March 8, 2013
JAMES TARANTO ON RAND PAUL’S FILIBUSTER:
Whatever you think of the point he was trying to make–and in our case, that’s not much–there’s no denying that Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster yesterday was quite a piece of political theater. . . .
One thing the filibuster accomplished was to underscore the hypocrisy and opportunism of supposedly antiwar liberals. “Where are all the Democrats?” asked the Puffington Host. The Washington Post counts seven senators who “joined in his symbolic effort”: Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Wyden is the only Democrat in the group. . . .
“Paul’s resolution said it was the sense of the Senate that ‘the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights’ of due process,” reports the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney.
That strikes us as sufficiently qualified to be both unobjectionable and consistent with the Obama administration’s position, as explained in a letter to Paul from Attorney General Eric Holder. So why did the Democrats object to the resolution? We suppose because they thought it was a trap. Paul put them on the defensive by setting up the filibuster as a confrontation over policy with the administration. Signing on to the resolution would make Durbin & Co. appear to be siding against the White House. But it was a trap anyway, since blocking the resolution exposed their hypocrisy. Paul’s tactic here was worthy of Saul Alinsky.
More of this, please. Meanwhile, they told me if I voted for Mitt Romney, we’d have an antiterror policy that John Yoo would be pleased to defend. And they were right!