Sadie Roraback-Meagher: Heya, Evan.
Evan Wang: Hey, Sadie. How’s your week been?
Sadie: Oh, you know, the usual. This week has been too long, and this weekend has been too short.
Evan: Speaking of short things, Cory Booker’s speech certainly wasn’t.
Sadie: Somehow, I just know you have something negative to say about Booker’s speech.
Evan: Annnd you would be correct!
Sadie: Go on, I suppose.
Evan: I found his speech neither inspiring nor helpful — I’m sure you disagree.
Sadie: Well, you finally got something right! I think Cory Booker proved himself to be a role model for all Democrats.
Evan: Yes, but he’s not entirely doing this for a noble cause. During and after his speech concluded, he sent a barrage of texts and emails asking for money, possibly setting up for a 2028 presidential run.
Sadie: Even if Booker’s speech was a political stunt, I don’t think it lessens his speech’s message. Standing for 25 hours and speaking represents a clear commitment against the Trump administration. It’s a symbolic act of resistance, regardless of what he said.
Evan: The length of a speech does not indicate quality. Let’s not forget the previous longest speech was by Senator Strom Thurmond, who spoke for 24 hours against civil rights in 1957. Most of these speeches are filler.
Sadie: Well, I can actually think of more than one difference between Thurmond and Booker. Thurmond spoke in support of maintaining a system of injustice — Booker did quite literally the opposite.
Evan: They’re both using a procedural filibuster to block the Senate. Booker’s speech is fundamentally not that different from the time when Ted Cruz read “Green Eggs and Ham” as part of an effort to block the Senate for 21 hours.
Sadie: Booker’s speech wasn’t technically a filibuster, however.
Evan: Well, technically neither was Ted Cruz’s impromptu Dr. Seuss session…
Sadie: Again, there’s a big difference between Cruz pulling a childish stunt to prevent low-income Americans from getting health care and Booker standing up to an out-of-control presidency.
Evan: I think this gets into a larger issue of the Democratic Party’s strategy. Is it more important to give flashy 25-hour-long speech stunts, or is it better to directly hinder Trump’s insane agenda?
Sadie: I certainly believe there are performative actions the Dems can take to ‘stand up’ to Trump like wearing “No Kings Live Here” shirts in the House Chambers. But I don’t think Booker delivering an articulate and powerful speech attacking Trump is performative. In fact, what the Democrats need is more politicians like Booker who are willing to deliver a clear message and not let Trump’s actions go uncriticized.
Evan: I don’t think Booker’s speech is that different from the shirt-wearing and paddle-holding, which Democrats are being mocked for. Both are equally ineffective at attracting voters. Plus, I wouldn’t really describe a 25-hour speech as having a clear message.
Sadie: The clear message of Booker’s speech is that Americans cannot let Trump’s actions go on without scrutiny. Whether that means marching in the streets or delivering a record-breaking speech, Democrats must start resisting Trump on all fronts. As Booker said, “These are not normal times in America, and they should not be treated as such.”
Evan: On a side note, did you know that RuPaul is Cory Booker’s cousin?
Sadie: Thank God this is only a biweekly column.
Evan: I wish it were a monthly newsletter.
