Raw Story⁠93%

John Thune casts aside 'Trump's whims' as 'GOP bickering' rattles party: report ⁠74%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/22/2026, 12:41:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 39% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 676 faulty-reasoning hits from 346 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,653 of 21,009 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.10% of the article peer group.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has been forced to cast aside President Donald Trump’s “whims” amid a “formidable” dilemma facing Congressional Republicans this week, a week that serves as one of the party’s “ last ” chances to advance the White House’s agenda, Punchbowl News reported Wednesday. 
Under the leadership of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), House Republicans are pushing to advance a reconciliation package that includes $60 billion for the Pentagon to help cover costs of the deeply unpopular U.S. war against Iran. 
The House will adjourn for a five-week recess on Thursday, giving House lawmakers a short window of opportunity to advance the legislation. 
On Tuesday, however, Thune spoiled Johnson’s plans by declaring he “wouldn’t advance” the reconciliation package – scheduled for a House vote on Wednesday – until the Senate finds a path toward advancing a broader government funding bill for next fiscal year, Punchbowl News reported. 
“Let's be clear about how disastrous it would be to jam through a [continuing resolution] via reconciliation," Punchbowl News’ report reads. 
"It means Democrats could force an unlimited number of amendment votes at a simple-majority threshold on pretty much any topic." 
“Thune is looking to protect his vulnerable senators from yet another vote-a-rama. 
As he finds himself increasingly at odds with Trump, Thune is looking out for his Senate majority – not Trump’s whims.” 
Further complicating matters is the SAVE Act, Trump's controversial voter ID bill. 
While the House has passed the SAVE Act multiple times, Thune has repeatedly stated that the bill lacks enough support to advance in the Senate. 
“Senate Republicans are skeptical they can get any of the SAVE Act included in the reconciliation bill,” Punchbowl News’ report reads. 
"That will cause major problems with House Republicans." 
The report emphasizes the widening rift between two powerful GOP leaders. 
“We’re seeing once again the massive gulf between Johnson and Thune," it states. 
"The two top Republicans seem to have different motivations at the moment and are handling their jobs very differently.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.9%Alexander Willis: 6.7%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Alexander Willis: 7.1%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.1%Alexander Willis: 18.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect34.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 11.8%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias11.8%This article: 33.8%Alexander Willis: 27.6%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias33.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error9.0%This article: 6.1%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.8%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 4.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 11.8%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope11.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 8.0%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 11.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 6.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 39.0%Alexander Willis: 7.5%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote39.0%This article: 6.1%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection6.1%This article: 3.5%Alexander Willis: 13.4%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

346 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech309writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageHouse Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote-43.7 ptsWriter: 43.7%House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.