Paper of Record?

Yesterday in the Senate, Senator Feingold planned to introduce his censure resolution, and Republican leader Bill Frist thought he'd be able to quash it fast.

By ramming through a nearly immediate vote, his Rethughlicans could defeat the resolution before anyone, particularly the public, started talking about it. But the Democratic leadership blocked him, objecting to a vote last night, or one today, so that the resolution could get some air time and continue to be talked about. Talking about censuring the President is good for Dems and bad for Bushites.

Sound like a tactical win for the Democrats? I'd think so, but the NYTimes headline tells me otherwise:

Democrats Beat Quick Retreat on Call to Censure President

The article contains such choice bits as:

Democrats, while distancing themselves from Mr. Feingold's assertion that the president "plainly broke the law" in approving surveillance without warrants, said his proposal merited more consideration than a hasty vote.

"To try to limit debate on this most important matter that Senator Feingold is going to put before the Senate is not appropriate," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader.

So, according to Carl Hulse, who wrote this article, keeping debate open and calling it important is "beating a hasty retreat." Huh. I'm not quite clear on how that works. Did you notice any proof of the claim that Reid was distancing himself from Feingold's assertion about presidential lawbreaking in that quote? Me neither. None in the rest of the article either. Hmm.

And then there is this passage:

Though polls on surveillance are mixed, Republicans say the public generally backs the idea of eavesdropping on people suspected of being in contact with terror suspects.

"The American people already made their decision," Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday in an appearance in Mr. Feingold's home state, The Associated Press reported. "They agree with the president."

Or, in other words:

Though there is no data to support their claim, Republicans nonetheless made an assertion to fog the issue away from Presidential law-breaking.

I, as the objective reporter will now support this attempt by unquestioningly quoting bombast from the Vice President that appears to prove this baseless claim, though it merely reasserts it harder.

Then, just to make sure readers got the message, Mr. Hulse closes his article with a quote from yet another Republican saying that Feingold hasn't made his case, then leaves us with a perfect expression of a Republican talking point.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who has expressed reservations about the surveillance, said Mr. Feingold had failed to make a case for censure over what amounts to a dispute over the legal basis of the program.

"The president may be wrong," Mr. Specter said, "but he has acted in good faith."

When you actually read the article, it seems to be "Republicans Move Agressively to Undermine Censure Effort." In fact, in this article, there is no documentation that Democrats are beating any kind of retreat, much less a hasty one. In fact, there is a passing reference to Feingold saying his announcement of the resolution on Sunday had drawn strong grass-roots support. And though the article quotes three Republicans throwing stones, the two Democrats quoted are supportive of the resolution. (Of course, one of those two is Feingold himself. Me, I'd think an article about a Democratic "retreat" would quote more Democrats, or at least one actually retreating. Maybe that's just me.)

There they go again, ladies and gentleman, that liberal media we've heard so much about! The New York Times, mouthpiece of the effete Eastern liberal intelligentsia and thorn in the side of Republicans, hard at work trying to undermine the administration.

Pathetic.