About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Good Morning America, Sawyer falsely claimed Reid "vows to filibuster"

July 17, 2007 3:31 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

51 Comments

During the July 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." Sawyer was referring to Reid's plan to hold an all-night Senate debate prior to the July 18 cloture vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq. However, by planning to extend the Senate session throughout the night, Reid is not "vow[ing] to filibuster," as Sawyer reported. Rather, he is highlighting the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal; in other words, it is the Republicans who are filibustering the withdrawal proposal by requiring that 60 senators vote for the amendment in order for it to pass.

Additionally, on the July 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that Reid is "filibustering his own bill."

On July 11, Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) proposed an amendment to the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2008 (H.R. 1585) calling for troop redeployment from Iraq to begin within 120 days. On July 16, Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic leadership's effort to schedule an up-or-down vote on the amendment. In response, Reid scheduled a July 18 cloture vote on the amendment, which would require a 60-vote supermajority to cut off debate on the measure. On the Senate floor, Reid criticized the Republicans for "using a filibuster to block us from even voting on" the amendment and announced his intention to extend the debate on the measure through the night on July 17 in order to "highlight Republican obstruction." From his statement:

REID: But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down -- yes or no -- vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down. If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin-Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up-or-down vote on this amendment to end it.

Given the Republican leadership's decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction. We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up-or-down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.

A 2003 Congressional Research Service report on "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate" defined filibustering as "any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote." While senators once routinely mounted filibusters by holding extended debates on the Senate floor, it is more common now for the Senate to recognize filibusters merely through cloture votes. If a cloture motion fails to get 60 votes, debate continues and the measure does not move to the floor for an up-or-down vote. By calling an all-night session, Reid is forcing opponents of the withdrawal plan to sustain the filibuster by actually speaking on the floor. As a July 16 McClatchy Newspapers article reported, Reid is challenging the Republican minority to "engage in an old-fashioned filibuster":

Senate Democrats are planning an all-night session Tuesday, daring Republicans to engage in an old-fashioned filibuster over Iraq troop withdrawals rather than just threatening one.

The tactic was unlikely to deliver the 60-vote supermajority that war critics need to bypass procedural hurdles and amend a defense authorization bill so that it would require withdrawing combat troop in four months.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that a little late-night drama might focus more public attention on why the new Democratic majority still hadn't enacted binding antiwar legislation as it had campaigned to do.

"If Republicans insist on blocking a change of course in Iraq, Democrats will give them the opportunity to explain this, lots of opportunity to explain this," Reid said. "We are going to have votes during the night. We're not going to let everybody go home and have a good night's rest."

In the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, the minority party can slow or block the passage of controversial bills through the threat of endless debate, known as a filibuster. If the minority insists, the party in power needs 60 of 100 votes rather than a simple majority to cut off that debate and move to a final vote.

In modern politics, though, it's rare to have a debate that rages through the night. Instead, leaders agree to a limited debate and then schedule time to see whether the majority has the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

From the July 17 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:

ROBIN ROBERTS (co-host): It's going to be a long day on Capitol Hill.

SAWYER: It certainly is. Senators facing an all-nighter now as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals.

ROBERTS: And of course, as they continue to talk there in Washington, our brave troops con -- they forge on. And this morning, we have a brand new, inside look at their daily lives and what really happens there on the front lines.

From the July 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BARNES: Yeah, that's why they're losing legislatively. That's why Republicans aren't being hurt by filibustering. I loved it when the Democrats are saying how outraged they are that somebody would demand a fili -- would do a filibuster against a defense bill -- why, it's unprecedented, you know. Like they had never done that in unprecedented ways against judges.

I mean, that -- I mean, their defense is laughable. In effect, you know, Harry Reid is going to keep everybody in the Senate overnight. All he's doing is filibustering his own bill, which Republicans said, "OK, agree to the 60-vote margin, bring up the bill tomorrow," you know, the Levin bill.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mary59 (July 17, 2007 3:37 pm ET)
         

      Godrey Daniel, these "journalists" are ignorant.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (July 17, 2007 3:37 pm ET)
         

      Crap...I knew better than that...and I don't make nearly as much money as Sawyer.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (July 17, 2007 5:08 pm ET)
           

        I'm wondering where the comparisons are to the hypothetical filibusters that Democrats threatened during the Republican controlled Senate sessions.  We heard about how Democrats wouldn't allow and "up or down" vote, how we should abolish filibustering in the Senate, etc.

        Now that Republicans are in the minority, they're not hypothetical filibusters, they're actual filibusters, keeping the Senate from having an "up or down" vote.  Do you hear Democrats whining about doing away with filibusters?  Nope.   Instead, they're responding procedurally.

        It's nice when adults run things. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (July 17, 2007 3:48 pm ET)
         

      To do this thing that everybody's calling a 'filibuster', is to vote NO on a cloture motion.

      Senate Republicans are voting NO on cloture in this matter.

      To vote NO on cloture, is to keep debating the measure (in this case, S.Amdt.2087: "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq")... to keep debating, and to deal further with the measure, before bringing to to the floor for a vote... that's what NO on cloture is...

      That's what Senate Republicans are doing... that's what everybody means, when they say 'filibuster'.

      And they don't have to do this you know... they can vote YES on cloture, and then vote NO on the Amendment... and let George W. Bush veto it.

      It's George W. Bush's occupation of Iraq... why should Republican Senators 'filibuster' the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" Amendment.

      Vote YES on cloture... then they can vote NO on the Amendment.

      But why keep the matter away from the White House... let George W. Bush exercise his authority, and veto the bill himself.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by temphandle gaelicization31magog (July 17, 2007 4:04 pm ET)
           

        They arent alone

        at the top of McClatchy Washington Bureau:

        http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

        Senate Democrats plan faux filibuster to pressure Republicans on Iraq

        Senate Democrats are planning an all-night session Tuesday, daring Republicans to engage in an old-fashioned filibuster over Iraq troop withdrawals rather than just threatening one. » read more

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (July 17, 2007 4:29 pm ET)
             

          You know, if the Senate Majority Leader, and those he represents, really want to send a message, they'll not even bother with staying up all night...

          ...instead, they'll stay with the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" Amendment (S.Amdt.2087).

          Then the Defense Authorization gets stalled...

          And everyone asks why?

          Because S.Amdt.2087 is being 'filibustered', that's why... we have the votes to pass it, but the minority is refusing to invoke cloture... they're 'filibustering' it.

          All of which is true.

          And all of which would ratchet this whole debate up several notches, but quick!

          But I'm not sure what the all-night session will do... I'd rather just see them stick to the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" Amendment, and allow Senate Republicans to 'filibuster' the Defense Authorization (which is what they're doing!)...

          I'd rather see this whole dialogue go into overdrive, than see it driven into a ditch, late at night.  

          Report Abuse
        • Author by CLB (July 17, 2007 6:05 pm ET)
             

          Well, at least Mcclatchy has responded to justified criticism.  They have changed the headline to "Senate Democrats Plan To Pressure Republicans On Iraq."

          Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (July 17, 2007 4:15 pm ET)
           

        Dem,

        You said:

        "But why keep the matter away from the White House... let George W. Bush exercise his authority, and veto the bill himself."

        Perhaps it might be that the Repubs are doing their best to deflect attention off of Bush and keep him from having to get smacked down yet again?

        Won't matter in the long run but might help over the next few days?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (July 17, 2007 4:35 pm ET)
             

          Sure, I believe Senate Republicans are covering George W. Bush's butt on this one, more than they're covering their own.

          They can vote YES on cloture, and then NO on the Amendment... it wouldn't make any difference, the president would just veto it anyway.

          But boy oh boy, does George W. Bush want to be saved that mess!

          He'd then have gone on record, by way of a presidential veto, as continuing (almost personally!) to keeping the American People's Sons and Daughters being sacrificed in Iraq...

          ...for no reason of U.S. National Security at all.

          You bet George W. Bush wants to be saved from that... you bet he's being covered by those Republican Senators who'll vote NO on cloture in this matter.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (July 17, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
               

            I'm going to suggest here again that the republicans may very well not trust their own to toe the line. If they allowed it to pass, and bush then subsequently vetoed it, how many of those republicans that squeeked by last election do you think would be peeing themselves as they switched their vote to support a veto override?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 17, 2007 4:43 pm ET)
                 

              They are the biggest bunch of cowards, aren't they.

              Have an up-or-down vote, you REPUBLCAN WEENIES!

              Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (July 17, 2007 4:04 pm ET)
         

      MMFA used to send letters to reporters asking them to issue an apology or a correction. I don't see that done anymore. Diane Sawyer should correct her statement.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 17, 2007 4:20 pm ET)
           

        It is truly amazing...

        Why doesn't Sawyer just stick with selling breakfast cereal?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (July 17, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
         

      Repulican Senator Mitch McConnell the minority leader of the Senate also calls Reid's all night Senate Debate a filibuster. He stated it in a National Review editorial he wrote.

      McConnell also called this surge a change of course as if this is going to fool us into thinking Bush dropped his stay the course apporach.

      All the surge does is increase the amount of pet dogs getting shot, the amount of children getting shot in the back of the head, Old women being knocked off their walkers and being kicked while down on the ground.

      Bush isn't exactly winning hearts in that country just as he isn't winning hearts in this country because he has declared us citizens as no longer the state. Only Conservatives are happy with a boy in office suffering from delusions of grandeur.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (July 17, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
         

      This explains alot, the Patriot Act, Habeas Corpus, secret wiretapes, the list goes on. The reasons the press has dropped the ball on being the watchdogs of the government is because they don't understand how the government works unless Cheney and the gang explains it to them. Back to civics class you morons.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 17, 2007 4:28 pm ET)
           

        Yeah,

        Sawyer probably was handed her talking point by her corportate masters.

        And being the lapdog she is, well, you know the rest.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (July 17, 2007 4:30 pm ET)
         

      Wow, taking a statement used over and over again by republicans and saying it is now a weakness? That's the official response to Reid using their own "up or down vote" line against the hypocrites?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (July 17, 2007 4:31 pm ET)
         

      Fred Barnes: "I loved it when the Democrats are saying how outraged they are that somebody would demand a fili -- would do a filibuster against a defense bill -- why, it's unprecedented, you know. Like they had never done that in unprecedented ways against judges."

      Brilliant point!  John Roberts and Samuel Alito were blocked from being on the Supreme Court by a Democratic filibuster, and therefore our civil liberties aren't being destroyed by those two right-wingers.

       No wait, there was no filibuster of Roberts or Alito.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (July 17, 2007 4:34 pm ET)
         

       - No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new. The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution...

      Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties...

      For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.” It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. - Harry Reid

      That's what Harry had to say when democrats were in the minority and threatening a filibuster. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 17, 2007 4:40 pm ET)
           

        So? The hypocrisy rests with the right wingers who now refuse to allow any vote to get an up/down vote, not with Reid who used their exact words against them and got the predicted response one expects from a hypocrite.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 17, 2007 4:47 pm ET)
           

        What is your point Wesley?

        Yes, a filibuster is valid...so the Cons can go ahead and filibuster.

        Reid just wants to highlight the fact that the REPUBLICAN WEENIES would not allow an up-or-down vote.  The American people need to know this.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (July 17, 2007 4:58 pm ET)
             

          My point?

          Why, you just illustrated it perfectly...thanks. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by bittermarv (July 17, 2007 5:10 pm ET)
               

            Your point is bogus, of course.  Democrats are responding to a procedural tactic by the minority with another procedural tactic, instead of whining like a bunch of babies about how we have to get rid of the filibuster because the minority is being mean.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by neondesert (July 17, 2007 5:22 pm ET)
               

            Wesley,

            Fillibustering by the minority (or even a single congressman) can be perceived in two ways, according to the sentiments of the public.  If the public is with you, then it appears that you're justifiably and procedurally protecting the public from the tyranny of the majority.  If the public is against you, then it appears you're obstructing.  Knowing where the public is on this issue (via polls), care to guess how the republicans are likely to be perceived?

            Assuming, of course, that the public is aware that the Republicans are fillibustering.  And that's what the Republicans are fighting - they don't want the public to become aware.  They're in damage control, just like the majority of your posts.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (July 17, 2007 5:40 pm ET)
                 

              Pretty well said...

              However, I'm not working any damage control...just highlighting the whining done by both parties...and it's damn funny how that whining changes when the shoe is on the other foot.

              The hoopla over the filibuster of Reed/Levin is moot...they don't appear to have the votes to invoke cloture...which means they sure won't have enough votes to override a veto. 

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by neondesert (July 17, 2007 5:58 pm ET)
                   

                That's interesting, because I didn't catch even a hint of whining in Reid's quote that you so graciously transcribed.  I also don't remember anyone whining about the fillibuster that Harry threatened.  And I don't remember the Dems trying to hide their intent to fillibuster, as it appears the Republicans are doing now.  I DO remember the Republicans trying to frame it as obstructionism, though.  But, my memory has been known to fail me, so perhaps some quotes that would better illustrate the whining you perceive would refresh my recollection.

                (or are you just claiming an alternate intent of your original comment, to achieve the "damage control" of which I wrote previously?)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (July 17, 2007 6:00 pm ET)
                     

                  Nope...just watching the whining going on today on the floor of the senate.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (July 17, 2007 6:14 pm ET)
                       

                    I know what you mean. It's pathetic what those republicans will say to try to avoid actually going through with their fillibuster. It's hard werk actually following through with what you want to happen!

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by bingvangorden (July 17, 2007 4:53 pm ET)
           

        And have the Democrats threatened to take away the filibuster like the same Republicans who are using it now did? 

        The answer is no, the Dems are using another procedure to try and thwart the filibuster.

        So thanks for indirectly showing us how Democrats are behaving themselves in a better manner than the  Republicans. Excellent work Wesley.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 17, 2007 4:53 pm ET)
           

        Let's see

        a) Democrats threatened to filibuster; Republicans threatened to change the rules.

        b) Repubicans threatened to filibuster; Democrats threatened toooo...let them!

        The Republicans who are blocking this are simply whining about having to actually go through with the filibuster.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bingvangorden (July 17, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
             

          The Republicans aren't only ethically challenged they are lazy too!

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 17, 2007 4:56 pm ET)
             

          The Democrats ought to go to the Nuclear option.

          Time to kick some right-wing ass.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by neondesert (July 17, 2007 6:03 pm ET)
               

            That's "nukular".

            After 6 years of education, how could you not get it right?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by bittermarv (July 17, 2007 6:41 pm ET)
                 

              I dunno about him, but I've been too busy "practicing my love of women" to worry about how to pronounce "nookyalar."

              Report Abuse
              • Author by neondesert (July 17, 2007 7:27 pm ET)
                   

                Oh, I didn't know you were an OB/GYN.  I'll bet THAT puts lots of food on your family.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 17, 2007 9:16 pm ET)
               

            No, no - the present rules are just fine.  I forgot who said it, but someone noted that tyranny is more easily accomplished by many rather than one.  It shines a disturbing light on Rove's "permanent Republican majority."

            Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (July 17, 2007 4:46 pm ET)
         

      Go get 'em Harry!

      I'm inclined to agree with the aggregate wisdom of the netroots bloggers, that conservatives certainly have a legal right to filibuster. And if they feel the public would support their obstructionism, they won't mind all the additional attention.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 17, 2007 4:55 pm ET)
           

        Vampires don't like being exposed to light.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neondesert (July 17, 2007 5:25 pm ET)
             

          Rats and cockroaches, likewise.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (July 17, 2007 5:26 pm ET)
             

          They most certainly do not like the light.

          This Republican hissy-fit should generate a massive media spotlight and expose just how extremist and out of touch with Americans these cons really are. America wants out of Iraq, the Republicans want to stay and get as many Americans killed as possible (sorry to steal Solon, I love that line and it fits.)

          And it's a brilliant maneuver to boot. It's principled, it's bold, it's what the people want.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Peter Principle (July 17, 2007 4:57 pm ET)
         

      "Senators facing an all-nighter now as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to filibuster"

      I'm tempted to see this as a textbook example of the Rovian big lie techinque: accuse your opponent of doing what you, in fact, are doing (and will do each and every day of the week until Satan finally claims the soul he is owed). But Sawyer is so stupendously stupid -- maybe not in the Katie Couric class, but still, bone-meltingly dumbc -- that it's at least possible she may genuinely not understand what a filibuster is and who is actually threatening one.

      Either way, though, she definitely wins today's Orwell Award.

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (July 17, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
           

        Good one Peter,

        Maybe Olbermann can make her "Worst Person in the World"? 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (July 17, 2007 6:28 pm ET)
         

      I think this is just because Sawyer never has a clue what she's talking about.  This is not surprising.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 17, 2007 6:50 pm ET)
         

      I suspect she's not the only one. For the rest how many accually have control over what they're going to say. I appreciate some enjoy the role. I'll assume some don't.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by juliespringer3685 (July 17, 2007 10:49 pm ET)
         

      Given the fact that Robin Roberts has donated so much money to the republicans, it is unbelievable that this is even considered an unbiased news article.  I think her donations should be published every day so the common Joe knows who is commenting on the news. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (July 17, 2007 11:28 pm ET)
         

      Contact ABC here by email:

      abc.news.magazines@abc.com

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rmaxwell7105541 (July 18, 2007 10:22 am ET)
         

      We seem to be seeing another example of losing track of history and forgetting some pertinent definitions...assuming it's not willful ignorance.  Bush and Cheney were allowed to redefine "war," making him a "war president," and now the word "filibuster," which most half-way sentient people once understood to mean a minority action preventing a vote (hello "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") is, when used at all, completely twisted around.  Once again the Republican spin machine makes "journalists" look like idiots. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by googly4 (July 18, 2007 12:46 pm ET)
         

      That is so sad when something so simple is so wrong. Is this error biased spin or complete stupidity?

       I know people who see this and won't know the error and cast judgement on the Dems for tying up the system.

       The correction, if any, will be short and buried.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.