Democrats are known for their shady dealings. But this might top them all.
And what this Democrat Senator did in the dead of night will make your jaw drop.
A Senator’s Marathon Speech Ignites Debate
For weeks, the Democratic faithful have been clamoring, urging congressional Democrats to dig in their heels and “fight” back against President Donald Trump.
Enter Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who took the Senate floor in a fiery overnight address, unleashing a torrent of criticism aimed squarely at Trump and tech titan Elon Musk. But beneath the surface of this dramatic display lies more than just a call to arms—it’s a glimpse into a simmering rivalry and a bold play for influence within the party.
Booker’s late-night oration, which kicked off around 7 p.m. ET on Monday, isn’t just about making noise. It’s a move that echoes through the halls of power, hinting at a larger struggle over who might one day take the reins from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
Schumer’s hold on leadership remains firm for now, but ambitious senators like Booker are already carving out their legacies, rallying their peers with standout moments like this. History offers a parallel: the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada once delivered a similarly electrifying speech when he was the whip, earning cheers from his Democratic colleagues and cementing his ascent.
But was Booker’s performance a true “filibuster,” or simply a very long speech? The distinction matters. In the Senate, a filibuster isn’t just about talking for hours—it’s a tactical weapon to stall or derail action on the floor, and it doesn’t always demand a single word be spoken.
Right now, Booker isn’t holding up any urgent debate or vote. The Senate’s schedule was clear, meaning his marathon session doesn’t technically qualify as a filibuster—just an extended exercise in Senate free speech.
Meanwhile, the Senate had its hands full elsewhere. Last night, it voted to break a filibuster—not Booker’s, but one tied to Matt Whitaker’s nomination as Ambassador to NATO. Senate rules grant opponents up to 30 hours to drag their feet before a final confirmation vote, which was expected on Tuesday but hadn’t been locked in.
That gave Booker a window to keep talking, potentially until about 1 a.m. Wednesday, when the Senate would automatically move to confirm Whitaker. So, while Booker’s speech wasn’t a filibuster in the strict sense, the chamber’s tradition of near-limitless debate gave him all the room he needed to hold court.
To keep the floor, Booker has to stay on his feet—no sitting allowed, or he risks losing control. He’s not entirely alone in this endurance test, though. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, another name to watch as a possible Schumer successor, has stepped in to spell him.
Murphy, who once pulled an all-nighter on gun issues in 2016, knows the drill. The two have teamed up in a clever Senate maneuver: Booker yields to Murphy “for a question,” letting his colleague launch into lengthy remarks that just happen to end with a question mark.
The record for the longest filibuster still belongs to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who clocked 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957 to obstruct civil rights legislation.
But Thurmond had it easier in some ways—no TV cameras or social media feeds tracked his every move.
He even slipped out for a sandwich and a restroom break, letting Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson sneak through some unanimous consent votes and swear in a new senator. Back then, with fewer eyes on the chamber, no one cried foul.
Booker’s speech, by contrast, unfolds in the full glare of today’s media spotlight. And it proves just how unhinged Democrats are when it comes to opposing President Donald Trump and his agenda.
If only Booker focused his efforts on issues that were of actual importance, he wouldn’t feel the need to waste his time and everyone else’s on a pointless, long-winded speech.
Stay tuned to the Conservative Column.
