Apparently many House Democrats want to bring back old-school filibusters:

Mr. Yarmuth said that he and many other House Democrats wanted their Senate colleagues to force Republicans to spend hours filibustering various bills, to illustrate for constituents why legislation is stalling.

I’ve never understood this argument, which is popular among many liberals:

(a) After the first filibuster, I’m not sure the media or the public would care.
(b) It would slow down work in the Senate to a crawl.
(c) To the extent it draws attention to an issue, it does so by giving a platform to the other side.
(d) The potential for being dragged into a mutually destructive cycle of retribution is obvious (in five or ten years, Democrats would be in the same position).

So what’s the rationale? Are Americans supposed to turn on C-SPAN, see a filibuster of an Iraq spending bill with a withdrawal deadline, and rise up as one? This strikes me as, um, a bit implausible.