A change in operational tactics

Jim Webb (D-VA) is bringing a bill to the Senate floor to change the way US troops are deployed in Iraq, requiring that troops spend as much time back home between deployments as in the war zone. That's a legitimate topic for debate.

Defense Secretary Gates says he'll recommend to the President that he veto the measure if the Congress passes it. That's also legitimate.

Here's where things have gotten wacky.

Supporters of Webb's proposal say it has at least 57 of the 60 votes needed for passage. It would need 67 votes to override a veto.

As i recall from high school civics, and news items before the mid term elections, a bill only needs a simple majority to pass the Senate (generaly, 51 votes.) The 60 votes mentioned are necessary to close debate on a bill and bring it to what the Republicans used to call "an up or down vote." That is, every time Democrats, who were in the minority, would contemplate using the procedural hurdle known as the filibuster to keep debate open on a bill or a nomination, and delay or prevent a final vote, Republicans would scream at the top of their lungs that Democrats were preventing an up or down vote. As though somehow that was an evil tactic.

Nowadays, the Republicans don't even have to say that they'll filibuster. Our news media simply reports that 60 votes are "needed for passage."

I wonder what the press will have to say the next time our chocolate rations are cut?