Covering the Frist-a-Buster

I'm always interested to see how the media covers a story that is of great political importance but at the same time is semi-complex. Like today's maneuvering in the Senate, for instance. What angle(s) will be played up? Did Frist stop movement on the DoD bill, or did Democrats? Why was it stopped - demands from the NRA, or fear of the McCain/Graham/Warner/Collins detainee amendments?

Here's how some of it seems to be shaking out. We'll have to wait until tomorrow morning for full analysis (since the editorials aren't usually available before then), but we can examine what's available and see how some outlets are playing it.

Television: As of 11 p.m. Tuesday, only CNN among the five major network news websites had this story on its front page; just by way of contrast, the Natalee Holloway story was headlined on four of the five.

Associated Press: There seem to be several AP pieces floating around tonight. I found this one at CNN, which was filed at 10:26 p.m. and seems to be the newest version. A slightly older report is here. The updated piece begins "Senate Republicans on Tuesday moved the National Rifle Association's top priority ahead of a $491 billion defense bill, setting up a vote on legislation to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over gun crimes. Completion of the defense bill, which the Senate had been debating for a week, will now be delayed until fall. Democrats were incensed." The article goes on to discuss only the gun bill, making no further mention of the Defense Appropriations legislation.

The earlier AP dispatch, by Liz Sidoti, was headlined "Frist delays showdown with White House." Its lead-off sentence: "The Republican-run Senate postponed fights with the Bush administration over the treatment of terror suspects and military base closings Tuesday after GOP leaders failed to derail proposals opposed by the White House." This piece goes on to stick the state of things to Frist a bit, noting "The inability to thwart the controversial defense amendments was the latest setback for Frist this year. The majority leader has watched a handful of Republicans join minority Democrats in holding up John Bolton's nomination to be U.N. ambassador and blocking Frist from banning filibusters of the president's judicial nominees."

Sidoti's article focuses almost solely on the amendments offered by McCain, Graham and others, along with those put forth by Senators Thune and Lott to deal with base closings. Frist pulled the bill, she sayd, in order to kick the can down the road and not have to deal with possible passage of the detainee or BRAC amendments.

The piece ends quoting Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner: "Like Snoopy said, it's not whether you won or lost, it's how you played the game. I played it straight."

Indeed you did, Senator - and thank goodness for that.

Knight-Ridder: James Kuhnhenn filed this report for K-R earlier this evening, headlined "Frist pulls defense bill to avoid votes on treatment of detainees." It begins "The Senate's Republican leader on Tuesday derailed a bipartisan effort to set rules for the treatment of enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other military detention camps by abruptly stopping debate on a $491 billion defense bill."

Kuhnhenn's story is the only report I've seen out so far with a quote from McCain about the Frist-a-Buster, who commented "It just doesn't make sense to leave defense authorization. We need to make sure that every member of the Department of Defense understands the procedures that are being used in interrogation and we don't have a repetition of Abu Ghraib." McCain was one of seven Republicans who voted to continue debate on the Defense bill.

K-R's piece also makes the important point that while Frist succeeded in delaying action for the moment on the amendments, they will be dealt with when the bill is taken up again in September. This is good as pertains to the amendments to the DoD bill, but Kuhnhenn doesn't bring in the NRA angle at all.

Reuters: Here's this, from Vicki Allen. The beginning of this one is absolutely laughable: "Senate leaders were forced on Tuesday to halt work on a major defense bill, postponing a fight with the White House that threatened a veto if the bill restricted the Pentagon's treatment of military prisoners or delayed work on base closings across the country." Forced? By whom?

Allen includes a quote from deputy Democratic leader Dick Durbin on the switch from defense to the gun-maker protection bill. "It appears that the Republican leadership is more concerned about the gun lobbyists in three-piece suits than the men and women who are serving our country in uniform." Good quote; maybe the Dems will accept Frist's gift after all. Of the wire service pieces, this is by far the best in integrating the various elements of this story; I highly recommend it.

New York Times: In the "Grey Lady," this story gets folded in amongst several others in an omnibus piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "As August Recess Looms, Congress Finds High Gear." She does lead with the Frist-a-Buster though: "In a mad dash to rack up some accomplishments before Congress leaves town for its five-week August recess, the Senate on Tuesday temporarily abandoned work on a defense policy bill and took up a measure, likely to pass and laden with political implications for Democrats, that will shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits."

Stolberg goes into slightly more depth a few paragraphs later, writing "The decision to quit work on the defense bill is likely to put off until after Labor Day politically charged fights over treatment of detainees and recommendations to close military bases. The White House has warned it will veto the measure if it contains provisions regulating the treatment of detainees or altering the recommendations of a base closing commission.

Mr. Frist, seeking to avoid those fights, sought to cut off debate on the measure and bring it to a vote. But with Republicans like Senator John W. Warner of Virginia advocating debate on the detainees, and Senator John Thune of South Dakota pressing for a discussion of base closings, Mr. Frist fell 10 votes short of the 60 he needed, and moved to bring up the gun bill instead.

That provoked an outcry from Democrats, who had intended to use the defense bill to promote a range of measures like increasing compensation for veterans and raising death benefits for war widows.

'I am at a loss as to how this Republican Senate majority sets its priorities,' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, adding, 'For heaven's sakes, what is more important to this country: taking care of our troops, our veterans, their dependents? What is more important? Should the gun liability legislation trump this? The obvious answer is no. But it did.'"

The article moves right into a section on the gun bill from here, followed by short sections on immigration, the highway bill conference report, and the estate tax, all of which might also come up for debate this week.

I'm guessing there will likely be an editorial about this in the NYT, and I anticipate that the other major papers will release articles on this in the next couple of hours. I'll keep track of those and round them up in the morning.

The Hill: This Capitol Hill paper's Wednesday edition includes an important front-page Roxana Tiron article on this front, profiling McCain's role in his most recent "clash" with the White House. Tiron calls the spat "the first high-profile dispute between the administration and the popular senator since the November election," and notes that "[t]he policy clash could escalate in the coming months because McCain - a naval aviator in the Vietnam conflict who was shot down and spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war - is unlikely to back down."

The Hill article notes that McCain's amendments, which were originally backed by Graham and Warner, have now been joined by Susan Collins of Maine, and McCain aides told the paper most Democrats are on board and "at least" ten Republicans. The White House told Tiron that the Administration's position has not changed, and that Bush will veto any legislation that would "restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice." The way I read that statement, the amendments from Graham and McCain ought to be perfectly acceptable, but somehow I don't expect I'm reading it the same way the White House would.

Much more to come.