The Hagel Filibuster Watch Goes On

For those following at home, today's developments:=

  • 58 senators, from states representing roughly two-thirds of the nation's population, voted in favor of acting on Chuck Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense. At least 55 of those senators would have voted to confirm Hagel. [Update: as explained below*, the "real" number of senators who wanted a vote was 59, not 58.]
  • Nominations for this job have never before been subject to filibuster, or other than a simple majority vote.
  • Nonetheless, the 40 senators who oppose Hagel [actually, 39 senators*], from states representing about one-third of the U.S. population, are blocking, for the first time ever, a president's ability to fill this role in his Cabinet. 
  • The 40 39 senators forcing this blockage don't want what they're doing to be called a "filibuster," because late in the game (after six years of filibustering everything) they have become nervous about this term. But it is the only honest description of what a minority that includes Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, each of whom has said he wouldn't "filibuster" this nomination, is doing now. 
To look on the bright side, here are the four Republicans who broke with their party in this obstructionist move: Senators Cochran of Mississippi, Collins of Maine, Johanns of Nebraska, and Murkowski of Alaska all voted against a filibuster.

Today's installment of double-speak, as reported in the WaPo:
Republicans denied that their actions constituted a filibuster because they expect Hagel to be confirmed, and they insisted they will allow a simple-majority vote on the nomination later this month.

Sure, that makes sense.

* As several readers have mentioned and as I should have made clear the first time around, Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to "No" before final totals were recorded, although he obviously supports the nomination. This is a familiar ploy for Senate-procedural reasons; it made Reid part of the winning side of this vote and put him in a position to ask for its reconsideration later.  So the real vote would have been 59 in favor and 39 opposed, with the 39 prevailing.
Presented by

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.


Confessions of Moms Around the World

A global look at the hardest and best job ever


A Stop-Motion Tour of New York City

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book


The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"


This Japanese Inn Has Been Open for 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.

More in Politics

From This Author

Just In