Ezra compares Cruz’s quasi-filibuster to Rand Paul’s filibuster:
In some ways Rand Paul had an easier task when he took the floor against the drone war in March. Opinions on that issue are softer and more malleable than on health care. But in some ways, his task was harder, as both public opinion and Republican opinion was arrayed against him. And yet by targeting his complaints narrowly and speaking as if his interest was persuasive rather than combative, he managed to change the politics of that issue. It was a tremendous performance, and it revealed a politician skilled at speaking to those who disagree with him.
Daniel McCarthy piles on:
Paul’s filibuster was also symbolic, but there’s a tremendous difference between the educational effect of what Paul did—his message was not just aimed at the Republican base—and Cruz’s pitch to the true believers. Cruz’s position is that the Republican Party only needs to be more Republican, as “Republican” has been defined by the talk-radio right in the past 20 years.
Bernstein thinks it’s “worth emphasizing, as some others have, that this stunt is in fact very different from recent similar stunts by Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul”:
In both of those cases, the point of the extended speech was to raise the visibility of an issue. That’s certainly not the case with health care reform! Neither the issue in general, nor Cruz’s views on the issue, have been marginalized in the press. … All in all, as silly politician stunts go, this is one of the least useful and impressive. It’s far more focused on Ted Cruz, personally. There’s no other particular point to it.
The Dish 