"A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops"
That would be the New York Times editorializing in its news story about yesterday's House vote on the Iraq escalation. It gets even more ridiculous in the lede:
A sharply divided House of Representatives passed a resolution on Friday formally repudiating President Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 new combat troops to Iraq.
Never mind that there were 17 Republicans voting against their own President and with the Democrats. On any other vote that would have been called "bipartisan." On October 11, 2002, 296 Members voted to authorize the President to go to war with Iraq, while 133 voted against, a vote generally described at the time as an overwhelming victory for the President. Does the 50 vote difference between those two votes make this House "sharply divided?"
Democrats are going to have to understand that this is the way they are going to be covered as long as all of this non-binding back and forth plays out. Josh sees this theme:
If you get a chance on the second showing this evening, watch the second segment on CNN's AC360 this evening. It's about the surge vote. The primary theme? Democratic weakness.
Changing the narrative is going to require a strong position: getting us out of Iraq in a safe and orderly way, with troop protection being the number one concern. It's about getting them out. John Murtha is showing the way, and the sooner Democrats coalesce behind that effort, showing unity and a strong position to end the occupation, the sooner they can begin to challenge the media narrative.