….anything the mainstream media has done these past fifty years. Our books and memory will be as blank and empty as the New England beaches those days they searched for any sign of John John.”

It’s true, Abe said that.

What will be remembered, as Jim Bunning is proving, is what we do, not what they say.

Also the Hill. You’d think they would hire some first-year poly sci students to help them with this stuff.

…how can we expect them to understand Senate rules?

Jefferson once opined that government is never safe unless in the hands of the people, and he qualified that by saying that the people must be informed. How very correct he was, and how very distressed he would be if he could witness the ignorance on display these days.

1) by the senate’s own terms, Bunning’s objection was a filibuster, see U.S. Senate, Reference Glossary, @ http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm “filibuster – Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” (emphasis added), 2) the article you link to is not clear as to whether the dems are referring to preventing cloture, your narrow definition of filibuster, or whether the candidates are referring to boarder measures to prevent all stripes of filibusters; and, 3) its is not clear if the candidates are even seeking to prevent voting by unanimous consent or if they are citing Bunning’s objection to merely point out the issue of obstruction tactics. When you try to start a meme, such as it’s not a filibuster because it doesn’t involve cloture, it would be a good idea to be correct or at least not so wrong a simple google search undermines your proto-meme. Just sayin’

I have found that most folks understand the difference when reminded of the time that Joe Liebermann asked for Unanimous Consent to extend his time while making remarks on the floor. Al Franken objected and that was all it took.

Truth is, Harry Reid did not want an individual vote to extend the benefits as he did not want the issue to be more politicized after the Pay-Go fiasco.

This was not a delaying tactic, it was Bunning’s objection to a “group vote” on an unfunded bill, weeks after the Dems passed Pay-Go. Under the definition cited above, it was not a “filibuster” as the purpose was not to delay. The purpose was to require a roll call vote. IMHO.

medical insurance and Judge Napoitano says the entire Obamantioncare bill(s) are unConst. So, why should they be a little confused about Bunning?

Not that they really were. They wanted something to bash Reps. with, since there has been so little to use lately.

It seems harsh to expect the Senate to actually vote on a spending measure. After all, that would require names on the record of those who support fiscal irresponsibility, and heaven knows we can’t allow the Senate to be tarnished with such a thing.

As far as I have been able to tell, the MSM and most commenters on this matter, including several professors of “Political Science,” have either missed or deliberately ignored the actual situation under Senate Rules. You are the first commenter that I have found that understood the underlying situation. Even Patterico’s blog overlooked the story behind the story and argued on trhe wrong set of facts. good work.

Yes, THAT Michael Brown-of the FEMA/Katrina fiasco. (Not that I am saying he or his Agency or the President screwed up. But the facts never mattered when the MSM and the Dims got hold of things.)
Anyway, I happened to be out and about last night and he was talking about the ‘filibuster’ of Senator Binning and why he thought the Senator was holding things up. I very rarely listen to the radio anymore, and am peeved enough even more rarely to consider calling up. But I was, and I did, and he, Brown, acknowledged that he was using the term incorrectly, but that the result was the same, so thanks for calling in.
When people are allowed to redefine what words mean to suit what ever other point they are eager to make, they prime the pump for the next time someone want to change the rules, just a little bit, until after a while, no one has a clue who is responsible for what happens, and everyone can point at ‘them’ as the bad guy.
Words mean things, and an “I object” is NOT a filibuster.
However much the end result is kind of the same.
Just like writing a paper instrument to withdraw funds from a financial institution is NOT the same as putting a gun in the face of a teller and demanding all the money in the cash drawer. The end result is the same, I have a handful of cash.
But one is a legal financial transaction, the other is armed robbery.