Booker Breaks Thurmond’s Record
He filibustered nothing for a very long time.
WaPo (“Cory Booker breaks modern record for longest speech from Senate floor“):
Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) broke a record Tuesday night for the longest U.S. Senate floor speech of the modern era, surpassing Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 1957 remarks inside the chamber that lasted 24 hours.
Booker began delivering remarks Monday evening, vowing to use his time to disrupt “the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able” to protest President Donald Trump.
In his concluding remarks, Booker characterized the situation facing the country as “a moral moment.”
“It’s not left or right. It’s right or wrong. It’s getting into ‘good trouble,’” he added, referencing the inspiration for his marathon speech — John Lewis, the late Democratic congressman and civil rights leader.
Booker received loud applause when he yielded the floor after being at the lectern for 25 hours and 5 minutes.
The record-breaking speech by Booker, the first African American to serve as a U.S. senator for New Jersey, stands in stark contrast with Thurmond — who held the floor for more than a day in 1957 to stop the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
As he neared surpassing Thurmond’s record Tuesday night, Booker said, “I’m not here … because of [Thurmond’s] speech. I’m here despite his speech. I’m here because as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful.”
[…]
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (New York) and more than two dozen other Democratic senators — along with Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats — came to the floor to support Booker and ask him questions throughout Monday evening and into Tuesday, allowing him to rest his voice for a few moments.
“The enthusiasm of Democrats, the desire to fight back, couldn’t have been better exemplified than Cory Booker’s tour de force on the floor of the Senate,” Schumer told reporters Tuesday evening.
Booker’s speech came after Schumer, eight other Democratic senators and King voted with nearly all Republicans last month to advance a Trump-backed spending bill.
Schumer defended his decision as necessary to prevent a government shutdown, which he argued would have been worse than backing a bill that included spending cuts that Democrats detested. But his decision infuriated House Democrats — who voted nearly unanimously to reject the bill — and liberal voters who have called for their representatives to do more to stand up to Trump.
“I’ve been hearing from people all over my state, and indeed all over the nation, calling upon folks in Congress to do more, to do things that recognize the urgency, the crisis of the moment,” Booker said in a video posted on social media Monday evening.
Some Democrats pointed to Booker as proof that they had heard voters’ message.
“Democrats are on the offense,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), the No. 3 Senate Democrat, told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “Ask Cory Booker.”
The thing is, the speech is getting more attention for its length than its content. That Democrats oppose Trump’s agenda is, after all, not news. Nor is it obvious what delaying a Senate that is doing nothing from doing something was supposed to achieve.
Indeed, the NYT report (“Cory Booker Condemns Trump’s Policies in Longest Senate Speech on Record“) rightly notes that the speech technically wasn’t even a filibuster:
Unlike Mr. Thurmond’s speech, Mr. Booker’s was not a filibuster — a procedural tactic that has been used to block legislation on many issues — because it did not come during a debate over a specific bill or nominee. But it did delay a planned vote on a Democratic-led bill to undo Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Canada.
I’m still dubious that Schumer made the right call in urging his caucus to vote with Republicans for a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the end of the fiscal year, but at least understood his argument for doing so. But that was as much leverage his party was going to have all year.
As to the feat itself, I find this more than slightly odd:
Mr. Booker, who for weeks had contemplated delivering a marathon floor speech, had long been bothered that Mr. Thurmond, a segregationist from South Carolina, held the record, according to Mr. Booker’s office. Mr. Thurmond had sustained himself by sipping orange juice and munching on bits of beef and pumpernickel; it was not clear if Mr. Booker had eaten anything on Tuesday, but two glasses of water rested on a desk in front of his lectern.
He had prepared for the speech by fasting for days, he told reporters on Tuesday night after his speech. Before he began on Monday, he had not had food since Friday or water since Sunday night. The approach took its toll, said Mr. Booker, a vegan and former Stanford football player who has chronicled his efforts to stay fit and eat healthy.
“Instead of figuring out how to go to the bathroom,” he said, “I ended up, I think, really unfortunately dehydrating myself.” During the speech, he recalled, he started to “really cramp up.”
I can only imagine.
But at the moment, attention is an important commodity, yes?
He just effectively announced his 2028 presidential run.
@Kylopod: At this point he has my primary vote. Grabbing attention and holding it, in this absurdly distracted political environment, while remaining eloquent for 25 hours, shows the level of stamina and personal sacrifice Booker is capable of – both important qualities for an office that sometimes requires long meetings with critical decisions made.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes, absolutely.
Trump’s news diet is decidedly limited, by choice. But this morning, he cannot escape headlines about Cory Booker and Susan Crawford.
Dominating the news cycle–however Dems can do it–is an important component of breaking Trump’s grip.
350 million liked it. That’s a lotta likes.
We watched it or listened off and on. Impressive. Lots of substance, little filler. “It’s not left or right, it’s right or wrong.”
Doesn’t hurt that Booker really did run into a burning building and saved lives while risking his own.
In this moment Performative Politics is good, actually.
@Neil Hudelson:
I would characterize it as “necessary,” perhaps. But the devolution of American politics into infotainment is even sadder than Paddy Chayefsky imagined.
The American populace could not be led by an Angela Merkel or elect a Claudia Sheinbaum. FDR and his wheelchair and patricisn elitism? Unelectable in the modern US. Lincoln and his cerebral humanism + the funny, high-pitched voice. No dice.
The Democratic lawyers, legislators, governors, groups, attorneys general, and secs. of state filing, and sometimes winning, anti-Trump lawsuits are doing the most salient work.
But the “Do Something!” crowd neither acknowledges nor cares about that. They are only impressed when Bernie holds a rally or Booker gives a marathon speech.
That stuff is fine. And necessary, since Democrats must play to the Americans they have, not the Americans they want. But even liberals now having to elevate style over substance and performativeness over policy? It’s a letdown.
@DK:
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote; “in this moment” is doing a lot of work in my sentence, to be sure. As part of the “groups” filing and sometimes winning anti-Trump lawsuits, it has been incredibly frustrating to watch Democratic electeds choosing to not use any of the tools available to them to resist against Trump’s abuses. Little to no attempts to slow down nomination proceedings, laying down ahead of the budget fight, and acting like messaging and media is beneath them. Something had to change, and I would’ve been much happier if the change had been Schumer et al strengthening his spine. But absent anything else, I’ll take Booker’s performative politics in this moment.
This is where I disagree. Media relations has been an important component of elections since roughly 1964. For some reason for the last 25 years most Democrats have believed that effectively getting their message out in a way that resonates with voters is beneath them. Fools.
@Neil Hudelson:
Are Angela Merkel and Claudia Sheinbaum significantly better at media relations than Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris? No.
I realize Democrat Derangement Syndrome is all the rage these days. But I don’t buy the excuse that Americans’ difficulty in taking our political hiring process as seriously and soberly as other advanced nations (that presumably also have media) is because Democrats don’t take media relations seriously.
Are we really so immature, easily-manipulated, and foolish that we need “media relations” to decide whether or not criminal buffoons like Trump are qualified for the presidency? Apparently Americans do. But I’m not seeing media superstars running our peer nations. So what does this say about the American electorate, by contrast? Nothing good.
I have seen the fools, and they are us.* We should probably admit that, so might try to work on it in conversations at our schools, homes, and churches. Instead of just passing the buck to blaming the nearest Democrat.
*Black, queer, and Jewish voters excepted.
@DK:
I largely blame the modern non-talking filibuster. It has made the government amazingly unresponsive, to the point where the consequences of electing a lunatic for any position kind of doesn’t matter… until it does. The Senate will block any significant change.
I’m a little disappointed that Booker beat Strom Thurmond’s time on stage, because I liked the little factoid that the longest speaking filibuster was to block civil rights laws — it summarized the problems with the filibuster so nicely.
Getting rid of earmarks was another blow to responsiveness. The Senate mostly makes the lunacy in the House irrelevant, but the lack earmarks makes a MTG no worse for her district than a boring back bencher who doesn’t put on a show.
Massive amounts of money in politics and campaign seasons that last for years doesn’t help. And it’s likely that parliaments are just better — the parties are stronger, they tend to have a shadow cabinet, elections are sudden and short, etc.
Americans are different because America is different. But not in a good way.
I do not live in Germany, am not enmeshed in German daily life, and could not possibly answer this. But, presumably, yes, they are better at messaging in a way that German people respond well. Of course, we aren’t talking about Germany we are talking about the United States, and yes different cultures respond differently to different ways of handling the media.
I don’t believe I argued, at all, that the electorate’s failure to take this process seriously is solely because of Democratic media relations failings. Indeed, almost all of my argument was couched in what has been happening in the last 3 months, post election. I understand that it’s much easier to argue against what you wish your opponent had said rather than what they actually said, but it’s a pretty silly way to respond.
Would you like to respond to what I wrote or are you having a good time arguing with yourself?
Are you mad that people consume media and it shapes their views? Ok, be mad! It doesn’t change reality though. If Democratic politicians would like to win, they need to deal with the electorate is as it currently is.
Oh, ok then. Perhaps politicians should respond accordingly?
Really? Just off the top of my head, successful politicians who were adept at handling their home media in the last few years include: Trump, (and Obama, Bill Clinton [or was that whole saxophone performance on Arsenio part of a serious policy discussion?]) Duterte, Milei, Meloni, Arden, Duda, Silina, Johnson, Sandu. Some of them have been or are complete bastards. I’d like the Goodies to also win once in awhile.
I don’t know man, stomping your feet and yelling “We shouldn’t worry about reaching the electorate with ‘media'” doesn’t seem like you’re admitting much.
To be clear, by “nearest Democrat” we are talking about the Senate Minority leader specifically and, more broadly, House Members and Senators who are the most powerful elected Democrats we currently have.
So the argument we have is:
-The ones doing the salient work are the groups filing and sometimes winning lawsuits (agreed, and you’re welcome man).
-But we shouldn’t ask politicians to do more, just leave it to the sometimes-winning groups.
-Politicians shouldn’t worry about messaging or reaching voters, because the voters are fools.
-The voters are the failures for being lazy and stupid.
-Also the voters who are going to Sanders et al crowds are also fools for, i dunno, being excited and supporting elected Democrats? But the wrong Electeds because they are talking aloud and see the rule about messaging?
-Don’t ask Senators to use the tools they do have available to them, because that’s getting mad at ‘the nearest democrat.’
I don’t know, “do nothing and tell no one about it” just doesn’t seem like a winning strategy man.
@Neil Hudelson:
I don’t know why this is in quotes, because I didn’t write this. Maybe try applying your own angry snark about arguing with oneself before you reply? Glass houses, stones and all that.
Didn’t say any of that either, but made-up, dishonest strawman arguments are fun.
(For the record, I do believe rabid Berniebros are fools. But I didn’t make an argument for that here. The foolishness of the American electorate extends far beyond them.)
Yes. That’s why I repeatedly used the word “necessary.”
adjective
1. required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential.
But didn’t you just claim Democrats have neglected media strategy for sixty years?
And by “running,” I was also referring to the leaders our peer nations currently have.
No, I’m in love at the moment, so I’m not mad at anything. I am, however, embarrassed for the very foolish Americans left and right who’ve elevated infotainment and performativeness over serious qualifications for office.
Most white American male voters to be specific. Arrogant, overly competitive, somehow both self-satisfied and self-pitying, mean, dishonest, and hopeless. But always certain they know better.
Quality of life in this country they control is not going to improve significantly any time soon, because they won’t.
@DK:
Quote marks can be used to denote an exact quote, but can also be used to create a single sentence that summarizes many passages spoken/written by a person. This usage is very common on internet forums. My apologies if I was incorrect that you believed we shouldn’t worry about using media to reach the electorate. The reason I thought this was because of these statements:
Reading those together one might conclude that you were (adamantly!) against the idea of doing better at messaging. Clearly I was off the mark in this assumption though, and you have my apologies.
I’m glad we can agree that one should stick to responding to the argument someone is making.
Yes I can certainly see how arrogance, meanness, dishonesty, and complete certainty in one’s rightness can be a turn off!
ETA, responding to your post edits (which I do as well, nbd):
Let’s go back to my original comment:
So this whole mean spirited multi paragraph diatribe of yours is how you agree with me?
Nah man, you don’t seem mad at all.
Somehow, I think I’ll be able to go on happily living my daily life despite how I “seem” to Random Internet Dude.
@Gustopher:
Isn’t it vice versa, though? Chicken or egg first?
The US gave Germany its current constitution, after all.
@DK:
That’s fine man! You chose to respond to my comments, not sure what to tell you.
@Neil Hudelson:
Ha. Live and learn.
@Neil Hudelson: DK gets so angry when someone disagrees with him, he doesn’t even notice no one disagreed with him.
@DK: Does the German constitution resemble ours?
Our constitution is pretty unique — special one might say. The Founding Fathers were not fans of democracy as we would recognize it, and did their utmost to prevent it devolving power to little people. And they succeeded, and we are living with the results, even though we have made a lot of efforts towards democratization in the last 250 years.