Silent and talking filibusters
Neal Whitman
nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET
Sat Mar 9 00:52:11 UTC 2013
I wrote a short piece for TheWeek.com on Gricean Q and R and "talking
filibusters", as opposed to "silent
filibusters:"*http://theweek.com/article/index/241119/a-brief-history-of-the-phrase-talking-filibuster*
The earliest attestation I've found is from February of that year
(ProQuest):
Bring on the Filibuster
Geoghegan, Thomas. The Nation 290.7
<http://search.proquest.com.webproxy3.columbuslibrary.org/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Geoghegan,+Thomas/$N?accountid=1060>(Feb
22, 2010): 3.
Abstract (summary)
... Right now, the Senate operates under a supermajority rule that
the founders never intended and that has no precedent in the way the
Senate used to operate. The problem is not the old-fashioned
"talking filibuster" but the absence of the filibuster:
The earliest attestation I have for SF with its current meaning of
"filibuster by means of threatening to filibuster" is from 2003:
CONGRESS Senate softies: [CITY Edition]
*Florida Times Union***
<http://search.proquest.com.webproxy3.columbuslibrary.org/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/Florida+Times+Union/$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.
Neal
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list