Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 8, 2013
Politics Was Rand Paul Right?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:00 AM
His filibuster over fears about domestic drone strikes, according to The New York Times, has scrambled partisan lines:
After invoking and being embraced by civil-liberties-minded liberals during a 13-hour filibuster starting Wednesday on the Senate floor, Mr. Paul, of Kentucky, was showered with praise on Thursday by both the Tea Party movement and the provocateurs of the peace group Code Pink.
3
Well, to be fair, a stoner can ramble on about anything for hours. It's not really a skill as much as it is a habit.
4
The most interesting thing about the drones is how they freak people out. They aren't being used for anything that wasn't already being done by live pilots. How many innocent people died in sorties piloted by actual humans since the first Gulf War? Yet somehow it's only worth remarking upon now because they're being controlled remotely... by live pilots.
It's kind of like people going to all the effort to remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while forgetting that the only thing making those bombings unique was the radioactive fallout. One air raid on Tokyo was more destructive and deadly.
Regarding Rand Paul, just as I said yesterday, I will fully regard this as a cynical ploy on his part, intended only to boost his own political stock. Some say it "gets people talking." What are they talking about? A paranoid fantasy that just maybe, technically, is legal, under extreme circumstances. Even people who admit that this will lead to nothing think that's good. I think it's ridiculous.
Anyone notice that he didn't raise a single concern about how drones are actually being used?
We have a lot a real major issues before us, and Rand Paul is doing nothing about that. He's in lockstep with the rest of the GOP on everything else, and everything else is of greater importance because everything else actually affects us all. So how about we stop congratulating this prick and try solving real problems.
It's kind of like people going to all the effort to remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while forgetting that the only thing making those bombings unique was the radioactive fallout. One air raid on Tokyo was more destructive and deadly.
Regarding Rand Paul, just as I said yesterday, I will fully regard this as a cynical ploy on his part, intended only to boost his own political stock. Some say it "gets people talking." What are they talking about? A paranoid fantasy that just maybe, technically, is legal, under extreme circumstances. Even people who admit that this will lead to nothing think that's good. I think it's ridiculous.
Anyone notice that he didn't raise a single concern about how drones are actually being used?
We have a lot a real major issues before us, and Rand Paul is doing nothing about that. He's in lockstep with the rest of the GOP on everything else, and everything else is of greater importance because everything else actually affects us all. So how about we stop congratulating this prick and try solving real problems.
5
If you can't acknowledge when someone is absolutely correct just because they are your political opponent, then you are nothing but a fanatic. Obama needs to answer for his drone program. I hope that Paul Brennan doesn't get confirmed. That would be a wakeup call for the President that his program of killing people around the globe with flying robots needs to have a lot more oversight than it does right now.
6
@4: You are a fanatic. You attack Rand Paul because you worry about his cynicism, not that his ideas might actually be correct. Sorry, but the President has vastly overstepped his authority. He needs to have this power restrained.
7
Paul is a political whore - who would not being doing this if it was a Republican president.
That being said, it's shameful that Democrats and most liberals have been silent about this. The issue is not only about us striking people from the sky - it's about a "kill list" - a where the executive branch is judge, jury and executioner. This list has no oversight and has included 2 American citizens (one being a 16 year old.)
Call me old fashioned, but I think we need to follow the constitution on this.
That being said, it's shameful that Democrats and most liberals have been silent about this. The issue is not only about us striking people from the sky - it's about a "kill list" - a where the executive branch is judge, jury and executioner. This list has no oversight and has included 2 American citizens (one being a 16 year old.)
Call me old fashioned, but I think we need to follow the constitution on this.
9
@5: Brennan was overwhelmingly confirmed yesterday.
I'm pretty sure that somebody just needs to say the word "abortion" and this Code Pink/Tea Party soiree will break up hastily.
I'm pretty sure that somebody just needs to say the word "abortion" and this Code Pink/Tea Party soiree will break up hastily.
10
@9: Crap, I missed that. And he got a higher vote total than Chuck Hagel. That is utterly demoralizing.
12
Rand Paul is generally an idiot, but he was right about this. I'm just ashamed that liberals, who are generally right on the issues that Rand Paul is screamingly wrong on, didn't support him in larger numbers.
13
Rand Paul is full of shit. You're more likely to get killed in a drug bust by local law enforcement than a theoretical drone strikes that would never happen anyway. This is libertarian windmill tilting.
14
@ 6, correct ideas stated cynically become false at that point.
You're the fanatic if you think the president has done anything. Paul asked the AG if this was unrealistic scenario was legal, and the AG said yes, this unrealistic scenario was legal. Where is Obama in all this?
You're the fanatic if you think the president has done anything. Paul asked the AG if this was unrealistic scenario was legal, and the AG said yes, this unrealistic scenario was legal. Where is Obama in all this?
15
@ 12, I'll fully support him when he does something substantial to show he means it. Like hold hearings on the subject.
17
@14: Yeah, and Holder also said that Carmen Ortiz's prosecution was reasonable. Holder is a tool who has no clue about justice even though he runs the DOJ. Screw Holder.
Where do you think the buck stops in a program where the President gets to authorize the killing of someone, on or off of American soil? Is the President suddenly overruled by his lackey? And will future Presidents be bound by this? Face it, Obama screwed up by trying to assert that he had the right to make a kill list. He needs to come clean and allow proper oversight of this program.
If George W. Bush were doing the same thing as Obama is here, would you support it?
Where do you think the buck stops in a program where the President gets to authorize the killing of someone, on or off of American soil? Is the President suddenly overruled by his lackey? And will future Presidents be bound by this? Face it, Obama screwed up by trying to assert that he had the right to make a kill list. He needs to come clean and allow proper oversight of this program.
If George W. Bush were doing the same thing as Obama is here, would you support it?
18
It’s important to recall how Rand Paul made his way into the Senate in the first place, and who put him there, namely the neo-libertarian Tea Party-fomenting astroturf group, FreedomWorks, and the Senate Conservatives Fund led by Jim DeMint, the former senator from South Carolina who now leads the Heritage Foundation. Those two organizations backed Paul’s primary challenge to a candidate hand-picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, as a reminder to the Republican leader that he’d better toe the Tea Party line. And he has.
-from Daily Kos
-from Daily Kos
19
@ 17, I could tell the difference between different issues (killing people on foreign soil vs. American; killing presumed foreign combatants vs. U.S. citizens), as well as an AG's opinion on an obscure and very unlikely possibility vs. realistic ones. Had someone done this to Ashcroft or Gonzalez, I doubt either would have been honest enough to admit that the loophole existed.
So, again, where is Obama in all this? Has anyone bothered asking him if he would EVER call strikes against Americans? Is there any reason at all to believe that he would? If the answer is no, then what is the significance of all this?
Don't lose sight of this fact: This is about Rand Paul. What are his motives in making this an issue? Does he really believe in all this? If so, why a filibuster that even his own party didn't support? Why not call for hearings, as he has the authority to do? Why didn't he do this over the drone strikes that have been happening all along? You bring up the "kill list." Why isn't Rand Paul making a big deal out of that?
This isn't about the drone strikes at all. I'm dismayed by them as well, but I'm also aware that it's part of how foreign policy, which curiously never changes when a new party takes over, is conducted, and that innocent people always die when they make a strike. The fact that it's drones seems to freak people out, but the end result is unchanged from what's been happening for decades. And NOBODY AT ALL IN WASHINGTON is talking about that. Least of all Rand Paul.
So, again, where is Obama in all this? Has anyone bothered asking him if he would EVER call strikes against Americans? Is there any reason at all to believe that he would? If the answer is no, then what is the significance of all this?
Don't lose sight of this fact: This is about Rand Paul. What are his motives in making this an issue? Does he really believe in all this? If so, why a filibuster that even his own party didn't support? Why not call for hearings, as he has the authority to do? Why didn't he do this over the drone strikes that have been happening all along? You bring up the "kill list." Why isn't Rand Paul making a big deal out of that?
This isn't about the drone strikes at all. I'm dismayed by them as well, but I'm also aware that it's part of how foreign policy, which curiously never changes when a new party takes over, is conducted, and that innocent people always die when they make a strike. The fact that it's drones seems to freak people out, but the end result is unchanged from what's been happening for decades. And NOBODY AT ALL IN WASHINGTON is talking about that. Least of all Rand Paul.
20
No. Fuck no. And fucking hell no. The only thing "right" about Rand Paul is which wingtip he's falling off of.
There never was any possibility that our federal government would use a drone strike inside the country. Why the hell would they ever need to? Drone strikes are for places our military can't operate. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of troops right here, at home. And Humvees, APCs, tanks, choppers, fighter jets, Coast Guard vessels, not to mention all the special forces folks.
But seriously, paranoid people, "they" can just ride right up to your house in a sedan for the cost of a gallon of gas, without either being afraid of your neighbors or scaring them. And, if you're on the hit list, a few bullets will do the job, so who needs a missile?
All this killer-drone fear-mongering is just a tactic. It's to score political points, to diminish support of the Democratic administration, and to win the next election. These are the Neocon, Teabagging Republicans, people! Can't you remember who it is who got us into these fucking wars in the first place?
If you want a conspiracy theory to thumb-suck on, let's go back to G.W. Bush and the rope-a-dope strategy Cheney came up with to seize the Iraqi oil fields. "They're planning to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings. Let's let them, blame it on Saddam and invade Iraq. It's brilliant, and our buddies in the oil industry can divvy up the booty while they jack up exports to the U.S.. We'll break the back of the Saudi-led cartel!"
There never was any possibility that our federal government would use a drone strike inside the country. Why the hell would they ever need to? Drone strikes are for places our military can't operate. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of troops right here, at home. And Humvees, APCs, tanks, choppers, fighter jets, Coast Guard vessels, not to mention all the special forces folks.
But seriously, paranoid people, "they" can just ride right up to your house in a sedan for the cost of a gallon of gas, without either being afraid of your neighbors or scaring them. And, if you're on the hit list, a few bullets will do the job, so who needs a missile?
All this killer-drone fear-mongering is just a tactic. It's to score political points, to diminish support of the Democratic administration, and to win the next election. These are the Neocon, Teabagging Republicans, people! Can't you remember who it is who got us into these fucking wars in the first place?
If you want a conspiracy theory to thumb-suck on, let's go back to G.W. Bush and the rope-a-dope strategy Cheney came up with to seize the Iraqi oil fields. "They're planning to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings. Let's let them, blame it on Saddam and invade Iraq. It's brilliant, and our buddies in the oil industry can divvy up the booty while they jack up exports to the U.S.. We'll break the back of the Saudi-led cartel!"
21
@20: You missed the point. It isn't specifically about drones. It is about the President having the authority to kill a US citizen anywhere in the world, including inside of the US without any oversight or due process. Whether it is done by drones or not is irrelevant. The point is also that the President is asserting that he can wage war, one assassination at a time, anywhere in the world without the authorization or oversight of Congress. Again, whether it is done by drones or not is irrelevant.
22
@ 21, that's been political reality for decades. It didn't begin with Obama.
Do you really want it to end? Then call for action, and don't praise political theater.
Do you really want it to end? Then call for action, and don't praise political theater.
23
I think the real problem with Sen. Rand Paul's "advocacy" on this issue, is that it apparently distracts from actual work on this issue, such that of Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.
It is a shame that it is not surprising how ill-informed the discourse on this appears to be.
It is a shame that it is not surprising how ill-informed the discourse on this appears to be.
25
@22- political action is political theater. Something's never see the political light of day unless someone stamps their foot in a dramatic fashion. Take the People's Budget. It is the progressive counter to the Ryan budget. It has many sponsors, and has been introduced in the traditional manner, in a way you approve of. 98% of Americans don't know it exists. It is not part of the national conversation. If ten sponsors stood up and filibustered, or staged some other act of "political theater", however, it would be part of the conversation. That is, or should be, how you get shit done. You raise a ruckus. Or, can just sit on your hands and has a sad, like you.
26
@22 That may be the case but it's never been codified into law like this, which I think is a valid thing to be concerned about.
27
@ 25, no. Political theater whips people up but accomplishes nothing. Political action is the antithesis of political theater. (Except when that action is mere theater, but that's beside the point of Rand Paul's filibuster and what it was really all about.)
28
@ 26, I don't recall reading anything in the AG's letter which mentioned when it was codified. But that doesn't really matter. It is there, and I will say that as such, yes, it's a concern.
But is it likely? I think it isn't.
Is Paul serious about doing something about it? I don't believe that he is. I could be wrong, but I proven wrong until he does really does something about it, OR... if those who yesterday said that it was good that people are talking about it, if something comes about because of these discussions. The American public seems to have a short memory, however, so I'm not expecting anything there.
We can be concerned that it's there, in the opinion of the AG. But we have to give it proper place in the priority of issues, and part of that is asking how much of an issue is it, really?
But is it likely? I think it isn't.
Is Paul serious about doing something about it? I don't believe that he is. I could be wrong, but I proven wrong until he does really does something about it, OR... if those who yesterday said that it was good that people are talking about it, if something comes about because of these discussions. The American public seems to have a short memory, however, so I'm not expecting anything there.
We can be concerned that it's there, in the opinion of the AG. But we have to give it proper place in the priority of issues, and part of that is asking how much of an issue is it, really?
29
sweet jesus, the president/CIA/FBI/NSA can murder anyone they want anywhere anytime, in country or out. the local police department can pretty much do it too.
it's not a new thing. of course it's "illegal", but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened with impunity throughout american history.
rand paul is a fucking douche with a bad rug and this doesn't change shit.
it's not a new thing. of course it's "illegal", but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened with impunity throughout american history.
rand paul is a fucking douche with a bad rug and this doesn't change shit.
30
Paul is wrong. The CIA director doesn't set policy. Attempting to block his appointment is pure theater. And if course if Mitt Romney was president Paul would have his tongue so far up Romney's asshole he'd be reading Green Eggs and Ham for 12 hours to get MORE funding for drone warfare. As long as it was brown people getting kaboomed.
31
I voted "stop" but the more I think of it the more I say "feed those ambitions". If we can get Rand Paul on TV 24/7, that would do more damage to the Tea Party than a hundred thousand drone strikes ever could.
32
13
Liberals are full of shit.
You're more likely to get killed by a lightning bolt than be shot by a assault weapon armed mass shooter.
Libertarian windmill tilting.
Liberals are full of shit.
You're more likely to get killed by a lightning bolt than be shot by a assault weapon armed mass shooter.
Libertarian windmill tilting.
33
@25 Dead on. How many people heard the phrase "the 1%" before Occupy Wall Street? Corporate media had ZERO interest in attracting attention to the top-down class warfare conducted by practically everyone in power in this country for the last three decades. OWS may not have stopped Mittens from getting elected, but it sure as fuck made his road rockier by forcing the issue into greater public awareness.
There are ways to "accomplish" something that doesn't always require winning a vote on the floor of the Senate. A few quixotic stunts to force the People's Budget into the damned news cycle would be a fucking good idea.
Whether Randroid Paul accomplished anything here besides kick off his 2016 campaign for the White House, is admittedly very questionable. I'm sure he doesn't really want to reign in many of the parts of US foreign policy most of us don't like.
There are ways to "accomplish" something that doesn't always require winning a vote on the floor of the Senate. A few quixotic stunts to force the People's Budget into the damned news cycle would be a fucking good idea.
Whether Randroid Paul accomplished anything here besides kick off his 2016 campaign for the White House, is admittedly very questionable. I'm sure he doesn't really want to reign in many of the parts of US foreign policy most of us don't like.
34
@ 33, OWS was not theater. At least at the beginning, and for long enough to change the dialogue. And actually, I think it does deserve credit for Mitt's defeat. Not totally, of course, but I think the backdrop of the conversation brought his 47% remarks into sharper relief than they might have if it hadn't taken place.
I think people need to understand that "political theater" means actions whose end is to drum up a political reaction but not really affect policy or the overall dialogue. That CAN mean votes on the floor, such as when the GOP makes Democrats vote one way or another on something, with the purpose of using it against them at election time.
I think people need to understand that "political theater" means actions whose end is to drum up a political reaction but not really affect policy or the overall dialogue. That CAN mean votes on the floor, such as when the GOP makes Democrats vote one way or another on something, with the purpose of using it against them at election time.
35
"provocateurs of the peace group Code Pink."
Ah, this now has reduced them to PETA status in my mind. Congrats, idiots.
Ah, this now has reduced them to PETA status in my mind. Congrats, idiots.
36
Just because he's right about drones, and the President has admitted the existence of a certain program to shoot down Korean nuclear missiles that I worked on, doesn't mean he isn't a looney tune.
38
Fnarf, Randroid scares me. My impression is that he's smarter than the average Bagger, and less likely to make rape gaffes or other fuck-ups that have saved us from some bad Repugs.
He'll make mincemeat of dopes like Frothy in the primaries. His Tea Party SOTU response had the friendly Southern Boy tone that got Clinton and Dumbya to the big time. Very afraid.
He'll make mincemeat of dopes like Frothy in the primaries. His Tea Party SOTU response had the friendly Southern Boy tone that got Clinton and Dumbya to the big time. Very afraid.
40
@38: "My impression is that he's smarter than the average Bagger"
No worries then, he's not. He apes Ron's arguments and rides his coattails, but he's dumber than him and much more of a conventional Teabagger. He's just as much of a fundie creep as any of them, people just don't (yet? will they ever?) ask him questions about those beliefs because they're busy backpatting him for his "honorable stances".
No worries then, he's not. He apes Ron's arguments and rides his coattails, but he's dumber than him and much more of a conventional Teabagger. He's just as much of a fundie creep as any of them, people just don't (yet? will they ever?) ask him questions about those beliefs because they're busy backpatting him for his "honorable stances".
41
These frigging faux populists like Random Paul and his doctor daddy, take one positive issue, but go all-out anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-union, etc., on all other issues.
So Rondom Paul is anti-Fed Reserve (as are all moral and law-abiding and honest citizens), while Random Paul is anti-Drone Master Obama (as are all moral and law-abiding and honest citizens).
So Rondom Paul is anti-Fed Reserve (as are all moral and law-abiding and honest citizens), while Random Paul is anti-Drone Master Obama (as are all moral and law-abiding and honest citizens).
42
I'm too busy being excited that a senator actually got off his butt to speak for longer than voters were waiting in line at Florida polls. I don't agree with much of what Sen. Paul does, but he's earned my respect for enduring a bit of discomfort to do a real filibuster.
43
Let him run as a thrid party candidate. Drone strikes in the US is destruction of the Constitution and criminal process and procedure. Certain blowhards can spew 8 paragraphs in defense (it was going before drones? it was fucking not), but it's a pretty simple issue and Holder should be fired asap for saying it was theoretically possible.
44
@ 43, it is a simple issue that the law contains a loophole allowing for such. It's complicated by political theater and worked-up outrage from those who are ignorant of the law and American foreign policy, and those who will blindly follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear.
45
I predict Rand Paul is going to split the Republican ticket in 2016 and guarantee a Democratic victory.
I'll make popcorn.
I'll make popcorn.
47
@28 You're right I should've said it was promulgated rather than codified. Either way, I'm on the side that thinks it's a dangerous precedent.
Also, I'd say I resemble heavily social Democrat. I'm in favor of a lot of government paternalism, I just think this particular expansion of power is entirely wrongheaded.
Also, I'd say I resemble heavily social Democrat. I'm in favor of a lot of government paternalism, I just think this particular expansion of power is entirely wrongheaded.
48
@26, @29 It is codified and it goes wa-a-ay back. If you raise arms against or lead insurrection on the United States, or its government or military, you can be pursued by the Army, who might try to arrest you, but if they have a clear shot will probably not try very hard. (They're not particularly trained in "arresting.") It doesn't matter if you're a citizen or not. Insurrection is a military offense, not a civil one. There's some mention of it in the Constitution. And lots of mention in 19th Century history.
49
Unlimited power for the executive to wage war and get rid of enemies is a problem. Whether or not it has been secretly going on is not germane to the issue of making it an acceptable routine. If it was a secret, it's because it is not acceptable.
This said, Paul has NO redeeming qualities and should be skewered at every turn for his social Darwinism.
This said, Paul has NO redeeming qualities and should be skewered at every turn for his social Darwinism.
50
@44, there isn't a loophole. The hackery is trying to use 9/11 to destroy years of precedent. This is about as complicated firing AGs who want to investigate a breakin at the Watergate.
52
It makes perfect sense that a Libertarian would be bashed on a Fabian socialist blog. Considering that the world's largest corporations and private central banks are all major advocates of Fabian socialism, it is a wonder that the young people of today don't see the grandiose irony in this.
Well-executed social engineering, anyone? Mix Tavistock Institute efforts with endless financing from the Bank for International Settlements, and this is what you end up with. A forum full of pro-communists who know little about who is funding and organizing their own beliefs.
“War has changed its form. The Communists have discovered that a man killed by a bullet is useless. He can dig no coal. They have discovered that a demolished city is useless. Its mills produce no cloth. The objective of Communist warfare is to capture intact the minds of the people and their possessions, so they can be put to use. This is the modern conception of slavery that puts all the others in the kindergarten age.”
~ EDWARD HUNTER, AUTHOR AND FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, MARCH 13, 1958
Well-executed social engineering, anyone? Mix Tavistock Institute efforts with endless financing from the Bank for International Settlements, and this is what you end up with. A forum full of pro-communists who know little about who is funding and organizing their own beliefs.
“War has changed its form. The Communists have discovered that a man killed by a bullet is useless. He can dig no coal. They have discovered that a demolished city is useless. Its mills produce no cloth. The objective of Communist warfare is to capture intact the minds of the people and their possessions, so they can be put to use. This is the modern conception of slavery that puts all the others in the kindergarten age.”
~ EDWARD HUNTER, AUTHOR AND FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, MARCH 13, 1958
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS