F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R

That's how it's spelled, Times editors. Now use it instead of misleading headlines like this.

Senate Narrowly Backs Bush in Rejecting Debate on Increasing Time Between Deployments

No, the Senate didn't narrowly back bush. Rather, Senate Republicans narrowly maintained the 43 votes they needed to go to a vote (Senate rules require the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster), Josh Marshall explains.

Don't mistake me. I support the right of the minority party in the senate to do this, just as I did in the previous Congress when Democrats were in the minority. And I would completely oppose any effort to changes the rules, as Republicans effectively threatened to do in the previous Congress. But you can entirely support the right to filibuster, as the Republicans are now consistently doing, while also insisting that the party in question be held to account for exercising the power.

And he notes a perverse change in the way the Times has addressed votes like this in the past.

This is something Digby observed yesterday, the Times is playing precisely the narrative the GOP wants them to. With headlines like the one above, it's obvious the "do-nothing Democrats" can't get anything done. When in fact it's the GOP that is preventing them from bringing legislation to a vote. So, Senator Reid, stop playing that game -- force the damn votes to the floor and let Mitch McConnell filibuster all night long.

In the meantime, we've gotten the Times to start fact-checking preznit's al Qaeda references, maybe the mighty blogosphere can start getting them to call a threat to filibuster...a threat to filibuster.