Rand’s Stand Shakes Up the 2016 Landscape
When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched into his nearly 13-hour filibuster of the nomination of new CIA Director John Brennan on Wednesday, some conservatives on Twitter quipped that the young Paul was proving he’s a chip off the old Ron.
But Sen. Paul emerged from his filibuster feat with more than just a brief response on domestic drone strikes from Attorney General Eric Holder, which the lawmaker lauded as a victory. In just a couple of years in the Senate, he has moved the ball further on a viable presidential run for a self-described libertarian candidate than his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), did in two presidential tries.
On a Hill of back-room deal-making and politically expedient votes, Paul’s accomplishment — which never resorted to the phone-book-reading, aimless time-filling filibusters of old — stood out as a politician who was wiling to stand up — and not sit, use the loo or eat a meal other than his covert bites of candy — for what he believes is right. In an age where the right social media buzz can make C-SPAN must-see TV, he got exactly the right coverage in all the right corners.
It’s a stretch to suggest that Paul staged this as some sort of early campaign event — after all, before this week he’d gotten scant attention for his repeated hammering of the administration on drone use, and a filibuster is a rather painful way to get attention. But in the morning after, when the filibuster was over and Brennan was confirmed, something was different on the 2016 landscape.
Perhaps it was the unifying constitutionalist message that united unlikely bedfellows on the right and left, so much so that Code Pink hand-delivered flowers and chocolates to his office this morning. Perhaps it was seeing #StandWithRand still reigning as the trending topic on Twitter 12 hours later, and realizing he has the ability to strike a real chord in a grass-roots weary of being fed manufactured politicians. Perhaps it was the revelation that a candidate who has simply made constitutionalism cool would be able to credibly pull down partisan barriers in a general election.
Whatever image he forged of his own doing Wednesday, it was burnished today by the Senate floor attempt of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to tarnish Paul.
“I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded,” McCain said, adding it was “ridiculous” and “a stretch of the imagination” to “allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies.”
“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone,” Graham said. “…To my party, I’m a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we’re at war. Not Senator Paul, he’s a man to himself.”
McCain and Graham had originally threatened to block the Brennan nomination themselves over outstanding questions about the Benghazi attacks, but that opposition evaporated and both senators cast their votes in favor of confirmation.
Paul’s effort started with a core of supporters, chiefly Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), but higher-ranking senators wandered in during the later hours of the filibuster to be on record with the once-in-a-blue-moon event, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), giving the impression that Paul was delivering crushing peer pressure to his colleagues. House members caught up in the contagious enthusiasm of the moment also found seats in the chamber.
While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today offered praise for Paul’s, shall we say, control — “to succeed, you need strong convictions but also a strong bladder” — some other Democrats slammed and ridiculed the Paulibuster.
“No drone is going to be used in the United States against an American citizen walking down a street or sitting in a cafe,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC. “And you know, and then there was a stupid example of a drone being used against Jane Fonda. I mean, I don’t think this is befitting the Senate floor.”
On CNN, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the only Democrat to help Paul’s filibuster, said “this debate is not essentially about Jane Fonda.”
“I think you’re going to see Democrats and Republicans here in the United States Senate — we kind of call ourselves the checks and balances caucus — spending a lot of time trying to bring to light consistent with national security more details about the drone program,” he said.
Paul came to the Senate on a wave of Tea Party backing, but his time in Washington has been a rapid-fire evolution during which he’s immersed himself in the system, forged relationships, learned the ropes, and taken chances.
Mocking the filibuster and providing reading material for McCain’s arguments on the floor, The Wall Street Journal ripped Paul in an editorial accusing him of using the snowstorm for “theatrical timing.”
If so, then Rand Paul is wrong.
Did Attorney General Eric Holder say that it was hypothetically possible (...that is to say, legal...) for America to use military stikes against U.S. citizens here in America "under special circumstances"?
Then, he is correct. Any of you here ever heard of the American Civil War? The U.S. government never recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate States of America, and regarded the rebel population as U.S. citizens and the territory of their states as U.S. territory. That didn't prevent us from waging 'total war' against the rebel enemy. (Think of the artillery bombardment of whole cities, the scorched Earth tactics employed by Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley, or Sherman's March to the Sea, etc.)
By "special circumstances" Holder could have meant, in situations were U.S. citizens commit acts of aggression against fellow Americans, while operating from a piece of American territory not under firm civil control. This would require the use of the miltary. (Even in riot situations, things can get sufficiently out of control [...control by civil law enforcement...], that the Governor would be required to deploy the National Guard [a military force] to bring things back into control.)
Senator Feinstein, with your record I am not convinced that you would tell the truth, either way, under any circumstances. As I am a second generation Californian, I am familiar with your double speak. Why don't you come to the San Joaquin Valley and blather your babble to us instead of your fellow elitists in the Bay area. We would be glad to serve you some water if we had any.... it's being stolen from agriculture to help the "fishes" at your behest. Since you and your fellow elitists want to destroy all the dams and reservoirs storing water that used to be for agriculture, what say you to lead by example and remove the dam on Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. John Muir said that valley rivaled Yosemite in natural beauty. Oh... silly me... your group is a firm believer in hypocrisy, isn't it? We expect to get the same level of protection here as those in Benghazi got from our administration.
I don't know what words Jane Fonda had used in her speaches and interviews while in North Vietnam, but had she encouraged the enemy to kill our troops, and furthermore, had elected to stay in enemy territory or in a war zone, then, yes, we would have had the right to kill her. As it turned out, she came back; and the government perhaps weighed the possibility of trying her for treason.
He voted "for" Hagel because he believes that Presidents have the prerogative to appoint. Presumably, he could have acknowledged the Senate's role of declining to support the President's choice. Paul's rationale is that somewhere down the line a republican will wish to appoint
... and then what? Well, senator, the dems will "Bork" him or her.
You have a few years, 2 really, to refine yourself from a very rough, uncut diamond into a gem.
http://1389blog.com/2013/03/08/obamas-appointees-disasters-all/
Socialist progessives have redefined themselves as democratic socialists and the anrchists libertarians have redefined themselves as anarcho-capitalists. Theres good reasons why the progressive socialists found their home inside the democrat party and the reformed anarchists found their home inside the republican party as libertarians
The Tea party movement is either grossly uninformed or grossly desparate to have or, be endorsing a libertarian anarchists as their poster child. Since the 60s and 70s both of them have been successful in ridding congress of of the majority middle ground leaving congress more and more in the hands of both sides most raadical extemists -- both enemies of the intent of our constitution and our form of economy. Both 'leveraging' the constitutional powers of congress for their own self serving destruction of traditional america.
Capitalism involves voluntary participation in contracts between buyer and seller--which are meaningless without a government enforcement mechanism.
If someone purchases a product online, but the product is never delivered to him and it looks like he got scammed, what is he supposed to do?
If he's a libertarian, he'll take legal action--even ask law enforcement to investigate. That's the proper function of government.
If he's an anarchist, he'll try to find out where the seller lives and settle the matter with his own AR-15.
What may be useful, is going back and studying the political motives and strategies that led up to the communist/socialists and anarchists reforming their identities and platforms to infliltrate and call home, both the democrat and republican parties. Then we can have a real discussion.
Government spending to GDP? Government debt to GDP? Consumer consumption to GDP? Tax rates and revenue to historical GDP data? Trade balance? Was Reagan the president with the answers? Help me out with some specific examples and I can provide yo9u with historical data for which will validate your complaints -- or not!
Its not the first time our nation has been in idential economic crises though the causations differ!
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
You are quite correct about the anarchist origins of libertarianism, particularly here in the US. That said, you must remember what these terms mean to average Americans, rather than the American who has done his homework.
The terms “libertarian” and “constitutionalist” are so attractive precisely because the term “Republican” is so unattractive. As a party founded by a decidedly big-government president, Republicans do not have a strong history of limited-government to pull from – and a limited Federal government is what we want. Out of the entire 20th century, the GOP has had two genuinely conservative presidents: Coolidge and Reagan. That is beyond pathetic.
You asked if the Tea Party was “grossly desperate” – there would not be a Tea Party unless conservatives were desperate! Now, I am not a libertarian, precisely because I do not ascribe to the anarchist beliefs that help define it. However, I’m willing to let them speak if there is a chance that the GOP will notice how desperate the people are for limited-government.
The average conservative doesn’t like how libertarians will not stand for social issues, but appreciates the concept of giving some power back to the States. Likewise, the average American defines anarchism as the ‘lack of any organizational order, religious or political.’ This is why so many are responding harshly to you: calling libertarians anarchists – even if you have good reason to do so – at face-value sounds like you just want a big federal government.
I look at libertarians like maggots – potentially harmful creatures who are useful at times for cleaning out the infection.
I too, if forced, would rather vote for a libertarian branded anarchist over the latest convoluted tea party movement candidate -- the latter being about as anti-constitution as one could get. I think both the domestic and global circumstances would hold the libertarian anarchists in check for a time but it could become very dangerous over an extended period of time should they prevail, with consequences not even they would be able to endure.
Our nation was founded upon principles totally reliant upon responsibility to individual freedoms and laws enacted when responsibility failed -- a very delicate balance between socialism-anarchism and a complete totalitarian governance.
Thanks again for your response!
I get the feeling that we are not of like opinion in regard to candidates, but we both have many of the same political desires. Reasonable discussion is indeed a rarity.
I'm betting we agree on far more than we disagree on!
Libertarians are from from anarchists. They just believe in limited government, period. no exceptions. No banning this or that because it offends you.
That said, there are points of the libertarians ideology that I would fully support if this were the 1950s. I am very much anti nation bulding, globalizing all our economies and globalizing our monetary system. However, at this point, we're now beyond the point of return to more traditional times without suffering consequences far, far beyond anybodys imagination.
The advances of extemist movements and ideologies post WWII and more intensely from the 60s and 70s, is whats delivered american to these circumstances we're facing today and the libertairians in the GOP has certainly made their contributions right alongside the progressive socialist of the democrats party.
I'm a libertarian, if I'm an "anarchist" then you, sir, are a monarchist.