Rand Paul's Filibuster

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand Paul's Filibuster

There's not much to say except congratulations. Finally someone got Eric Holder to say a sentence that was not evasive legalese.

I've listened to a bunch of videos today about this and read a few things. The general tone is that Rand's gesture is giving people hope again.

So many people have become burned out because of the constant barrage of lies, propaganda, manipulation and discussion techniques like "the pivot" (see here on OL: Howard Dean Teaches Sleaze - The Pivot). And Obama's reelection has killed the morale of many.

But there is something left over in the spirit of fight in people's souls. They are sick of evasive answers from politicians and pundits and lawyers, etc., that allow their rights to be slowly eroded in backstage deals and hidden agendas. I can feel it in the air. They're sick to death of it. They want a simple yes or no to a simple question.

When they get evasion instead of an immediate "Hell No" over whether the government thinks it has the constitutional right to bomb a US citizen on US soil, a citizen who is not in combat or attacking someone with force, this sends a signal to everyone that the government actually wants that power. How else can anyone interpret this?

Well Rand finally got a "no" out of Holder--after what he called a "root canal," but he got it. Now Rand is being cheered by all--left and right (and me)--all, that is, except the big government backroom deal kind of people like McCain and Graham. Hell, even Van Jones and Code Pink are applauding.

Good for him.

Here's the thing I believe most people will miss, though. I know I am not seeing people talk about it. The issue is not just about drones and the Fifth Amendment.

It's about clear speaking. It's about standing for something for real, saying so in terms everyone can understand, and backing it up with simple actions that are easy to perceive.

Rand did this on a stage he managed to finally take possession of and you can now hear a gigantic gasp in the culture. Lots of commentators are heralding Rand's filibuster as an important political turning moment. From what I have seen so for, I agree.

Notice the wonder in the commentaries that Rand actually talked for the entire filibuster instead of pulling tricks. People are saying he did it the old fashion way. And you can hear the hunger behind the wonder.

Big government politicians better watch out. That filibuster was like a half a glass of water in the desert to a people dying of thirst.

I know this thing has left me feeling awfully damn good.

But now I want more...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Excellent post, Michael. Rand Paul's filibuster was a breath of fresh air, for the reasons you specified.

Any respect I may have had left for John McCain -- which admittedly was no more than a sliver -- disappeared completely after I heard his remarks about the filibuster. What a weasel that guy is, along with the other Republicans who didn't stand by Paul.

Ghs

[sbeaulieu]

George, I would interpret that those that didn't stand behind him have their own agendas. Some "Representatives" they are. I applaud Rand Paul's efforts.

~ Shane

[GALTGULCH8]

Even the Wall STreet Journal wrote an editorial about Rand Paul's filibuster speech today but they were generally critical of him and ended it by saying that he didn't know what he was talking about!

With friends like this who needs enemies?

gg

[BaalChatzaf]

Mr. Paul goes to Washington

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Any respect I may have had left for John McCain -- which admittedly was no more than a sliver -- disappeared completely after I heard his remarks about the filibuster. What a weasel that guy is, along with the other Republicans who didn't stand by Paul.

George,

McCain is more than a weasel. Look at this:

McCain calls Paul, Cruz, Amash ‘wacko birds’

by Rachel Weiner

The Washington Post

March 8, 2013

From the article:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is continuing to criticize his fellow Republicans for their filibuster of incoming CIA Director John O. Brennan over drone policy. In an interview with the Huffington Post, McCain referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) as “wackos.”

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”

Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing ”Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

It's pretty easy to read this one. McCain was dining with Obama during Rand's filibuster.

But Rand's raindance brought a dark cloud over the pork McCain was trying to eat.

All that's left is to yell at the wind and say the raindance is folly, but McCain's going to get awfully wet if he stays under that cloud.

I think he knows it, too, albeit from a posture of being in denial.

It's time for McCain to cash out. He's going the way of the Whigs...

On another point, I love Sarah Palin (meaning I believe in her character as a good person who honestly tries to do the right thing), but I can see how conflicted she has to be on McCain. She owes him big time, but the weasel is a sellout on every value she holds dear. She's right to put her political career on hold for a while. This is a tough place to be in.

Barring her, I believe America dodged a bullet when McCain lost. I voted for that jerk. I was wrong. I never thought I would say this, but I honestly think Obama was a better choice. And I can't stand Obama.

Michael

[Mike82ARP]

Excellent comments above, but it brings me to the question (or as Obama recently said, "it begs the question"... LOL!!! Harvard, huh?) where do Objectivists tend to ally themselves politically? The Dems are too much into egalitarianism, wealth redistribution, etc., the Repubs are too closely allied with religious groups, anti-abortion, and Rand seemed to despise the Libertarians (where I generally fall).

[Selene]

Excellent comments above, but it brings me to the question (or as Obama recently said, "it begs the question"... LOL!!! Harvard, huh?) where do Objectivists tend to ally themselves politically? The Dems are too much into egalitarianism, wealth redistribution, etc., the Repubs are too closely allied with religious groups, anti-abortion, and Rand seemed to despise the Libertarians (where I generally fall).

And, like several other issues, Ayn was dead wrong about that. Politics and psychology were definitely short suits for her brilliant mind.

[GALTGULCH8]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-08/did-department-justice-really-say-government-would-not-assassinate-americans

If you check this story on zero hedge you will find that Rand Paul should not have been satisfied with the seemingly straight answer he got from Eric Holder.

here is an excerpt:

<<<"What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad. “Combat” can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact [update:children too]. This is a murderous application of the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” and it will be used when — not if — Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.

Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president.

Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants.

But the determination of who is a “combatant” is made in secret and without judicial review.">>>

[BaalChatzaf]

Lord Obama does not have this authority, qua President, to assassinate Americans on his own initiative. But he could easily acquire this power by having Congress authorize a Letter of Marque and Reprisal giving he a warrant to kill specified individuals. I wonder why this Constitutional mode has never been invoked.

Look up U.S. Constitution Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

With Congress behind him a President becomes out Elected King.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Lord Obama does not have this authority, qua President, to assassinate Americans on his own initiative. But he could easily acquire this power by having Congress authorize a Letter of Marque and Reprisal giving he a warrant to kill specified individuals. I wonder why this Constitutional mode has never been invoked.

Look up U.S. Constitution Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

With Congress behind him a President becomes out Elected King.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Correct Bob. Astutely noted.