Blogs and Stories

Benjamin  Sarlin

Samuel P Jacobs

Senate Stonewallers

Joe Lieberman Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images As Joe Lieberman threatens—again—to filibuster health care, Benjamin Sarlin and Samuel P. Jacobs report on Capitol Hill’s most ornery No Men. Plus, a gallery of the Senate’s all-time biggest troublemakers.

When Sen. Joe Lieberman issued fresh threats to filibuster any health-care reform proposal including a public option, he did more than just blunt the momentum generated by the House of Representatives’ passage of a bill this weekend. Lieberman also took his place in a venerable line of legislators bent on using parliamentary procedure to hold up the works. The deans of delay have already been hard at work this Congress, blocking Obama’s nominations for the federal bench and slowing the appointment of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. It's all becoming too much for Majority Leader Harry Reid, who let loose on the GOP for obstructionist tactics last week after Republicans held up a bill extending unemployment benefits for weeks, even though it passed unanimously after they relented.

Click Image Below to View Our Gallery of Obstructionism's Greatest Hits

Article - Sarlin Filibusters - Gallery Launch

These tactics have a rich history. Beginning in the 19th century—historians usually trace the first major threat of a legislative slowdown to 1841—the filibuster became the obstructionist’s weapon of last resort—a way for a passionate minority, sometimes a minority of one, to put the breaks on legislation. The marathon-length address embraced by crusaders and cranks alike—and knew no partisan bounds.

So who are the most epic obstructionist senators today? While there is no reliable means of tallying filibusters and holds, some lawmakers have truly distinguished themselves in recent years. Remember: the further from the center of power a member is, the more attractive these tactics designed to protect the minority appear to be. Among the league leaders in delay of game:

1. Joe Lieberman
(I-CT)
The Democratic nominee for vice president just nine years ago, Lieberman today is a man without a party; though he caucuses with the Democrats, he won reelection as an independent. And his latest threat—to filibuster any health-care reform bill that comes before the Senate bearing a public option—is giving the Democrats fits. “If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today,” Lieberman said on Fox News over the weekend. But, as The Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, the argument doesn't even begin to make sense: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that a public option would reduce the deficit and since it's funded by individual premiums instead of taxpayer dollars, there's no public liability attached. The baffling disconnect has supporters of health-care reform worried that Lieberman's objections might be personal and idiosyncratic—given his many tangles with the Democratic Party, including a primary loss in 2006 to Ned Lamont that led him to run as an independent.

2. Tom Coburn
(R-OK)
Secret holds upset the natural order on Capitol Hill; it’s difficult to figure out who is behind them, so it’s harder still to know who to lobby to get them lifted. An exception to the rule: Sen. Tom Coburn, who is so proud of the procedural roadblocks he’s placed in recent years that he has a section of his personal Web site devoted to the practice. At one point in 2008, Coburn was delaying nearly 80 bills, according to The New York Times, including a $10 billion collection of omnibus legislation that lawmakers had dubbed the “Tomnibus.” Most recently, Coburn has used his parliamentary tricks to hold up a major veterans' health-benefits bill, prompting Democratic lawmakers to hold a press conference all but begging him to withdraw his objections on Monday.

3. Jim DeMint
(R-SC)
Peter Beinart: Why Democrats Were Smart to Bail on Abortion

Dana Goldstein: How Abortion Splits the Reform Coalition

Matthew Yglesias: The Next Health Care Minefield

Paul Begala: Forget Bipartisanship
“The onus has been turned on the leader to get the 60 votes,” said Sarah Binder, co-author of Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate. After a military coup took place in Honduras in June and the democratically elected president was forced into exile, most would have thought it a good idea to have State Department officials in place with relevant experience who could address the fallout in the region. But that wasn’t the path Sen. Jim DeMint followed. He not only defended the generals behind the coup but protested the White House's condemnation of it by placing holds on the nominations of Arturo Valenzuela, Obama's pick to oversee Latin American affairs for the State Department, and Thomas Shannon, Obama's choice for ambassador to Brazil. "I will not lift the hold on these nominations until the United States works out an arrangement with the Honduran government to recognize the outcome of the elections in Honduras and restores the U.S. foreign aid that has been cut by the Obama administration,'' DeMint told the Miami Herald in September, essentially holding American foreign policy hostage. He finally released his holds this week after the Honduran government reached a tentative deal with deposed president Manuel Zelaya that would allow him to return to his country, although the final status of the arrangement is in serious doubt.

4. Mitch McConnell
(R-KY)
As the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell has set the stage for the numerous procedural difficulties Democrats have faced in moving legislation forward. “Mitch McConnell is the architect of the Republican filibuster, which now is applied to virtually all controversial bills,” Thomas Mann, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, told The Daily Beast. While a Republican filibuster on major legislation like health-care reform are hardly surprising, critics have accused McConnell of going overboard by flexing the muscle on less objectionable legislation. This month, the GOP filibustered an extension of an unemployment bill; when they finally relented, it passed 98-0. Republican leaders said they did it to protest what they saw as a lack of consideration for their proposed amendments. But arguments over parliamentary procedure were likely little comfort for the 200,000 laid-off workers who temporarily lost their unemployment benefits thanks to the delay. Majority Leader Harry Reid has gone after the Republican leadership in recent days over a host of alleged delays, including putting off confirming the surgeon general during the H1N1 crisis.

Back to Top
November 9, 2009 | 11:11pm
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

LostPatriot

Lieberman is dirt. It really doesn't matter when a democrat or republican votes differently than his party once in a while however Lieberman thinks he is his own party while simultaneously trying to make believe he is a democrat and the democrats continue to accept him. He should have been removed from all democratic affiliation when he went independent. Are the democrats afraid of AIPAC?
Lieberman calls the Homeland security committee "my committee". He is the chairman. Joe seems to think everything belongs to him. Maybe it does as long as he continues to vote with AIPAC and the apartheid church state of Israel. Israel apparently owns and operates the USA and Joe is one of the spokesmen. The nagging question is "why do the democrats or anyone else tolerate him".

|
|
Reply
|
5:31 am, Nov 10, 2009

jmac123

Mavrick, isn't that what you all called John McCain when he voted with the Dems. By the way is this Louis Farrakan you anti-semite!

|
|
Reply
10:14 am, Nov 10, 2009

menckenlite

Joe Lieberman has more integrity in his left pinky than the rest of the US Senate combined. Democrats abandoned Lieberman isolating him. Voters saw his integrity and elected him anyway ignoring the Democratic Party criminals.

|
|
Reply
|
6:07 am, Nov 10, 2009

Terrance72

Bullshit. Joe Lieberman lost the democratic primary because of his unwavering support of an illegal and immoral war. If your refering to the party establishment abdoning him what choice did they have? Were they supposed to reject the mandate of registered democrats and support him as an idependent while Lieberman cozied up to Bush & Dick Cheney. Joe Lieberman abdanoned the democratic party. Period. He is a sanctimonius fraud and a hypocrite of the worst sort.

|
|
Reply
|
7:08 am, Nov 10, 2009

jmac123

I think Terrance what you are referring to is Joe unwavering support for his country and not like may in his party who try to turn acts of terrror into "man made disasters" like the current adminastration like to call them. Israel has been dealing with these disasters for a long time and the Fort Hood "man made disaster" should give everyone pause that if nothing is done one will be coming to a school or mall near you! If Joe had to leave the democrat party because these belief were unacceptable to them then we are in a lot of trouble my friend.

|
10:21 am, Nov 10, 2009

bgeasyas123

Big stretch to associate the administration with the Fort Hood shooting. If anything the army is to blame for not addressing the guy earlier.

|
9:39 pm, Nov 10, 2009

RawhideRex

Get your history straight menkenlite.

Democrats...actual voters mind you... voted against him in the primary. That is how democracy works. But Lieberman..with all his "integrity" decided to ignore the voters decision.

And now..this scumbag is going to do it again by using a fillabuster and blocking any sort of voting taking place. That is not democracy.

|
|
Reply
9:07 am, Nov 10, 2009

Carole65

However, integrity in Congress is in very short supply, and the majority on the Senate couldn't carry Liberman's suitcase when it comes to integrity. Agree with him or not, he has always been steadfast in his beliefs. Obviously, the voters in Connecticut agreed, because he won by 10% over Lamont. The Democrats shoved Liberman under the bus, including Al Gore, when he entered the primary in the 2006 presidential campaign, and now they want his loyalty a vote on huge spending packages during this economic downturn. The Dems got Arlen Specter, so they didn't lose any votes.

|
|
Reply
|
9:10 am, Nov 10, 2009

idiotking

What do you mean "steadfast in his beliefs?" Less than 4 years ago, Lieberman advocated universal healthcare with a "medicare for all" public option!

Just three years ago, he said he opposed the use of fillibusters and considered them "anti-democratic!"

Principled, my pasty white butt... his only principle is "whatever will get me on TV!"

|
9:49 am, Nov 10, 2009

Carole65

idiotking: Please site his support for a public option.......... He and Sen Hatch introduced the Faircare proposal in 2005, but no where do I see that it included an entire makeover of health care insurance. He introduced the Healthy Americans Act (S.334) in 2007, which would establish a centrally financed system of private health insurance options for Americans, and was projected by the CBO that it would cause no new Federal expenditures, because the bill used money in the existing system to provied secure and portable coverage to all Americans. No where, again, did I see government funded health insurance.

|
10:31 am, Nov 10, 2009

bgeasyas123

Carole

"During a 2006 debate with challenger Ned Lamont, Lieberman claimed to be working towards universal health care.[87]

In 2009, Lieberman is opposed to a "public option" and stated he would side with Republicans and filibuster any attempt to pass major health legislation that includes one.[88] Since the beginning of 2005, Lieberman has received over $920,000 in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry.[89] He ranks 75th out of 100 senators for percentage of contributions from corporate PACs. [90]"

This is from Wikipedia and I have seen numerous clips on multiple news outlets from 2005 where lieberman was campaigning for universal healthcare. I will post if/when I find them.

|
12:04 pm, Nov 10, 2009

crypto

I'd trade 100 Arlen Specters for a Joe Libermann. But the dems did crow when 'Ol Specter jumped ship. Funny though how different it is with them when somebody else does it from the ofhte side. That's when it's bad to do that. Hard to keep up with that reasoning.

|
12:43 pm, Nov 10, 2009

Carole65

bgeasyas123: Yes, he said he was working toward universal health care. He didn't, however, say that a public option would be part of a possible proposal. His 2007 Healthy Americans Act indicated otherwise.
Campaign donations from the health care industry is a false argument, as Obama and Clinton got more individually than Romney in 2008. Bottom line, all the candidates received money from various sectors, but that's not relevent to this discussion

|
12:54 pm, Nov 10, 2009

maspring

"Joe Lieberman has more integrity in his left pinky than the rest of the US Senate combined."

Be careful menckenlite. This story has taken many twists and turns to date and probably has a few more surprises in store.

Joe is notorious for switching sides. Also Barack Obama has shown in the House that he only weighs in on the debate at the very last possible second. He has yet to exert any pressure on the Senate.

A lot can change over the next six weeks.

So, it would be a shame for you to praise Joe for his integrity this early. You may have to take it all back later.

|
|
Reply
11:07 am, Nov 10, 2009

crypto

Thank you! It will be a while of course because the dimwitted take longer to see. But Joe Lieberman will go down in history as one the most honest politicians to serve this nation. If the rest (both sides) had just a little of the integrity he has we wouldn't be in half this mess now.

|
|
Reply
|
12:37 pm, Nov 10, 2009

MaCaCa

Yes, he's probably the best US Senator to serve the nation of Israel

|
1:15 pm, Nov 10, 2009

xlntcat

Lieberman has a long history of being one of the most corrupt politicians to ever sit in the Senate. Name one thing Lieberman ever did other than stuff his pockets. He's has taken over 950,000 to sell out his constituients from the Insurance industry.

|
4:06 am, Nov 11, 2009

tarryh

Joe Lieberman cares only about Joe Lieberman.That is the way it has always been. Besides his outrageousness during the decades he has been in Washington, he now shows the dementia that comes to many of us at his advanced age. I am sorry Hadassah and his family have to witness the public display of his sickness but I am sure it is very hard to control him. One day he says one thing. The next day something else. One day he sounds like Uncle Bube and the next like the Grim Reaper himself. I suspect he will be too far gone mentally to run for election again. How sad for his legacy.

|
|
Reply
2:05 pm, Nov 10, 2009

cbl99201

Lieberman's behavior is completely understandable. He is taking revenge on the Democrats who had the temerity to vote agaist him returning to the Senate.

|
|
Reply
4:28 pm, Nov 10, 2009

xlntcat

Liberman has never been known for integrity, Corruption, yes! Integrity, no! All you have to do is look at the massive amount he has taken from the racketeering monopolistic insurance industry to know the Lieberman is now what he has always been, a paid shill. He is selling out the voters who let him stay in Congress and hopefully, will pay the price.

|
|
Reply
4:02 am, Nov 11, 2009

Snertly

Joe Lieberman is the finest senator money can buy.

|
|
Reply
2:52 pm, Nov 11, 2009

DakLak

Lieberman is a traitor to the oath he took when assuming office.

He has neither the interests of his electorate nor America in blocking the Senate work.

|
|
Reply
|
6:11 am, Nov 10, 2009

kdan423

Absolutely correct. At a minimum he is a shill for the State of Israel - where his true allegiance lies. He is also a rank opportunist. The Democrats would be better off by not letting him caucus with them. Screw the 60 vote super majority - it hasn't done anything for the Democrats so far.

|
|
Reply
11:56 am, Nov 10, 2009

MichaelAndre

Lieberman is precisely as Terrance72 says: "a sanctimonious fraud and hypocrite." As the father of a Jewish son, I was proud when Gore selected him as vice presidential candidate. Now Lieberman fills me with shame and disgust. My feeling even extends to Gore -- how could he trust such an awful man? He's Gore's Tartfuffe but unlike Moliere's Tartuffe, Lieberman's effect on the world is real and tragic.

|
|
Reply
8:48 am, Nov 10, 2009

kytreb

"D'Amato filibustered for more than 15 hours against a bill that would close typewriter factory in his district."

Don't you mean 'cloase [a] typerwriter factory'? C'mon, eds.

|
|
Reply
|
8:54 am, Nov 10, 2009

sorenzo

Yah, that's one of several editorial oversights in this piece. Was this rushed to print or something? Needs a once-over by a pair of fresh eyes.

|
|
Reply
10:57 am, Nov 10, 2009

pioneer7

Thankfully there are a couple of Senator's that have a little common sense. A $1 trillion take-over of the health care system will sink this Country.

The democrats and the Obama administration aren't trying to "fix" the healthcare system with their overhaul, they are trying to "take over" and make American's more dependant on the government, making it bigger and bigger and more socialistic.

Wake up America!

|
|
Reply
9:20 am, Nov 10, 2009

dthillsr

Thank goodness that there are people in government that still have some sense.

|
|
Reply
|
10:21 am, Nov 10, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--johnnieg
|
|
Reply
7:55 pm, Nov 10, 2009

dogisgreat

It is inappropriate to direct anger toward individual Senators who use the filibuster rules in their current form to block legislation. The anger should be directed toward the majority party which allows the filibuster to remain in place.

Because the Senate is already structured to disproportionately represent the interests of small, rural, and conservative states, there is no need for a filibuster to protect the interests of the minority. Layering this arcane procedure onto the already less democratic institution drives the legislative system into gridlock.

It is time for the majority party to show some courage and reform the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster.

|
|
Reply
10:52 am, Nov 10, 2009

amantell

The filibuster has an obvious use when employed appropriately. I don't see any value in a secret hold. Because they represent the public, senators should be prepared to explain any procedural decision they make that affects a law's passage. The legislative process falls under the guideline that if you can't readily defend your actions, you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the filibuster, there was a time when it was invoked only rarely. Now senators filibuster routinely. Because the culture of the Senate has changed, how it employs its internal rules ought to be modified in accordance with the times. The filibuster shouldn't be eliminated, but it should be altered to control the level of disruption that senators who abuse the rule bring to the legislative process.

|
|
Reply
12:05 pm, Nov 10, 2009

crypto

Have to get off here for now but one parting question for you dems, How's your hope and change working for ya?????

|
|
Reply
|
12:46 pm, Nov 10, 2009

Terrance72

Well, lets see, it's pretty hard to have any change or any hope in the system when the Republican party has obstructed everything Obama has tried to do -without proposing a constructive alternative. Any idiot can tear down a barn, it takes a carpenter to build one.

|
|
Reply
2:02 pm, Nov 10, 2009

Resolute

Our foreign policy is better than ever, the Fed is very well-run, we're having huge debates over the central issues that we've been trying to talk about for decades....

Overall I'd say pretty well, considering that America seems to believe that Congress in only important in so far as they can use it to blame Obama for any failure or lack in legislation. I don't think we'll ever stop being a nation of flip-floppers when it comes to separation of powers.

|
|
Reply
2:20 pm, Nov 10, 2009

bryanlevi

Just when I think Lieberman can't be any more repulsive, he sinks to yet another new low.
When will Connecticut voters get rid of this monstrosity?

|
|
Reply
1:01 pm, Nov 10, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--squareyellowpaper
|
|
Reply
|
1:16 pm, Nov 10, 2009

ChanRobt

YellowPaper, it is hardly a gaping hole. It was the clear intent of the Founders to prevent the tyranny of the majority via the instrument of the Senate, the electoral college, the Supreme Court, and other protections against the impassioned, unwise mob.

Without the Senate and it's two votes to each state, regardless of size, there would be no Constitution, Yellow. It was a non-starter without that provision.

Read history Yellow, and know your own country, understand its fundamental principles.

|
|
Reply
4:07 pm, Nov 10, 2009

crypto

squareyellowpaper: I gotta agree with you. I expect I may be one of the oldest posting on here. I like to fight a little and instigate a little but you've pretty much got it nailed down. It doesn't matter which party is in control. They're still gonna screw us if they can. I think the best we could do is stop listening and throw 'em all out and start over. The new ones can't possibly do any worse that the ones we have. All the politicians have done for the past fifty years is feather their own nest. Look at THEIR health care. Look at the tax fraud and "buddy" deals. Yep, throw 'em all out and start over.

|
|
Reply
4:57 pm, Nov 10, 2009

aackc1

I thoroughly enjoy all of these attacks on Lieberman from the libs... Where were they in 2000? The libs must be anti-semites.

|
|
Reply
2:15 pm, Nov 10, 2009

j831526

Sarlin calls the Republicans obstructionists for trying to stop the Obama freight train. Did he call Democrats obstructionists for trying to keep Bush from packing the courts? The Senate rules give the minority a way to fight against tyranny by the majority. How about loyal opposition? We haven't heard the phrase for a long time. I know the Republicans never used it to describe Democrats, but we need to start somewhere

|
|
Reply
2:43 pm, Nov 10, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--squareyellowpaper
|
|
Reply
2:49 pm, Nov 10, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Senate Stonewallers

by Benjamin Sarlin

Info
RSS
Benjamin  Sarlin

& Samuel P. Jacobs

Info
RSS
Samuel P Jacobs
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |