1. He raised issues that need airing.
2. It’s about the principle, not the person.
3. Perfectionism-based criticism (e.g. that he only talked about Americans, or drone strikes on U.S. soil) is a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit the whole venture. He’s not arguing in court of law, but in the court of public opinion, and this is his opening argument. He can stick to a few talking points for now and draw the line here, to capture the public’s attention and not overwhelm. Besides, others who would go further can build off what he did.
4. He can run for President, and this can even be his opening shot. I doubt he’ll win, but many politicians have run for president to change the direction of their parties. And let’s face it: the GOP needs it.
5. He’s a senator, and so of course he’ll grandstand. What filibuster isn’t about grandstanding, in part? One person who gets to bring the entire political process to a grind just so he can be heard? But in America, we eat that shit up. Focus on the message, folks, not the theatrics.
6. I don’t even mind that some have opportunistically rose up to join him when they supported the opposite policies under the last administration. On the one hand, it’s never too late to find one’s conscience. On the other hand, now it’s too late for them to credibly turn back.
7. Nobody disagrees with his main point: that the U.S. has no authority to use drone strikes on Americans, on U.S. soil, who are not engaged in combat. The only disagreements are why this was worth filibustering. I think it was, because it set the precedent, which has been eroded over the last dozen years, that the president’s war powers have limits. The details are almost beside the point. And indeed, most of the (ad hominem) arguments by the war mongers are based on breathless indignation at the mere notion that the president’s powers have limits, and how dare this wet-behind-the-ears, Atlas Shrugged-toting man-child come in here and show us up? But their reaction shows he drew blood.
For what it’s worth, I applaud his efforts.



12 Comments

Does anybody (except Obama and Holder) have a problem with it?
The good, principled, and independent people at Crooks and Liars, apparently:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-pauls-paranoid-rant-they-called
I can not imagine how anyone could say this was not worth filibustering. Rand Paul, despite his other faults, did break the wall of silence and started the conversation about Obama’s abuse of power (which, in a perfect world, would lead to Obama himself testifying before Congress on that and other abuses of power he’s committed).
It doesn’t matter who brought the conversation up. Atilla the Hun could have filibustered, and I would agree with his position. It’s not the messenger. It’s the message.
Recommended.
He deserves much credit for speaking truth to power.. for all of us. The rest of the Senate members should learn to do the same.
For a display of partisan Democratic histrionics over Paul’s filibuster, take a gander at Democratic Underground, where the meme was pretty much “How DARE this Libertarian REPUBLICAN scumbag question our Dear Leader!!! As IF the Great One would ever dream of attacking his own people! We’re outraged and, if you’re not, you’re racist!”
Of course, if Obama had an ‘R’ after his name they’d be singing a different tune.
I’m glad Rand Paul did what he did, and I respect him for that, although I admit I think if private corporations were the ones controlling the drones instead of Big Bad Gubmint, he probably would have no objections.
Rand Paul either forgot he is part of the national entertainment and shouldn’t be a serious person.
Jesse Ventura said it best when he described politics is just like professional wrestling. They will put on a big fight show in the ring and spew hatred for each other in interview, then they are just like family in the locker room. Republicans are suppose to hate Democrats and Democrats suppose to hate Republicans, and we all suppose to cheer for our team, just like a spectator sport. That is what politics is all about. Sports news is almost identical to political news, with each having their fan bases. We suppose to get all caught-up in the drama, while Wall Street strips America of its power, wealth, and environment. How dare someone make a break from the script, and do improv.!
That’s probably true, but I’m with you: I respect him for this. Ian Welsh has some interesting thoughts on Rand Paul’s filibuster. It might be refreshing to read after venturing into the DU Pit of Blind Partisanship. Here’s an excerpt:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/rand-pauls-filibuster/
Norman Pollack’s piece at Counterpunch was good, too:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/08/architect-of-terror/
Anyway, I hope the conversation about Obama’s assertion of Imperial Power is just getting started, despite the efforts of the corporate media and Democratic Party loyalists.
Senator Ron Wyden (D. Oregon)seems to be the most courageous of the Dems in standing up to Obomba, which is probably why he actually joined in the filibuster. Nice diary, rec’d
I don’t have any problem with Rand Paul on this issue at all. The Corp Dems have been trashing him but what do you expect? LO’D is one of many reasons I stopped watching MSNBC
Yes, I agree that Wyden showed courage when he joined Paul in the filibuster. Sanders, Merkley, and Leahy voted not to confirm Brennan, but those votes really don’t mean anything (since they were very well aware that Brennan would be overwhelmingly confirmed) or show any real courage.
Greenwald hits it out of the park, as per usual: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives
It’s generally wise not to cross American strongman Barack Obama. Some say he actually likes killing people.