Actually, no. The filibuster is intentionally made this way, so that you can talk about anything and everything so that not only is it to make sure that there is enough debate, but it is also the final prevention of democracy simply becoming two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Remember, if there was really enough political will to override him, 60 votes does stop a filibuster.
And he just passed 19 hours, in 4rd place for longest filibuster. Wonder what the over/under is on him whipping out the phone book and starting to read it. Number 1 is 24 hours, 18 minutes by Strom Thurmond.
I know it's meant this way. I, personally, hold the opinion that this is jack shit and doesn't deserve the public podium being given to it. There are 100,000 different ways of slowing down the process from idea to enacted law, there are a million ways to try and convince others of your point, there's hours and hours of debate or discussion to be had. There is absolutely 0 value in someone reading fairy tales in parliament or congress...unless they're about WMDs or some such, I guess.
Anyway, we have our own "democratic" ways of slowing things down - callign in a conflict of interest, demanding a vote of confidence, pulling things from parliament to senate and back again - and I don't like or approve of all of them...But at least, they all still have
meaning and are
relevant to the point you're discussing.
The same goes for all the different kind of crap-ass riders people attach to bills. A law about education with an attachment about nuclear weapons, a law about cutting the budget with an appendix to increase potato subsidies by 100,000% - I know I'm exagerating and everything, but the American political system has some
really weird-ass options and possibilities.
