Some people write bloated books and long essays with skilful use of hooks, e.g. Jared Diamond; some others speak in long-drawn sentences with torrents of words, e.g. Noam Chomsky. It reminds me of a tactic politicians use in public discourse to waste people's time. I came across this word before but I can't retrieve it from either memory or the internet.
Filibuster is the act of speaking non-stop in Congress or other parliamentary body. It is used as a tactic to hold the floor for various reasons: To allow time to gather constituents, to prevent discussion or vote on a bill before it will expire, to obstruct proceedings in general.
The word derives from Spanish filibustero which is in turn derived from Dutch vrijbuiter meaning pirate or privateer. The sense is that the filibusterer is stealing the time.
Otherwise, there is another notion that derives from a quote by W.C. Fields:
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
This may not be exactly what you are thinking of, but there is a technique informally known as the "Gish Gallop", which specifically refers to rapidly presenting many arguments. Although each individual argument may be flawed, each one take time to refute (often longer than it took to state), and thus an opponent may simply not have enough time to deal with them all.
I'm really not sure what you're asking - you seem to be referring to three distinct circumstances:
1) The deliberate use of prolixity in a parliamentary context. In the UK, this is known as 'talking out' a bill. It's not equivalent to the US practice of filibustering, which seeks to extend, rather than curtail discussion. Both, however, have the same intent: to avoid a vote being taken, and the bill dismissed or passed.
2) The deliberate use of language for persuasive purposes to 'hook' people's interest and perhaps also get them to commit to taking action of some kind. This essentially falls under the heading of Deliberative Rhetoric. Hooks will typically include the traditional rhetorical categories of ethos, pathos and logos - appeals to and from character, emotion and reason.
3) A formal, florid, free-flowing academic style. You referenced Noam Chomsky - I could personally listen to him talk for hours and not be bored or put off. You also referenced Jared Diamond - again, his writing seems clear and informative - I'm not sure what you're trying to describe in terms of style with reference to either of these speakers/writers. I certainly can't see the connection between their output and the circumstances described in 1 and 2.
It's surprising this hasn't been mentioned, and I know an answer was already given years ago, but the most fitting word is circumlocution:
1 : the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
2 : evasion in speech
Equivocation is another good candidate:
to use unclear language especially to deceive or mislead someone
Both words describe different aspects of the political technique you described in your question. Circumlocution emphasizes the evasive and verbose nature of the speech, whereas equivocation emphasizes the intentionally vague and deceptive nature of the speech.
While not explicitly used for politicians and perhaps more considered slang, the term that came to mind reading your post was "gish gallop." I hear it used more in debates when an opponent attempts to throw out so many bad analogies and so much faulty logic that there opponent cannot possibly deal with all of it in a critical way within a reasonable time frame.
A common one used in Ireland is "Obstructionism"
The wiki definition describes it as "the practice of deliberately delaying or preventing a process or change, especially in politics".
Here it is most commonly associated with Joseph Biggar and the Irish nationalism movement from the late 19th Century, where Biggar's deliberate filibusters significantly delayed legislation, and forced the MPs in the House of Commons to negotiate with the nationalist politicians.