Read on Twitter
this dynamic is one reason why the prospect of a talking filibuster terrifies Republicans https://twitter.com/FoxReports/status/1354057599780610051
if you make the filibuster conditional on the minority performing some onerous action, like keeping 40 Senators on the floor or whatever, then 1) you vastly reduce the range of things on which it's plausible to sustain a filibuster
but 2) you set GOP senators up in a position where they constantly have to explain to their nuttier constituents why they were unwilling to pull four consecutive all-nighters to prevent the Jones Act from being amended, or whatever
RW media's go-to move is to cast every conflict as existential. if a conflict is existential, surely your Senators should be expected to do everything they can in service of that conflict!
but of course most of these things aren't existential conflicts; very few are. this is a reason why filibusters used to be rare and also a reason why they used to be mostly confined to issues that kind of *were* existential, like whether or not Black people get to have rights
but in today's media environment a talking filibuster would predictably result in dozens of people with guns screaming at people like Cramer or Boozman about their insufficient commitment to Sparkle Motion on the absolute most mundane shit
they demagogued Obamaphones, for the love of Pete
