Thursday, July 28, 2011

The disadvantage of tabling is that Republicans will insist that Boehner’s proposal had a chance in the Senate, and that Reid was simply afraid that it would pass.

Of course, in the real world, voting to table something is exactly the same thing as voting to kill it. But alas, the above analysis by Suzy Khimm is just good reporting on looking-glass land, as seen in this pathetic Erick Erickson post (my emphasis):

One week ago the entire conservative movement was unified behind Cut, Cap, and Balance as was both House and Senate GOP caucus — no small feat to be sure.
Then, because Harry Reid denied CCB a vote through a procedural motion, John Boehner produces a crackpot plan that rips the conservative movement apart at the seams and after taking two stabs at it, still can’t get to the promised $1.2 trillion in cuts he initially claimed it would have.

I'm not sure whether Erickson is irresponsibly misinformed or telling a deliberate lie, but Harry Reid did no such thing. Allowing a vote to table is allowing a vote. Indeed, Reid is under no obligation to bring up House-passed bills at all, and if he does bring them up they could easily be killed through the cloture procedure, which would at least give opponents an argument about a "procedural motion," albeit hardly a reasonable one given that it's the Republicans who have made it a 60-vote Senate. But a motion to table? That's pretty much what Republicans during the Bush presidency used to call an "up-or-down vote," before they (and, to be sure, the Democrats) flipped on or about January 20, 2009.

And as I've been writing this, Harry Reid just announced that he'll hold the vote to table tonight if Boehner can get his bill through the House this evening.