decades. Read his entire article and you'll learn a lot more than you would from the story that the Post has three days later.

Tell me again all the advantages that the old media has over bloggers and the new media.