Filibusting

posted at 10:41 am on March 7, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

By this time, most of you who stayed up for the nearly thirteen hour dance marathon in the United States Senate last night are probably up and around, or at least wiping the sleep out of your eyes. AP had some ongoing coverage of the spectacle as it unfolded, but now that it’s done I’m left with more than a few questions.

Right up front I will just say that there was nothing trivial about the subject Senator Paul was addressing, nor the method he chose to bring it to light. Nobody should be treating this as some sort of a clown show or stunt, and I’m certainly not going to do so here. In addition to stopping a vote on a new CIA director, he was highlighting questions about the use of drone strikes involving US citizens. An actual filibuster is a rare beast indeed, and the meat at the core of Paul’s argument (which we’ll circle back to in a moment) is on the minds of many Americans for good reason.

But the mechanics of the thing occupied much of my thoughts as it was rolling out. The original purpose of a filibuster as it’s commonly understood, is to prevent a vote from taking place. The vote waiting in the wings was the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director, a point that Senator Paul made himself quite early on.

“I’m here to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination to be director of CIA,” Paul announced, later vowing: “I will speak for as long as it takes.”

Fair enough. That’s his right as a member of the Senate and if he’s got the lung power to do it, then full steam ahead as far as I’m concerned. But less than five hours into the marathon speaking session, the state of the battle changed.

Nearly five hours into Paul’s filibuster, Reid threw in the towel, and said he hoped for a Thursday vote on Brennan’s nomination. “We’ll just finish this matter tomorrow,” Reid said. “We’re through for the night.”

Without unanimous consent, a final vote on Brennan could be pushed to next week.

Mission accomplished, to borrow a now infamous phrase. But the filibuster wound on for almost another eight hours. Why? With the vote called off, the job was done. And there’s only so many times you can rephrase the same set of arguments over and over again before it gets repetitive. I was left feeling as if the continued steamrolling was beginning to detract from the popular appeal of the senator’s decision to climb this mountain in the first place. Might it not have been better to yield the floor, save his voice and energy, and take it up again in the morning? And having thwarted the vote once – a vote which, let’s face it, is going to take place at some point – might he not simply use the mass appeal and attention drawn by the first five hours to gin up some serious PAC money and run national ads to bring more public attention to the question of drones and US citizens defined as enemy combatants? In the end, I simply don’t know why it went on for as long as it did.

As to the entire drone question, it’s good that Paul brought it front and center in the national debate. Of course, it probably left a lot of people with some conflicted feelings if they’re being truly honest with themselves. As I none too charitably quipped on Twitter last night, the people screaming about potential drone strikes on Americans who previously supported the Patriot Act remind me quite a bit of those who railed against the Patriot Act under Bush but are now strangely silent when Obama is the one calling the shots. (Both literally and figuratively.)

This would have been so much easier on everyone if it were another president named Bush proposing drone strikes on American citizens and a Democratic Senator Obama leading the charge against it. Then everybody could stay in their usual corners and come out swinging. But the faces and parties have changed, even as the tactics haven’t. Many years ago we opened a real can of worms when we began blurring the lines between criminals and soldiers with the idea of “enemy combatants.” Rand Paul wasn’t in the Senate at the time, so I’m not sure what his position was back then. I’ll assume it was the same for the sake of consistency. But for those who were around and engaged in this argument, this sets the stage for a whole new chapter in the saga. And maybe that was really the best thing Rand Paul accomplished with his now famous filibuster.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…too bad he had to go to the bathroom!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM

…it would have been nice if Rand had defecated on Durbin…on the Senate floor!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:43 AM

…or at least pi$$ed on him!

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

…when will the other Republicans start waking up?

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I was watching this last night and called my 13 year old son in to watch.

I told him this was historic and may have been the day that America was saved,
or was buried….time will tell.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

…the senile senator going to be on all the Sunday talk shows talking about his dog dinner with JugEars?

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

…when will the other Republicans start waking up?

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and few others were supporting Paul.
The new founding fathers of a re-born America.

We need to get rid of Obama and the Marxists and their poisoned ideology.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Mission accomplished, to borrow a now infamous phrase. But the filibuster wound on for almost another eight hours. Why? With the vote called off, the job was done. And there’s only so many times you can rephrase the same set of arguments over and over again before it gets repetitive. I was left feeling as if the continued steamrolling was beginning to detract from the popular appeal of the senator’s decision to climb this mountain in the first place. Might it not have been better to yield the floor, save his voice and energy, and take it up again in the morning? And having thwarted the vote once – a vote which, let’s face it, is going to take place at some point – might he not simply use the mass appeal and attention drawn by the first five hours to gin up some serious PAC money and run national ads to bring more public attention to the question of drones and US citizens defined as enemy combatants? In the end, I simply don’t know why it went on for as long as it did.

I think it did a couple of things. It got media attention. This is something the Dems are good at. It was able to be dumbed down enough so that even those ‘war on womyn” bimbos were able to understand the issue and if you went on leftist websites even 50% of those idiots reluctantly had to support the racist, homophobe, sexist Paul.

The second thing it did was show the marked gulf and schism in the Republican party by highlighting the different factions. The group that fought on the floor and group that went to dinner with Obama and then there was Toomey and Chambliss who played both sides. If we wanted to see what was right and wrong with our party- last night showed up in 3-D..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

…the senile senator going to be on all the Sunday talk shows talking about his dog dinner with JugEars?

KOOLAID2 on March 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

John McCain is trying to be liked by the leftists. He is a tool of his own destruction.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Why? With the vote called off, the job was done. And there’s only so many times you can rephrase the same set of arguments over and over again before it gets repetitive.

I have a different take, Jazz. It needed to be very long for the sake of at least rising to the scale of a “political story.” A filibuster of 4 hours is easier to set aside than one of 13 hours. Also by lasting that long, it ensures that all time zones in America had a chance to get home, check their facebook and twitter feeds and actually see the arguments Paul was making. What was repetitive to you at 7:00 PM Est. was brand new to those in Cali. Also, the longer it went on the more social media buzz it got, making it the number 1 trending item on twitter.

Weight of Glory on March 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

As to the entire drone question, it’s good that Paul brought it front and center in the national debate. Of course, it probably left a lot of people with some conflicted feelings if they’re being truly honest with themselves. As I none too charitably quipped on Twitter last night, the people screaming about potential drone strikes on Americans who previously supported the Patriot Act remind me quite a bit of those who railed against the Patriot Act under Bush but are now strangely silent when Obama is the one calling the shots. (Both literally and figuratively.)

Surely you’re not that obtuse, Jazz. There’s a difference between surveillance and assassination, and there’s a difference between Americans on American soil and foreigners on foreign soil.

Stoic Patriot on March 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

correction: foreigners on American soil.

Stoic Patriot on March 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

. What was repetitive to you at 7:00 PM Est. was brand new to those in Cali. Also, the longer it went on the more social media buzz it got, making it the number 1 trending item on twitter.

Weight of Glory on March 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Yep, and if he repeated the pertinent parts enough;maybe the media would play those snippets..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I think it did a couple of things. It got media attention. This is something the Dems are good at. It was able to be dumbed down enough so that even those ‘war on womyn” bimbos were able to understand the issue and if you went on leftist websites even 50% of those idiots reluctantly had to support the racist, homophobe, sexist Paul.

The second thing it did was show the marked gulf and schism in the Republican party by highlighting the different factions. The group that fought on the floor and group that went to dinner with Obama and then there was Toomey and Chambliss who played both sides. If we wanted to see what was right and wrong with our party- last night showed up in 3-D..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

The lame stream media had a blackout on the Paul filibuster.

If you looked at CBS, NBC, ABC – not a mention…..
Of course I don’t look at those channels anymore and neither should anyone else….

On a side note: I was outraged at the SNL skit mocking Jesus. So was Sears and JC Penny who have pulled advertising from the show. Slowly but surely we need to keep attacking the gates of the leftists oracles and bring them crashing down.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Because talking for 5 hours doesn’t get the attention that talking for 13 did, the event got people noticing after they arrived home from work.

Or maybe it was powerful because someone finally called out the Dog Eater for his excesses in a way that seemed to transcend the normal political process of pointing fingers and bloviating before getting back to business as usual.

Bishop on March 7, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Why? With the vote called off, the job was done. And there’s only so many times you can rephrase the same set of arguments over and over again before it gets repetitive

they could have all went on till the end of this weekend as far as i’m concerned. talk about this scum in the white house till everyone removes their head from the backsides and wakes up. BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR JOB AS REPUBLICANS TO DO! YOU, ME, AND OTHERS ALREADY HAVE JOBS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. IT’S WAY PAST TIME THAT THOSE IN WASHINGTON START DOING THEIRS!!!!!

GhoulAid on March 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

The second thing it did was show the marked gulf and schism in the Republican party by highlighting the different factions. The group that fought on the floor and group that went to dinner with Obama and then there was Toomey and Chambliss who played both sides. If we wanted to see what was right and wrong with our party- last night showed up in 3-D..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I wouldn’t be too hard on them – as someone said last night, if they hadn’t shown up to dinner, the headlines would have been “Extremist GOP’s Filibuster Shuts Down Obama’s Bipartisan Outreach” or some such. It was a tactically useful move, whether or not (and to be honest, probably not) it was intentional.

sadarj on March 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

The lame stream media had a blackout on the Paul filibuster.

If you looked at CBS, NBC, ABC – not a mention…..
Of course I don’t look at those channels anymore and neither should anyone else

The funny thing is Huff Post and MSNBC covered it more. HuffPost crowd was more supportive towards Paul than MSNBC>.

On a side note: I was outraged at the SNL skit mocking Jesus. So was Sears and JC Penny who have pulled advertising from the show. Slowly but surely we need to keep attacking the gates of the leftists oracles and bring them crashing down.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I did not realize that. Pretty shocking in fact. I could def. see them doing if it involved Mohammed, but Jesus usually they just roll with it.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Jazz, it resulted in a 13-hour long opportunity to beat into the heads of Obama-Firsters this glorious simple question:

Is this correct: You are against the death penalty for convicted murderers because they might be innocent, but you support Obama’s claimed power to deprive Americans of due process and summarily execute them on American soil because they might be guilty?

Resist We Much on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I have to agree that extending it past the point of actual necessity was itself necessary in grabbing attention to both the issue and to giving wide attention to a right-of-center political position without the MSM being able to shape it into a pretzel.

Bitter Clinger on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I have a different take, Jazz. It needed to be very long for the sake of at least rising to the scale of a “political story.” A filibuster of 4 hours is easier to set aside than one of 13 hours. Also by lasting that long, it ensures that all time zones in America had a chance to get home, check their facebook and twitter feeds and actually see the arguments Paul was making. What was repetitive to you at 7:00 PM Est. was brand new to those in Cali. Also, the longer it went on the more social media buzz it got, making it the number 1 trending item on twitter.

Weight of Glory on March 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

That deserves repeating. If the GOP is going to get attention, they’re going to have to work for it.

Curtiss on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Nearly five hours into Paul’s filibuster, Reid threw in the towel, and said he hoped for a Thursday vote on Brennan’s nomination. “We’ll just finish this matter tomorrow,” Reid said. “We’re through for the night.”

That isn’t quite accurate. He first attempted to procedurally end the filibuster.

But the filibuster wound on for almost another eight hours. Why? With the vote called off, the job was done.

How much attention would be paid to this if Paul stopped at five hours? Face it, this tactic wasn’t for the average HA reader it was for the Honey Boo Boo crowd. Greedy stupid people who really don’t get why the concept of the rat-eared wonder (or any President) being able to take out an American on American soil is such an important issue. And why the architect of that policy should not be confirmed as director of the CIA.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and few others were supporting Paul.
The new founding fathers of a re-born America.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Marco Rubio will be the new Hamilton, then.

Archivarix on March 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

This was clearly the dividing point in the Republican Party; in one screen shot you had old-school Senators yukking-it-up with Obama and in the other you had Senators talking about the Constitution, human rights, and the limitations on government.

Where do you think the future voters of our party focused their attention?

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I wished Blue Buddha had gone on with this for weeks. Brennan is bad news. A very bad dude.

Bmore on March 7, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I wouldn’t be too hard on them – as someone said last night, if they hadn’t shown up to dinner, the headlines would have been “Extremist GOP’s Filibuster Shuts Down Obama’s Bipartisan Outreach” or some such. It was a tactically useful move, whether or not (and to be honest, probably not) it was intentional.

sadarj on March 7, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I think that may be true for a lot of the GOP Senators that went last night, but you had Linsey Graham come out and basically call Paul paranoid today and talk about how much good the drone program has done. I want to say these Senators are plants, but for them to be plants they have to be the tiniest bit covert in their actions. They are blatant about their support of Obama.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Take note of the Pugs standing in opposition to Paul.

Mr. Arrogant on March 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

But the filibuster wound on for almost another eight hours. Why? With the vote called off, the job was done.

False premise.

Rand’s “job” or intention is to get Obama and Holder to state unequivocally that they cannot kill Americans on American soil who are not actively engaged in war or an attack.

The Brennan nomination simply offered Rand an opportunity to filibuster and draw attention to the issue.

Ending after 5 hours would have been better for delaying the nomination, but the attention would then be on Brennan and not on the potential use of force against Americans who are not an imminent threat. Now the attention is solely on the drone strikes and potential attacks on US citizens at home.

weaselyone on March 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

The cloture vote will be interesting. If the President and Holder haven’t answered Rand’s question what will the GOP do?

Any thoughts?

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Might it not have been better to yield the floor, save his voice and energy, and take it up again in the morning? And having thwarted the vote once – a vote which, let’s face it, is going to take place at some point – might he not simply use the mass appeal and attention drawn by the first five hours to gin up some serious PAC money and run national ads to bring more public attention to the question of drones and US citizens defined as enemy combatants? In the end, I simply don’t know why it went on for as long as it did.

Maybe … just maybe, he was trying to remind the clowns in the U.S. Senate they are SUPPOSED to be a deliberative body that DEFINES United States policy rather than be a rubber stamp used by the President for campaign purposes.

Maybe … just maybe, it’s time we had Senators and political parties worried MORE about raising the level of effort they put into their jobs than they are with raising MORE MONEY for their PAC’s.

GOPe – Clueless is as clueless does.

PolAgnostic on March 7, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Sen. Rand Paul performed an excellent Filibuster.

The length of the filibuster broadened examination of the US Constitution and dialog between citizens.

What’s not to like?

Even for those who don’t agree with Sen. Paul’s stance, his filibuster provided a great opportunity for civics lessons.

Watching Sen. Ted Cruz grill Atty. Gen. Holder in the judiciary hearings was revealing as well.

Substantive debate of a deliberative legislative body (The Senate) has been seriously compromised by the political cynicism of the majority leader & that is dangerous to the functioning of our republic.

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

The lame stream media had a blackout on the Paul filibuster.

If you looked at CBS, NBC, ABC – not a mention…..
Of course I don’t look at those channels anymore and neither should anyone else….

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Rule numero uno under which our Obama-cult media now operates: the president and his admin’s policies can never be exposed as hypocrisy because he is our savior. We built him up, sold him to an emotional, naive public, vehemently protect him along the way, and he is unassailable. Now tune in to Dancing with the Stars or American Idol and forget about the Secret Drone War, dangit.

RepubChica on March 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I think that may be true for a lot of the GOP Senators that went last night, but you had Linsey Graham come out and basically call Paul paranoid today and talk about how much good the drone program has done. I want to say these Senators are plants, but for them to be plants they have to be the tiniest bit covert in their actions. They are blatant about their support of Obama.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

What amazes me is that there’s still some on this site who fully and enthusiastically support Graham and those like him.

The cloture vote will be interesting. If the President and Holder haven’t answered Rand’s question what will the GOP do?

Any thoughts?

Tater Salad on March 7, 2013 at 11:07 AM

The GOP is not going to obstruct Brennan’s nomination. Lindsey Graham’s remarks about the filibuster is a clear signal of what the party establishment really thinks about opposition to drones. I expect Paul, Rubio, and most of the other filibuster participants to vote against cloture but I think the nomination will sail through with no further significant problems.

Doomberg on March 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

.
Marco Rubio will be the new Hamilton, then.

Archivarix on March 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

.
WHAT ? ! ….. He’s going to die in a duel ? !

listens2glenn on March 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I have a different take, Jazz. It needed to be very long for the sake of at least rising to the scale of a “political story.” A filibuster of 4 hours is easier to set aside than one of 13 hours. Also by lasting that long, it ensures that all time zones in America had a chance to get home, check their facebook and twitter feeds and actually see the arguments Paul was making. What was repetitive to you at 7:00 PM Est. was brand new to those in Cali. Also, the longer it went on the more social media buzz it got, making it the number 1 trending item on twitter.

Weight of Glory on March 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

This.

Paul’s goal was not to prevent John Brennan from being confirmed. Everyone knows that will happen. There are no serious objections to him on either side of the aisle. The goal was to use this opportunity to draw attention to this issue and get a message out to the American people, in spite of the media.

A filibuster of 4 hours would not have accomplished that. Going as long as he did made it more of a political “event” story, something historic, something that has very rarely been done before. People got buzzing about it, and were able to flip it on and see it unfold. Quitting after 4 hours would have resulted in far less attention being paid by the general public.

Shump on March 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I want to say these Senators are plants, but for them to be plants they have to be the tiniest bit covert in their actions. They are blatant about their support of Obama.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Well for that matter. Where are the progressive Dems who were so vocal in their outrage of GWB’s administration using drones to take out enemy combatants in a combat zone? They were against that but they are okay with a single person without any procedural limitations taking out an American on American soil who is not an imminent threat???? The hypocrisy astounds.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

All about the attention for sure. And I think it worked on a couple of levels.
First, this clearly fired up a lot conservatives, twitter was still on fire early this morning.
Second, it just may have a real impact on John “Drone Me” Brennan’s confirmation. Enough libertarian and liberal support for the filibuster to start making Johnny Boy toxic.

JusDreamin on March 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM

correction: foreigners on American soil.

Stoic Patriot on March 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I think you had it right the first time. An assignation performed on American soil amounts to First degree murder. The exact same rules that apply to a police officer apply to whomever is operating a drone on American soil, Due Process is not an option, it is required by United States Constitution.

The police have thresholds that must be met before they can employe deadly force, a clear and present danger to a specific individual or group of individuals must be preset.

As for Jazz and his

“As to the entire drone question, it’s good that Paul brought it front and center in the national debate. Of course, it probably left a lot of people with some conflicted feelings if they’re being truly honest with themselves. As I none too charitably quipped on Twitter last night, the people screaming about potential drone strikes on Americans who previously supported the Patriot Act remind me quite a bit of those who railed against the Patriot Act under Bush but are now strangely silent when Obama is the one calling the shots. (Both literally and figuratively.)”

I honesty expect more of a rational logical argument that that dude, rather than offering what constitutes at best as a Post hoc ergo propter hoc logic fallacy.

Contrary to what you might believe, the Patriot act was very tightly constrained by the “Due Process” clauses of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. The original Patriot act was terrible legislation, but it had a sunset clause in it and as I said was constrained by the US Constitution not just on “Due Process” but on many levels.

While I did not support it as I felt at the time that there was far to much latitude built into it for abuse in the future by unscrupulous politicians, I find it impossible to lay upon anyone who did support the Patriot act the moral and ethical disconnect that you are suggesting. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.

SWalker on March 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I was left feeling as if the continued steamrolling was beginning to detract from the popular appeal of the senator’s decision to climb this mountain in the first place.

Huh?

EddieC on March 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Paul was on Beck’s show last hour. Glenn asked him if he would vote for brennan? Paul said he wanted the wh to send paperwork if they intend to uphold the constitution(not direct quotes). Paul sounded as if he would not vote for brennan if he didn’t get what he needed? Guess we will see if bho/team will send paperwork?

I am so proud of Paul, Cruz, Lee, and all others who took a stand for our Republic.
L

letget on March 7, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I think it did a couple of things. It got media attention. This is something the Dems are good at. It was able to be dumbed down enough so that even those ‘war on womyn” bimbos were able to understand the issue and if you went on leftist websites even 50% of those idiots reluctantly had to support the racist, homophobe, sexist Paul.

The second thing it did was show the marked gulf and schism in the Republican party by highlighting the different factions. The group that fought on the floor and group that went to dinner with Obama and then there was Toomey and Chambliss who played both sides. If we wanted to see what was right and wrong with our party- last night showed up in 3-D..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM

As far as schisms go, have you read the comments sections on proglodyte blogs this morning and last night? Liberals are positively SAVAGING one another over what position is the correct position to take in light of the fact that a Republican said it. Gawker and HuffPo are great places to watch this in action.

It’s schizophrenia in real time, like we finally discovered the way to pit against each other both brain cells that liberals have found to rub against one another to produce what passes for a coherent thought on the left. I haven’t seen this kind of response since Andrew Breitbart’s (R.I.P.) precision trollbital strikes on Moonbatland.

To put into words how much pleasure I derive from these proceedings:

There isn’t enough lotion in the world.

mintycrys on March 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

What amazes me is that there’s still some on this site who fully and enthusiastically support Graham and those like him.

Doomberg on March 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I know, but Graham is part of a dying party. And the quicker we let that part of the party die; the quicker we will start actually winning again. The future was on the Senate floor last night.

Well for that matter. Where are the progressive Dems who were so vocal in their outrage of GWB’s administration using drones to take out enemy combatants in a combat zone? They were against that but they are okay with a single person without any procedural limitations taking out an American on American soil who is not an imminent threat???? The hypocrisy astounds.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Well or for their hysteria over waterboarding or Padilla. Atleast those folks were alive to challenge the government later in court and to eventually get due process. Being killed by drones means no recourse later..no due process. At best, your family can sue..

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

And there’s only so many times you can rephrase the same set of arguments over and over again before it gets repetitive.

Not everyone heard the first 5 hours. Repeating the message as new listeners tune in is important to ramming home a message. The left does it all the time. How is this any different? To me this needs to be done more often by the GOP. If repeating a lie enough times makes it into a believed truth than image what repeating the truth will do.

jawkneemusic on March 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

As far as schisms go, have you read the comments sections on proglodyte blogs this morning and last night? Liberals are positively SAVAGING one another over what position is the correct position to take in light of the fact that a Republican said it. Gawker and HuffPo are great places to watch this in action.

It’s schizophrenia in real time, like we finally discovered the way to pit against each other both brain cells that liberals have found to rub against one another to produce what passes for a coherent thought on the left. I haven’t seen this kind of response since Andrew Breitbart’s (R.I.P.) precision trollbital strikes on Moonbatland.

To put into words how much pleasure I derive from these proceedings:

There isn’t enough lotion in the world.

mintycrys on March 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I know.. It is absolutely WONDERFUL to see their side infighting while our side is ramped up and cemented together. We have to remember this and bottle this.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Please, Piers Morgan, go on your show and dismiss “Your little book!” again after yesterday. Please!

That “little book” proved that it is still very much relevant to millions of Americans across the political spectrum. You and people like Chris Matthews are DINOSAURS and IRRELEVANT!

Resist We Much on March 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Paul’s goal was not to prevent John Brennan from being confirmed. Everyone knows that will happen. There are no serious objections to him on either side of the aisle.

Shump on March 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I would suggest that you’ve conflated having “serious objections” with the ability to successfully act on those serious objections to de-rail the nomination. There are plenty of reasons to object John Brennan is unfit for the job but probably not enough momentum to reject the nomination of a career security guy to be director of the CIA. Hagel got through and he was even more unfit for SecDef than Brennan is for CIA.

Happy Nomad on March 7, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Reid didn’t “throw in the towel”. He was attempting to stop the “story” and the “narrative”.

Paul kept talking because Reid doesn’t get to decide when they party’s over.

happytobehere on March 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

In the end, I simply don’t know why it went on for as long as it did.

Because, as Dick Durbin put it, something dangerously close to a debate broke out as a result.

And the Dickster was, at the end, left to babbling something about Osama bin Laden. Which Ted Cruz proceeded to eviscerate (or should that be emasculate) Dickie over.

Rand Paul showed leadership on this one. And the longer he stood, the more people stood with him. I only wish he could have stood longer…

JohnGalt23 on March 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I think that may be true for a lot of the GOP Senators that went last night, but you had Linsey Graham come out and basically call Paul paranoid today and talk about how much good the drone program has done. I want to say these Senators are plants, but for them to be plants they have to be the tiniest bit covert in their actions. They are blatant about their support of Obama.

melle1228 on March 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Sen. Graham deludes himself.

The filibuster was about more than the singular issue Sen. Paul raised.

The filibuster was an indictment on the political and legislative abuse by both parties on the US Constitution.

Repeatedly throughout the filibuster conservatives raised valid concerns about the separation of enumerated powers, the abuse of the Executive Branch,the irresponsibility of Congress exercising their constitutional authority as a deliberative legislative body, the failure of the Checks and Balances of each Branch as properly designed in the US Constitution.

Politics has super ceded responsible governance and although Sen. Graham wants to chat with the President over dinner he refuses to understand why Americans were transfixed by the filibuster.

It is because Americans by and large do not trust they are being considered by their elective representatives and do not trust they are being leveled with.

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Rand’s “job” or intention is to get Obama and Holder to state unequivocally that they cannot kill Americans on American soil who are not actively engaged in war or an attack.

The Brennan nomination simply offered Rand an opportunity to filibuster and draw attention to the issue.

Ending after 5 hours would have been better for delaying the nomination, but the attention would then be on Brennan and not on the potential use of force against Americans who are not an imminent threat. Now the attention is solely on the drone strikes and potential attacks on US citizens at home.

weaselyone on March 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Yup.

Fallon on March 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM

But the filibuster wound on for almost another eight hours. Why?

You don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

Christien on March 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I was left feeling as if the continued steamrolling was beginning to detract from the popular appeal of the senator’s decision to climb this mountain in the first place.

Oh NO, did the little upstarts try to tip over the establishment cart?

MontanaMmmm on March 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Reid didn’t “throw in the towel”. He was attempting to stop the “story” and the “narrative”.

Paul kept talking because Reid doesn’t get to decide when they party’s over.

happytobehere on March 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Exactly, Reid was trying to control the narrative by turning Senator Paul’s filibuster into nothing more than a Friday night document drop.

SWalker on March 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Is this correct: You are against the death penalty for convicted murderers because they might be innocent, but you support Obama’s claimed power to deprive Americans of due process and summarily execute them on American soil because they might be guilty?

Resist We Much on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Way to cut to the heart of the problem. That is the best articulation of it I’ve seen.

chemman on March 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

As to the entire drone question

I didn’t see the entire filibuster, so if he mentioned this someone let me know.

Overseas there is collateral damage when drone strikes are done. Not all are innocent people. But, living in a war zone, that is the danger. But here at home, will we be collateral damage at one point should an ‘eminent threat’ pose itself? I know that Rand’s stance was about non-eminent threats, but what about something about to happen?

Has this question been raised? What if, in the course of protecting the American people, a drone is used to strike a truck with explosives from being driven into a populated area (insert any large city) prior to it being detonated. The USG tries to ‘mitigate’ losses, but of course, you can’t totally eliminate all casualties for innocent people in the US.

Overseas, more than not, most of those in and around the target will be working with or helping them in their acts. But here at home, it will be the opposite. Also, how much do we pay for the FBI, CIA, DHS, and local LE groups to help head these things off? Shouldn’t it be possible to apprehend/stop/kill without the use of drones?

Patriot Vet on March 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Mr. Shaw …the point wasn’t to stop the conformation it was to get obama to confirm we won’t be killed by the government without a trial ….a warrant …. or charges being filed …. focus

Aggie95 on March 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

El SOOPer!! ‏@SooperMexican

#AskPelosi: Do you think it’s fair to Americans that you’d be unharmed in a drone strike given the armor-grade Botox in your face?

lmao

Resist We Much on March 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Way to cut to the heart of the problem. That is the best articulation of it I’ve seen.

chemman on March 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Thanks!

Resist We Much on March 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

1. The Walking Dead Senator Harry Reid could have thrown in the towell after 1 hour.

2. The Walking Dead Senator Harry Reid only threw in the towell once the Thug-In-Chief called him and ordered him to end the deal due to the fact that the truth was leaking out on him and the commie Democrats. Reid was not trying to help any thing, he was just a dirty old mangey stray cat covering up his smelly dung on our Senate rugs.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I see the perpetual downer is still blogging here.

The longer he went, the more attention he got, and his filibuster formed strange bedfellows between classic conservative, libertarians, and liberal groups such as the ACLU and Code Pink versus coalition of Neocons and Obama apologists – it was freaking glorious to watch. This is why we need people like Rand Paul and less people like Jazz Shaw who don’t know what it means to fight.

Daemonocracy on March 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Rand Paul is that rarest of beings in the course of Modern American Political History:

He is a HERE!! God Bless Him!!

We have not had one since Goerge W. Bush on 9/11/01.

Jazz’s post devolves into spittle-dripping, maundering idiocy. We know you HAVE been idiotic — but WHY are you idiotic, Jazz?

WHY are you incapable of recognizing HEROISM when it ACTUALLY HAPPENS? This is like the people who have never recognized the EVIL of Hugo Chavez and his demagoguery when it was ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

williamg on March 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Sen. Rand Paul performed an excellent Filibuster… What’s not to like?

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Yes, it was very exciting. And then I woke up this morning and remembered — it’s Rand Paul.

Using his Chuck Hagel logic, I fully expect Rand to vote today to confirm Brennan.

Because “Obama won”. And Presidential prerogative, or something. Remember? He voted for Kerry and Hagel.

Jaibones on March 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

* He is a HERO!! God Bless Him!!

williamg on March 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and few others were supporting Paul.
The new founding fathers of a re-born America.

We need to get rid of Obama and the Marxists and their poisoned ideology.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Senator Moran did more than Rubio. Why is he left off all of these lists?

cptacek on March 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Rand Paul has a flair for the dramatics. He went on and on with the filibuster so that his message would break through. I really enjoyed seeing the entire thing unfold.

Republicans need to do more of this and don’t.

Illinidiva on March 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Is this correct: You are against the death penalty for convicted murderers because they might be innocent?…,

Resist We Much on March 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I can answer that for the Obama worshipers: if Obama is the judge, jury and executioner then we have no problem with the death penalty.

Chris Matthews and his ilk would be honored to be killed in a drone strike issued by The One. I wish I was kidding.

happytobehere on March 7, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Jazz managed to get just about every facet of this story wrong.

steebo77 on March 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

This was the dumbest wrap up that could have been done. Good job, Hot Air. What a wet blanket.

cptacek on March 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

So once again, do you think obama really cares. He is a hypocrite and liar. His heart is a dark cold place that sees nothing wrong with offing innocent children in the womb. Do any one of us think he would care if he started doing this to people he disagreed with. He hung out with bill ayres and jeremiah wright and I am sure between the two of those people alone, there is enough hatred for this country.

crosshugger on March 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

So once again, do you think obama really cares. He is a hypocrite and liar. His heart is a dark cold place that sees nothing wrong with offing innocent children in the womb. Do any one of us think he would care if he started doing this to people he disagreed with. He hung out with bill ayres and jeremiah wright and I am sure between the two of those people alone, there is enough hatred for this country.

crosshugger on March 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

He’s got no problem offing them outside the womb either.

Talon on March 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Interesting that no one on this thread wishes to revisit Rand’s bizarre and idiotic Hagel maneuvers.

Too soon?

Jaibones on March 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Jazz managed to get just about every facet of this story wrong.

steebo77 on March 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM


Then he must be ready to make the move to MSNBC!

PolAgnostic on March 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Are you seriously arguing against the irreplaceable and masterful constitutional lesson that was Rand Paul’s epic and heroic filibuster that held the American public and the Senate floor in rapturous awe for 13 hours? I supposed you want to nominate John McCain again in 2016, too?

Picture it….sweet momentum building to drive thousands of viewers, tweeters, and downtrodden liberty lovers (from across the aisle even) to tune into freaking C-SPAN (C-SPAN!) for hours to hear a hardcore lesson on the constitution that will be discussed and analyzed now and until the end of American time. But you want to replace it with fundraising and television ads and maybe another filibuster down the road? You sound like the GOP that both sides of America hate.

Just wow.

I think Paul could easily fund raise now, based on his intelligent and gritty performance, to educate and inform folks about the drone issue. For heavens sake, even John Cusack, progressive lib #standswithRand.

Sorry but nothing can replace the power of that filibuster the way that it was done.

LetsBfrank on March 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Chris Matthews and his ilk would be honored to be killed martyred in a drone strike issued by The One.

A supreme sacrifice for the Obamessiah they worship.

hawkeye54 on March 7, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Jazz, WTH are you thinking?

Honestly, do you support the old guard R’s like Gramham and McCain who continue to drive us down the road to destruction?

D-fusit on March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Sen. Rand Paul performed an excellent Filibuster… What’s not to like?

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Yes, it was very exciting. And then I woke up this morning and remembered — it’s Rand Paul.

Using his Chuck Hagel logic, I fully expect Rand to vote today to confirm Brennan.

Because “Obama won”. And Presidential prerogative, or something. Remember? He voted for Kerry and Hagel.

Jaibones on March 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Yeah.

I don’t like Sen. Paul’s inconsistency on his Hagel vote and I don’t agree with him on everything.

Nevertheless…He and supporting senators performed an excellent filibuster.

The Congress is meant to be a deliberative legislative body.

Yesterday exposed why deliberation is important and just how dysfunctional the senate has become without the usual media filter.

The media can choose not to cover it but the public is aware it happened.

The more it is spun the more curious people get…That is the peculiar power of filibusters.

Not all political theatre is Ornamental Kabuki…

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Interesting that no one on this thread wishes to revisit Rand’s bizarre and idiotic Hagel maneuvers.

Too soon?

Jaibones on March 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

I agree with Rand that Presidents should have some leeway on appointments; remember the “nuclear option”? That was being brought up because Dems were going to filibuster Dubya.

Besides, elections have consequences. If we wanted to block cloture, we shouldn’t have lost winnable seats in 2012.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM

McCain is or was up on our U.S. Senate floor trashing Rand Paul on the filabuster, that goes to him on Ted Cruz too.

So he needs a fast feed back.

D.C. 202-224-2235

Ph Az 602-952-2410

Pre Az 928-445-0833

Tu Az 520-670-6334

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

According to Rush….McCain is whining about the rules of the senate being abused by Paul’s filibuster?

*facepalm*

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

God, how I hate the crony capitalist RINOs, who undermine freedom as much as the leftards do.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Too soon?

Jaibones on March 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Sure – wait until he votes for Brennan.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Many years ago we opened a real can of worms when we began blurring the lines between criminals and soldiers with the idea of “enemy combatants.”

Wow. This is so wrong.

We have always made a distinction between criminals and enemy combatants. The distinction is because law enforcement and war are two entirely different things.

Prisoners captured on the battlefield
– are not guilty of a crime
– have no presumption of innocence, since they were captured in a state of belligerence
– have a much more limited right to remain silent
– have no protection against “unreasonable search”
– do not need to be charged with a crime
– remain prisoners until the end of the war

The biggest blurring of the lines happened when the Clinton administration decided that the FBI, a law enforcement organization, should take the lead on investigating all terrorism, even by foreign nationals. The FBI treated foreign terrorism as if it were a crime and imposed a wall of separation between intelligence leads and investigation of terrorism incidents in order to protect a prosecution that was never going to exist. This overcaution led directly to 9/11.

Al Quaeda then blurred the lines between soldiers and “enemy combatants” by ignoring the rules of warfare and the Geneva Convention, and sending its fighters out as part of shadowy organizations without the (formal) backing of a government, without even a uniform, and launching attacks on civilians rather than legitimate wartime targets.

But the Geneva Convention preceded Al Quaeda by quite a bit, and established that soldiers who don’t follow these laws of armed conflict give up their protections as soldiers under the Geneva Convention. It was Al Quaeda that made us have to deal with the reality of enemy combatants that are not actually soldiers.

Now it’s clear that the Obama administration has gone way beyond the Bush administration in giving the OK to launching drones against American citizens on American soil. But let’s not just confuse the whole issue by ignoring the fact that enemy combatants and criminals are two entirely different groups of people.

The better question, and one that could be addressed if anyone had any real interest in it, is this: At what point does an American citizen who has thrown in with a foreign enemy become an enemy combatant rather than a citizen accused of a crime?

There’s actually a simple answer to that question. Bring back the charges of treason. Once you’re convicted of treason, you’re a convicted felon who can be classified as an enemy combatant and dealt with accordingly.

To be fair, our Constitution restricts the charges of treason considerably to remove the temptation of the government to class any non-cooperative citizen as a traitor. But the real problem is not that the burden can never be met, but that no one wants to try.

tom on March 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

McCain is as big a Liar as is Obama.

McCain lies the most every 6 months ahead of his re-election.

Why the stupid people don’t learn? Alas

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

AP had some ongoing coverage of the spectacle as it unfolded, but now that it’s done I’m left with more than a few questions.

Right up front I will just say that there was nothing trivial about the subject Senator Paul was addressing, nor the method he chose to bring it to light. Nobody should be treating this as some sort of a clown show or stunt, and I’m certainly not going to do so here

Why did you call it a “spectacle” then?

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM

And maybe that was really the best thing Rand Paul accomplished with his now famous filibuster.

“Infamous” would have been a better fit for your editorial.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Rush just said Paul will be on his show at the top of hour.
L

letget on March 7, 2013 at 12:23 PM

The USA no longer deserves to be free. She is full of fools, from all sides, in the majority. The scripet tilted and will never recover the balance.

Relatively free people who think/act like this deserve full destruction.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM

…destruction by those they bring, volens.

Squishes will have their heads droned first. The WSJ and all others deserve it in full.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

All the Republican Senators that are saying that Paul is off the mark are being dupes for Obama.

Tyranny happens when the opposition party let’s it happen.

McCain, Graham and the rest of the RINO’s need to go and fast…..

Graham’s words will bite him the ass come 2014.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

One additional thing that was accomplished by going 13 hours is that it was “live and happening now” in all time zones during the evening hours. Folks in California got to watch it live, instead of getting just the 2 minute spin on their evening news.

2nd Ammendment Mother on March 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Ayotte went to dinner with Oaf in Chief.

Not one woman spoke. They are dumber than rocks.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

The concept of the “enemy combatant” covers the people known as Irregulars under the Geneva Conventions. Irregulars are people who are not part of the Army of a recognized belligerent. Such people, captured out of the uniform of a recognized belligerent and under arms are subject to immediate execution. Some of our troops were captured out of uniform during WW2, were liable as irregulars to immediate execution, and were executed by the Germans. We turned around and murdered General Dostler, handing him a bit of victor’s “justice” for doing his duty to his country, and acting within the Geneva Conventions.

The US acts within such things more in the breach than as a matter of principle. That’s why we have those crooks in GITMO instead of them counting demons where they should be.

Quartermaster on March 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Yay, Scrappleface!
http://scrappleface.com/?p=450

onlineanalyst on March 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

I hate the Rs more than the Utopian Ds. The former enable the latter. The latter just aim for their foolish ideals.

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

According to Rush….McCain is whining about the rules of the senate being abused by Paul’s filibuster?

*facepalm*

workingclass artist on March 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

McCain is really pissing me off….
He is a senile old fool.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Heh, onlineanalyst, I love Scrappleface.

The remarks come after Sen. Rand Paul and fellow Republicans staged a filibuster, talking on the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours Wednesday in a vain attempt to get the Obama administration to admit that killing Americans on U.S. soil, without due process of law, is unconstitutional. Obama ignored the effort.

“If we send the Marines into Pyonyang to assassinate Kim,” Obama added, “that’s clearly illegal under international rules of war. So, that’s why I’d only take him down if he were here, just after he took his oath of U.S. citizenship. That’s a constitutional grey area, and Attorney General Holder is pretty sure we could win that one in court if those Tea Party wackos challenge it.”

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM

It was about the constitution, legality and the power of any president, something repeated often, not about drones only…

Schadenfreude on March 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Rush is saying the old RINO’s are jealous of our new founding fathers….

So McLame has to run over and pal around with Obama so he feels relevant.

McLame – Obama beat you like a drum. Now he is using you until the rest
of your miserable RINO life is used up.

You sir are a disgrace.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

McCain is really pissing me off….
He is a senile old fool.

redguy on March 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

McCain would like you to get off his lawn!!! This tone-deafness is why he didn’t get to be President.

Illinidiva on March 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2