Douglas Andrews: What's John Thune's Major Malfunction?
Andrews argues that Thune should move the SAVE Act forward rather than wait for assurances about the outcome.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe Patriot Post is an opinion-focused, strongly partisan publisher, and this article is openly argumentative rather than an example of independent, balanced reporting. It attributes some quotations and polling claims, but provides limited original sourcing or verification.
- Source type — Opinion publisher with a distinctly partisan editorial orientation.
- Editorial standards — The piece uses overtly polemical language and offers little separation between reported facts and the author's judgments.
- Author attribution — A named contributor is credited.
- Transparency — Some claims are attributed to named sources and polls, but the article provides limited sourcing detail.
The article includes direct quotations and references polling and a historical precedent, but presents a single-sided argument, uses loaded language, and offers little examination of opposing arguments or the bill's likely effects.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article briefly quotes Thune, but overwhelmingly advances Andrews's case for the bill and against Thune, with little explanation of counterarguments or potential effects.
- Counterarguments presented — Thune's doubts about whether the process would succeed are quoted but not meaningfully explored.
- Loaded language — Frequent insults and pejorative descriptions reinforce the author's case.
- Source diversity — The piece cites polling and selected supportive voices but gives little space to opposing perspectives.
- Opinion vs reporting — The article is explicitly an opinion column and makes its advocacy clear.
The article strongly favors advancing the SAVE Act and attacks Thune and other Republicans it portrays as obstructing it. Its language and selection of claims consistently align with a conservative position on the bill.
- Language tone — Uses insults and derisive descriptions of Thune and his conduct.
- Framing — Presents passage of the bill as a necessary defense of election integrity and depicts delay as failure to act.
- Source selection — Emphasizes polling and voices supporting the bill, with little representation of arguments against it.
Douglas Andrews argues that Senate Majority Leader John Thune is delaying a vote on the SAVE Act and urges him to use a talking filibuster to advance it. Andrews cites polling on voter ID, invokes a historical filibuster precedent and criticizes Thune’s approach.
Andrews sharply criticizes Thune for not bringing the SAVE Act to a vote after promising one. He quotes Thune questioning whether the bill could succeed through the proposed process and argues that Thune should proceed even without guaranteeing an outcome. Andrews describes the bill as requiring proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections and photo identification when voting, and cites polling he says shows broad support for voter ID.
Andrews says Mike Lee points to the 14-hour filibuster preceding passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also criticizes Mitch McConnell, and says President Donald Trump may have been wrong to claim that passing the SAVE Act would guarantee the midterms. Andrews argues that Republicans should present the bill as a broadly supported measure rather than a partisan one.
Community verdict
6 VOTES
People in this story
SWIPE →Senate Majority Leader criticized for delaying a vote on the SAVE Act
President whose remarks about the SAVE Act and midterms are discussed
Senator whom Andrews blames for influencing Thune and obstructing Senate action
Utah senator cited for pointing to a filibuster precedent
Part of a bigger story
16 OUTLETSOutlets report that John Thune plans to bring the SAVE America Act to the Senate floor and has said a talking filibuster lacks enough support. Left-leaning outlets frame Thune's resistance as a check on Trump and conservative pressure, while treating Punchbowl influence claims as an online theory. Center outlets focus on Senate procedure and Republican divisions over using a talking filibuster. Right-leaning outlets split over whether Thune should use the tactic, with some urging it and others saying it lacks votes or could consume Senate time; some also cover claims of Punchbowl influence.
- ARTICLES
- 16
- OUTLETS
- 16
- AVG CRED
- 55
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…