Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2006
- 10,025
- 2,410
Rand Paul stood up and talked for 13 hours straight in the Senate yesterday. Short as filibusters used to go, but he tried.
The purpose of such a filibuster is, of course, to bring all Senate business to a halt, trigger loads of special media attention, and cause outrage in a public that usually pays no attention to the Senate.
But the key part is, of course, triggering loads of media attention. With a normal media who takes their job (telling the truth) seriously, that would happen automaticlly. But for the media we have today, it might be VERY problematic.
Fox News talked about the filibuster. Did ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN? Anybody watch them yesterday?
I didn't watch them. But since Paul's purpose was to point out inadequacies and unconstitutionality of Barack Obama's policies, it wouldn't surprise me if they carefull did not schedule any coverage of it, and spent time instead on breathless reports of the sex of Jessica Simpson's baby, Day 32 of testimony from that girl who stabbed her boyfriend 32 times, etc.
Did they?
The purpose of such a filibuster is, of course, to bring all Senate business to a halt, trigger loads of special media attention, and cause outrage in a public that usually pays no attention to the Senate.
But the key part is, of course, triggering loads of media attention. With a normal media who takes their job (telling the truth) seriously, that would happen automaticlly. But for the media we have today, it might be VERY problematic.
Fox News talked about the filibuster. Did ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN? Anybody watch them yesterday?
I didn't watch them. But since Paul's purpose was to point out inadequacies and unconstitutionality of Barack Obama's policies, it wouldn't surprise me if they carefull did not schedule any coverage of it, and spent time instead on breathless reports of the sex of Jessica Simpson's baby, Day 32 of testimony from that girl who stabbed her boyfriend 32 times, etc.
Did they?
Last edited:
