Isn't it true that if your side didn't go out to dinner--since you asked to be elected to the Senate, you raised a lot of money, and you worked hard and defeated some Republican to get here--if you really think somebody over here is abusing their minority rights by filibustering, then why would you go out to dinner, and why would you not want to be here and hear that person talk and respond to him? Why would you not do that? Isn't it true that Senator Byrd said that forceful confrontation to the threat of a filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady? He did not want us tampering with this 60-vote procedure we have that forces consensus. My question to the majority whip is this: Why did you go out to dinner so often--through the Chair--when instead, you could have been here, under the rules as Senator Byrd suggested, dealing with abuses to the filibuster or what you consider they were?
Editor's note · Context
The speaker questions the majority whip's absence during filibuster discussions.
Share
More from Heidi Alexander
this morning, I had the privilege of attending the President's signing of the Great American Outdoors Act. Now, this is a town, Washington, DC, that is accustomed to hyperbole--that is exaggeration--and excessive partisanship. Yet, today…
I thank Senator Wyden for his courtesy in allowing me to go next. I will be succinct. The way to get back to work and back to school is to put politics aside and work together, as we have been doing, on the COVID-19 response and see…
The Government considers that the development covered by the Heathrow expansion NPS is critical to national growth and therefore plans to designate expansion at Heathrow as critical national growth infrastructure.
It’s something I think about quite a lot myself, in terms of this job being absolutely insane, in terms of the number of hours I have to work, and how do I build in a little bit of physical activity into my life.





