Filibustering, a parliamentary procedure meant to allow members to delay a proposal, is now a device employed by the Senate minority to prevent progress for the agenda of the majority. Senator Rand Paul turned heads by filibustering the Senate confirmation of incoming CIA Director John Brennan in March. Instead of “filibustering” by declaration, he filibustered the right way: by standing on the Senate floor and talking for 13 straight hours about anything on his mind.

I would like to commend and criticize Paul’s actions simultaneously. While Mr. Paul did go through the filibuster procedure well, he neglected his content. His speech was not related to the pros and cons of confirming Mr. Brennan, but rather, Paul ranted about a topic unrelated to the nomination.

Filibusters are meant to allow Senate members to exhaust the topic of an upcoming vote in the hopes of affecting the vote’s outcome. Paul was standing up for his cause, but his efforts had no impact on the outcome of the vote or confirmation of Mr. Brennan.

Was it worth it, Mr. Paul? You made a name for yourself, but took the nation hostage over a question that will hopefully never be a real issue. Next time, please introduce legislation on the subject instead of preventing and jeopardizing our national security. You did well on your issue, but you have misused and abused your legislative privilege, as so many have done before.

Maybe Mr. Reid wasn’t wrong in wanting to amend the filibuster process. It is imperative that we tackle real issues when they arise, rather than stalling by reading through a phone book.