Silent and talking filibusters

Neal Whitman nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET
Sat Mar 9 00:52:11 UTC 2013

I wrote a short piece for on Gricean Q and R and "talking
filibusters", as opposed to "silent

The earliest attestation I've found is from February of that year

    Bring on the Filibuster
    Geoghegan, Thomas. The Nation 290.7
    22, 2010): 3.
    Abstract (summary)

    ... Right now, the Senate operates under a supermajority rule that
    the founders never intended and that has no precedent in the way the
    Senate used to operate. The problem is not the old-fashioned
    "talking filibuster" but the absence of the filibuster:

The earliest attestation I have for SF with its current meaning of
"filibuster by means of threatening to filibuster" is from 2003:

    CONGRESS Senate softies: [CITY Edition]
    *Florida Times Union***
    <$N/45108/DocView/414346604/fulltext/13CB19FC4FD5654A547/2?accountid=1060> [Jacksonville,
    Fla] 14 Sep 2003: D.2.
    Republicans couldn't garner the 60 percent majority needed to force
    a vote and, after 28 months in limbo, Estrada stepped aside.

    The Republicans even allowed a silent filibuster, so that the
    Democrats wouldn't have to work too hard.


The American Dialect Society -

More information about the Ads-l mailing list