Skip to main content

View Diary: With nuclear option held at bay, maybe it's time for the talking filibuster (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If Wendy Davis (0+ / 0-)

    had "phoned it in", there wouldn't be a burgeoning progressive movement occurring in Texas right now. And that movement isn't only good for us, it's bad for Republicans. But when you always win, fair, legal, or not, you forget what the world looks like without your legislative blinders on.

    Can't Republicans see that standing up--literally--for their convictions makes them [at least] look like they care about what/who they are blocking? Or do they, like conservatives Texan legislators, just see that dedication as a way to create a circus atmosphere, and getting people dangerously involved in their [supposed] democracy?

    Rhetorical question. When simple obstruction is involved, nobody wants to stand up and admit it.

    Here is what one of these filibusters would have sounded like, had someone spoken:

    I am not objecting to this individual. He has an excellent record, reputation, and I trust him. I am objecting to the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which he * has been nominated to. My choice to filibuster this nominee has nothing to do with this individual, only the board.

    The NLRB was legally created. But I don't like the the NLRB, so I am objecting to the creation of the board he (repeat from * until you lose your voice or just get bored).

    I think I'm going to refine what I just wrote and make some recordings for my Senators. I know it will put me on a USPS watch list (sending packages to Senator __--scary!), but it will be worth it if just one aide listens to just one sentence, which is the best I can hope for.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site