[mdwakeup]

If there were a true filibuster, it would probably end up being Republicans who would have to do the vast majority of the talking. You can't use Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as your model of a filibuster. The reason Mr. Smith had to keep talking is that there was a strong majority against him; that's not the case with the Patriot Act.

If there were going to be an actual talkathon on the Patriot Act, what would probably happen is that a Dem would get recognized, talk for a while, and then suggest the absence of a quorum. That would start a quorum call that could only be rescinded by unanimous consent or the presence of an actual quorum (51) on the Senate floor. The Republicans could try to get a vote on the bill by unanimous consent, but any Dem could object and we'd be back to the standoff.

Bottom line is that unless you have 60 votes in the Senate you're at the mercy of the minority. Once you have those 60 votes, there's nothing to stop you.

[River_Wrangler]

If there were going to be an actual talkathon on the Patriot Act, what would probably happen is that a Dem would get recognized, talk for a while, and then suggest the absence of a quorum. That would start a quorum call that could only be rescinded by unanimous consent or the presence of an actual quorum (51) on the Senate floor. The Republicans could try to get a vote on the bill by unanimous consent, but any Dem could object and we'd be back to the standoff. Bottom line is that unless you have 60 votes in the Senate you're at the mercy of the minority. Once you have those 60 votes, there's nothing to stop you.

Agreed. At least on the procedure. My point is about keeping it in public view as long as possable. Most of the public ignore this as a slight noise that is not wort their time to worry about. It needs to be elevated to their attention as was the resolution to cut and run. When it was a political game based on bluff the dems made hay. When the Republicans brought it to a vote it suddenly had everyones attention.