Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has named his picks to the "super committee" charged with making deficit reduction recommendations.

Reid named Washington Sen. Patty Murray and center-right Max Baucus, who the Post's Rosalind Helderman today (8/10/11) calls a "natural choice," given that he chairs the Finance Committee. The New York Times is a little more helpful, pointing out that Baucus

broke with other Democrats and supported tax cuts enacted in 2001 under President George W. Bush. He also worked with Republicans in 2003 to pass legislation that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

This is important for anyone who thinks that the tax cuts and drug benefit contributed greatly to the deficit problem.

Reid also picked Massachusetts' John Kerry, about whom the Post writes:

Kerry comes as something of a surprise, since he has focused more closely on foreign relations. However, as a respected former presidential candidate, his selection could help appease liberals.

I'm not sure how Kerry would "appease liberals."  In this particular case, the main issues are protecting Social Security and Medicare. And as of Sunday on Meet the Press, Kerry's view on that was that

the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It's the long-term debt. It's the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation.

It's not clear how picking someone with that misleading perspective is supposed to "appease liberals."

There's an interesting piece by Alexander Bolton in the Hill (8/3/11) that suggests Senate Democrats are frustrated by the Beltway media's tendency to cover political standoffs between the parties as situations where everyone's to blame.

Bolton writes:

This frustration boiled over during a Wednesday press conference on the partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration and what Democrats call the GOP’s extortionist tactics.

The FAA had to temporarily lay off 4,000 workers because Senate Democrats and Republicans cannot agree to a reauthorization of the agency.

Democrats are angry that members of the media appear to be accepting the GOP argument that Democrats are to blame for the temporary shutdown.

Consider this moment with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and California's Sen. Barbara Boxer:

"The fact is that you’ve got to dig a little bit behind the surface here of what this is really about,” said Boxer. "Whatever the issue is, this is about government by threats, government by one side making its demands.…"

"And these folks falling for it," Reid interjected, gesturing to the reporters in the Senate radio and television gallery.

The only reporter singled out is Jonathan Karl from ABC:

When Jonathan Karl, a correspondent for ABC News, asked why Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) had blocked a short-term FAA extension offered by Republicans on the Senate floor Tuesday, Democrats lost their patience.

"There’s a certain naivety that comes with your question," said Boxer. "The story here today is the fact that our leader is reaching out to [House Speaker John] Boehner [R-Ohio] to say, 'If we want to resolve a particular issue, whatever it might be, let’s talk about it,' but not have one side say, 'Take it or leave it or people will be out of work.' And the essence of your question doesn't understand that."

If the criticism is that some reporters "accept GOP arguments," then Jonathan Karl is one of the strongest examples--see this July Extra! piece about his history of parroting GOP talking points. Or his disgraceful "false balance" report likening Tea Party activists to a USAID administrator's claim that cuts in humanitarian aid would cause deaths--a conclusion that led Karl to label him a "hothead."

We've noted the corporate media's double standard on Nazi analogies: When conservatives are compared to the Third Reich, however obscurely, it's an outrageous slur, but when leaders of the right charge progressives with Hitler-like tendencies, it's unremarkable political rhetoric.

Political Animal's Steve Benen (12/8/09) rounds up some similar examples of criticisms that are outrageous when applied by the left to the right, but no big deal when they go the other way--starting with the manufactured controversy over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's likening Republican foot-dragging over healthcare reform to conservatives' lack of urgency over women's suffrage and ending slavery:

If we're to believe the faux-outrage, the reference to slavery was the rhetorical element that went too far. But this, apparently, is a new concern--the right has been far more direct in making the same comparison. Harry Reid was talking about key moments in history in which the right was wrong, but Michele Bachmann recently called the Democrats' legislative agenda "nothing more than slavery," and no one said a word. Indeed, conservatives routinely insist that the left is trying "enslave" America, and the political mainstream just shrugs its shoulders in response.

This is not uncommon. In 2005, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) described the Bush administration's torture policies and system of secret prisons as being reminiscent of "Soviets in their gulags." At the time, the media and Republicans were apoplectic about Durbin's remarks, sparking a week-long frenzy. Several conservatives called on the Senate to censure Durbin, and Karl Rove, at the time a high-ranking White House official, argued that Durbin's quote was evidence that liberals are traitors. Durbin eventually offered a tearful apology.

But notice that just a few days ago, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Republican leadership, called Medicaid a "health care gulag." Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) recently called Dems' health care reform efforts "Soviet-style gulag health care." Neither reporters nor other members of Congress batted an eye.

Also note, when Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Republicans are promoting lethal healthcare policies, it was a huge national controversy. When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said the same thing, no one seemed to care.

Journalists really ought to try putting the next GOP press release on this topic in the circular bin. "He called me a name back" is a complaint that you should have learned not to take seriously by the second grade.

You see it all the time: You need 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.

Not exactly.  Under Senate rules--which can be changed by a majority vote--you need the consent of 3/5ths of the Senate to close debate on an issue; that's 60 votes. To pass a bill, you need a majority of those present. Since Ted Kennedy is sick and Al Franken has not yet been seated, that's 49 votes.

Is that an academic distinction?  No, not really.  Politically, voting against an emergency stimulus bill is very different from voting to block a vote on an emergency stimulus bill.  Particularly if Majority Leader Harry Reid required filibusterers to actually hold the floor, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style, Republicans might find it a great deal harder to keep a 41-vote bloc together.

In any case, Americans are generally under-informed about the way their complex system works. Spelling out what's going on, even if it takes an extra sentence, is preferable to a misleading and sometimes inaccurate shorthand.

Update: jhm in comments is correct in saying that it is not the debate cloture rule, but rather a Senate rule against deficit spending, that required a 3/5ths majority vote to pass the stimulus bill.  Both are self-imposed requirements, adopted through majority vote, but the politics of standing up against deficit spending are different from standing up against the Senate voting.