Tweet
John Yoo, Berkeley Professor and endorser of the presidential power to crush a child’s testicles, thinks Rand Paul has gone too far in his libertarian criticism of Barack Obama and John Brennan, now confirmed as CIA Director.
John Yoo, the author of the Bush administration legal memos justifying the use of torture, thinks President Obama is really getting too much grief over targeted killing. And he wants Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—who filibustered Obama’s nominee to head the CIA for 13 hours on Wednesday—to lay off.
Especially enjoyable, after seeing Lawrence O’Donnell denounce the Brennan talking filibuster as a stunt, is John Yoo’s characterization of the Rand Paul Senate floor action:
Referring to Paul’s marathon filibuster, an attempt to force the Obama administration to clarify its views on the use of military force against terror suspects in the United States, Yoo said “It sort of reminds me of young kids when they first read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and they suddenly think that federal taxation equals slavery and they’re not going to pay any federal taxes anymore.”
For more in the ‘strange bedfellows’ department, we have the once-tortured John McCain denouncing the filibuster as well:
McCain, a staunch foreign policy hawk, said Thursday that Paul’s warnings that the U.S. could target “Jane Fonda” or “people in cafes” bring the debate into the “realm of the ridiculous.”
“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids,” McCain said, adding: “I don’t think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people.”
But the best reaction to Rand Paul’s filibuster has come from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Closet):
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) echoed these criticisms, adding that he was “disappointed” in the 13 Republican Senators who supported Paul’s filibuster last night.
Graham later told reporters that he will vote to confirm Brennan as a result of the filibuster.
There are strange bedfellows supporting Rand Paul today, while making sure everyone knows it’s on this one single issue only. But his denouncers are shaping up to be an odd bunch as well.
Photo by lincolnblues under Creative Commons license
23 Comments
My experience with Libertarians is that when they ARE right, they’re VERY right.
But
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173916
I simply love watching the left-right axis get scrambled on this issue! There’s really no telling where someone is going to come down on what Rand Paul did. I’m having a terrible time predicting outcomes.
Funniest was when LO’D was calling it a stunt, then had Ari Melber on at the end of his program, in the slot where the guest gets ‘the last word.’ Of course, Ari said that while he disagreed with Rand Paul about a lot of things, it was important for the American people to see this conversation about presidential powers happen. Then Lawrence went back into rant mode about Rand Paul, ran out of time, and had to recite his canned exit line, “And you, Ari Melber, get tonight’s last word!”
The look on Melber’s face was priceless, because he hadn’t got anything close to the last word, as he (along with the rest of us) had to watch Lawrence rant at him for the last 45 seconds of the program, only to exit with his signature, misbegotten trademark.
Calling people of whatever age “kids” when they take their own participation in civic debate very seriously is a path to failure.
I’m no fan of the libertarians, and no fan of Rand Paul or his dad. But someone needs to point out the MSNBC hosts that this ‘stunt’ of Ran Paul’s — a talking filibuster — was just what the progressive organizations lobbied Harry Reid hard for as this Senate organized itself over the marathon 20-day “first day” as 2013 dawned.
Thanks Teddy – strange bedfellows indeed!
Well we’re being dissed elsewhere for “backing” Rand Paul on his filibuster. Why shouldn’t I agree with Rand Paul when he states things I agree with? The very very few times that GW Bush did something I agreed with, I said so.
I do my best to avoid tribalistic authoritarianism, and I’m neither a D or an R anymore. Does that make me “better” than anyone else? NO. Does that mean that I must be “purist” and continue to disagree with a politician, even though s/he may be doing something that I feel a beneficial for the good of all concerned?? If not, why not?
I’ve never been a huge fan of either Rand Paul or his father, Ron Paul, but both have some POV with which I agree. Should I throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because I disagree with many of their viewpoints?
An issue that I see here – which I feel is the intent of the 1% and their divide & conquer mentality – is that too many buy into a binary system, where you’re either R or D… and you can never agree with “the other” because that’s tantamount to treason and/or you’ve just proven what an abject asshole/sinner/doofus/idiot/child you are.
Whatever. In many other countries, there are more than just two parties, and often the multiple parties have to form coalitions with one another for better or worse. Is that a “perfect” system? No, but in my experience (having lived in 2 other Parliamentary “democracies”) I feel it is a *better* system than ours.
And it teaches more a *compromise* and forming coalitions when it makes sense to do so.
So, yeah, I was one of the idiotic, abject, ridiculous doofuses last night supporting Ron Paul in having whatever it took to stand up for 12 hours with a talking filibuster echoing a lot of what I was thinking.
I am extremely left/progressive/liberal/whatever. I think it’s *outrageous* that Obama has nominated Brennan to be the Head of the CIA. So sue me.
I *agree* with what Ron Paul did. I wish others had had more of the stones to stand up with him.
The end.
I don’t care what everybody else says about you, onitgoes; you’re okay in my book. ;)
That was very nicely stated. I am copyimg your remarks to my Hard drive t use during all the many binary moments when acquaintances call me out.
The sun does not rise in the west, just because some Republican says it rises in the east. When they are right, so be it.
And at the risk of sounding like and Ayn Rand follower, with th4 government stepping away from its social safety net expenditures, slashing the already slashed MediCare and Social Security programs (How is not having to wait till you turn 67 not a slash too one’s promised benefits?) I am starting to think that yes, paying Federal taxes is slavery. If the Federal Government didn’t get money for wars. Examine how Homeland Security bought 1.1 billions of rounds of hollow point bullets, and also purchased the new Armored Security Transports (Picture is at this link: http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/488x325xhomeland-security-mrap.jpg.pagespeed.ic.tN6C46J1W4.jpg
Perhaps it is time to consider that the Federal Government has far too much money as it is.
heh… aw shucks…
Damn, Teddy. You are fierce! BTW, a”truckers catheter” or Depends could keep a Senator filibustering for a very long time while they down a ton of water and appear unflappable.
Prior to LO calling Paul on, in effect dissing Obama for wanting the ability to kill Americans on our shores by executive fiat a non-issue, RM, in her best schoolmarm lecture mode, discussed the filibuster. She went on for over 10 minutes discussing the filibuster, its history and how cute it was for Paul to do a real one. Finally, towards the end of her lecture she finally stated it involved use of drones in the USofA, but never, if memory serves, said anything about targeting a Starbucks customer with a Frappuccino in hand nor collateral damage® from said targeting. Silly of her.
Rand Paul’s filibuster completely flummoxed all the cable channels’ hosts. I surfed around a bit; FOX was just as confused: “But we’re FOR drone strikes, right?” As far as Rachel, while I used to be a big fan, I go into nap mode at the :15 mark now, I’m afraid: she’s entirely too predictable, and saves any rebelliousness from the O-bot party line until about :50, at which time I usually wake up.
It’s disheartening, but apparently one can only say certain things on the “liberal” channel, and one must only say them on Saturday and Sunday morning, to Chris Hayes.
I can’t remember agreeing with much of anything Ron Paul said (except about the invasion of Iraq) but I never said he was a shill. He’s as straight up as they come.
I guess his son Rand is a stand-up guy as well. Wish he’d do something more sensible about this presidential murder thing than try to block an appointment. Maybe he could introduce a bill.
O’course, I can’t think what it would say. “The President is not authorized to murder anybody” seems a little lame. Oh, oh! I got it: “The President is required to follow English Common Law, and the Constitution instead of the secret musings of sycophant DOJ lawyers.” How’s that?
Odd, isn’t it, that the story and the reaction of “journalism” outlets makes “The Onion” appear as the only credible outlet.
Nice work Teddy.
As crackpot looney as Rand Paul obviously is, he does seem to have pushed a few of the right hot buttons with his episode of filibuster grandstanding. In fact, Senator Walnuts pretty much sprung an aneurysm over it today. I, for one, enjoy watching this sort of highly publicized wingnut agita.
Thank you!
Yeah, but you’ll never see this headline: Senate Republicans in Disarray
Teddy, I love your title and opening sentence!
One quibble, though: you really should include a link, because someone might read that and say “Oh, that Teddy — what exaggerated snark!”
Let’s review the audio, shall we?
I think it doesn’t.
(Full audio at the link.)
I wonder if that’s what old Strom used in his 23-hour stand.
You’re right. Folks forget, and often don’t click through to subsidiary links. Thanks, Peter.
Lie down with dogs, get up with Yoo.
Obama has spent way too much of his Presidency lying down with Bush policies.
And the left has been way too silent about it.
P.S. Lawrence O’Donnell is just another MSNBC sycophant.
Maybe, but he also knows everything there is to know about the nuts-and-bolts, the inner-workings and the arcane machinations of how the legislative process actually works, things that mere mortals could never comprehend.
Just ask him. He’ll tell you. Repeatedly.
Copy that.