The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Washington (AFP) – Most senators expect to pass a stopgap spending bill this week, but one lawmaker is so against it he took to the Senate floor for a marathon 21 hours.

Few knew when Republican Senator Ted Cruz started speaking Tuesday afternoon that he would still be engaged in his talkathon, much less awake, on Wednesday morning to oppose the temporary budget.

But such is his fierce opposition to President Barack Obama’s signature health care law — funding for which is included in the budget bill — that he held the floor through the night, delivering one of the longest Senate speeches since precise time-keeping began in 1900.

The conservative first-term lawmaker from Texas, who often is discussed as a likely presidential contender in 2016, significantly boosted his profile with his marathon speech, which was carried as a top item on many American news broadcasts.

Cruz voiced what he said is Americans’ deep discontent for the law known as “Obamacare,” and aimed to unite Republicans in opposition to passing a spending bill that does not defund the health care law.

“Why won’t they listen to me?” he asked a nearly empty chamber late Tuesday, speaking of the refusal by Washington’s “ruling class” to hear his complaints and those of their constituents.

Over the hours, Cruz answered questions by at least 10 other senators, including fellow conservatives Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee, who back his effort to stall the legislation even at the risk of forcing a government shutdown.

Many Republicans have expressed opposition to the strategy, warning it could backfire and not leave the House of Representatives enough time to consider the Senate measure and either pass it or send back a counteroffer.

But Cruz, a conservative Republican with Tea Party sympathies, pressed on with his talkathon.

“While the Senate slept, men and women of America didn’t get a respite from the nightmare of what is causing them to lose their jobs and never to get hired,” he said.

When Cruz began at 2:41 pm Tuesday, he said he intended to speak “until I am no longer able to stand.”

That carried him into the night, when he gave a dramatic reading of the classic children’s book “Green Eggs and Ham” by Dr. Seuss, as his young daughters back home in Texas were preparing for bed.

Americans, he said, “did not like green eggs and ham, and they did not like Obamacare either. They did not like Obamacare in a box, with a fox, in a house, with a mouse.”

The longest Senate speech on record was a filibuster by Senator Strom Thurmond in 1957, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act.

The most recent lengthy filibuster, a procedural tactic aimed at blocking legislation from moving in the Senate, was by Senator Rand Paul, who in March spoke for nearly 13 hours against US drone policy.

Even though Cruz called his speech a filibuster, technically it is not considered one, because his effort will not delay legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blasted the oratory as “wasting time.”

“The American people know that every hour that he has spoken… pushes us another hour closer to a Republican government shutdown,” Reid said.

According to Senate procedure, lawmakers voted at 1:00 pm Wednesday to move forward with the temporary budget resolution.

That meant that Cruz — unlike in a true filibuster — was forced to yield the floor, although he looked physically fit enough to have carried on beyond Thurmond’s record.

When the curtain finally came down on his talkathon, at 21 hours and 19 minutes, Senate aides erupted in applause.

Cruz finally sat down, but within moments he was compelled to rise again for a prayer by the Senate chaplain ushering in a new legislative session.

Outside the Senate, Cruz said his speech was invigorating.

“I’m feeling terrific,” he told reporters.

Paul, for his part, looked exhausted after his filibuster months ago, and said at the time that he stopped in part to yield to the call of nature.

How did Cruz manage to not require the men’s room for nearly a full day? “Drinking very little water.”


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Donald Trump

Image via Twitter

A year after former President Donald Trump left the White House and Joe Biden was sworn in as president of the United States, Trump continues to have considerable influence in the Republican Party. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former Trump critic turned Trump sycophant, recently told Fox News that having a “working relationship” with Trump must be a litmus test for anyone in a GOP leadership role in Congress. But an NBC News poll, conducted in January 14-18, 2022, finds that many Republican voters identify as Republicans first and Trump supporters second.

Analyzing that poll in the New York Times on January 21, reporters Leah Askarinam and Blake Hounshell, explain, “Buried in a new survey published today is a fascinating nugget that suggests the Republican Party may not be as devoted to Trump as we’ve long assumed. Roughly every month for the last several years, pollsters for NBC News have asked: ‘Do you consider yourself to be more of a supporter of Donald Trump or more of a supporter of the Republican Party?’ Over most of that time, Republicans have replied that they saw themselves as Trump supporters first.”

Keep reading... Show less

Ivanka Trump, right

Image via @Huffington Post

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s select committee on the January 6, 2021 insurrection moves along, it is examining Ivanka Trump’s actions that day — especially the former White House senior adviser urging her father, then- President Donald Trump, to call off his supporters when the U.S. Capitol Building was under attack. This week, Ivanka Trump’s importance to the committee is examined in a column by liberal Washington Post opinion writer Greg Sargent and an article by blogger Marcy Wheeler.

Sargent notes that the committee’s “new focus on Ivanka Trump” shows that it “is developing an unexpectedly comprehensive picture of how inextricably linked the violence was to a genuine plot to thwart a legitimately elected government from taking power.”

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}