Rand Paul going old school


#1

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced just before noon Wednesday on the Senate floor that he plans to speak “for the next few hours” in opposition to the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Paul began his filibuster at 11:47 a.m. eastern time. Around the one-hour mark, he acknowledged “I can’t talk forever” and said his throat was getting dry.

Rand Paul begins talking filibuster against John Brennan

Instead of the phantom filibuster that we have become accustomed to Rand Paul doing the old talking filibusterer. While I applaud the move it is the latest in his back and forth jumping between the libertarians and Republicans. He supported the filibuster on Chuck Hagel then just hours later he flip-floped and voted yes to confirm claiming that the president can appoint the cabinet he wants. I guess he has flip-flopped back again to the side he never should have left.


#2

:howler: I’m just shaking my head. I had hoped for better from him.


#3

[quote=“JStang, post:2, topic:38563”]
:howler: I’m just shaking my head. I had hoped for better from him.
[/quote]When it comes to Rand Paul, it’s never good to hope or assume anything, except for his lunacy. What’s funny about this instance, is that I mostly agree with the position unmanned drone strikes should be used only in the rarest occasions on US soil for civilians (and before people get up in arms about it, ask yourself what the difference is between an officer shooting a suspected criminal and a drone doing it) and I agree the President should be able to pick his advisors.


#4

I’m glad to have people like Paul, Lee, Cruz and Wyden willing to actually stand of for the Bill of Rights.

BTW-Brennan is a much different case than Hagel and Kerry. Rand generally will let the President pick his employees, and tried to squeeze answers out of Hagel by voting no on cloture.

So you can thank the Senators who voted yes on cloture for Hagel getting appointed, because at that point he was going to be appointed. They voted no for show, Paul voted yes because nothing else could be done.


#5

Wyden is up right now talking: Live Video - C-SPAN2 | C-SPAN


#6

Wow, surprised to see Rubio joining in against Brennan!


#7

No Paul voted yes because there is still a very large part of the “liberty movement” that agrees with Hagels extreme anti-Israel stance. As long is Paul is beholden to them he will not be able to capture the support of the rest of the party.


#8

That isn’t true according to Paul and doesn’t fall in line with his public stance on Hagel.

Hagel isn’t even anti-Israel and informed libertarians do not like his because of his connections with globalist leaders.


#9

His actions betray his words

Hagel isn’t even anti-Israel and informed libertarians do not like his because of his connections with globalist leaders.

There’s an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Hagel is very anti-Israel from complaining about the Jewish lobby, to refusing to stand up for Jewish human rights all the way to letting Iran have a nuke.


#10

His explanation is very clear. The Senators who voted for cloture are more to blame. But you want to believe what you want to believe.

Hagel is very anti-Israel from complaining about the Jewish lobby, to refusing to stand up for Jewish human rights all the way to letting Iran have a nuke.

Complaining about the Jewish or Israeli lobby is not anti-Israel, Hagel basically acknowledged what their role was as a lobby group. As for Iran, Hagel never said he wants to let Iran have a nuke.

Most of this whole Hagel mess is trumped up and has no basis in reality. He is not an isolationist or a full blown interventionist. I don’t agree with him completely on issues, but my main issue with him is competancy.


#11

Rand Paul is going old school to get his face on TV again. A standard fillibuster would accomplish the same thing except for the name recognition derby for 2016.


#12

At least He is fighting, that alone will get him kicked out of the GOP.

Only Demoncrat’s are supposed to use the Filibuster to stop confirmation of appointees that they disagree with, like those 10 Strict Constructionist Judicial Nominees that rotted for over a year after Bush nominated them before McCain and his 7 fellow Leftist’s had 6 of them withdrawn.

Republicans are supposed to make a cowardly announcement in the beginning of the process that goes “We all know that there is nothing we can do to stop this so please be merciful”, then cave immediately.

I guess Rand did not get the memo, fighting is the unpardonable sin in the GOP.


#13

Well, let me adjust course a bit:

I’m glad he’s fillibustering. I"m happy to see others join in as well. It’s about time someone showed some balls.


#14

I dont have to “believe” anything Rand Paul voted yes to confirm Chuck “Hitler” Hagel, that is a FACT

Complaining about the Jewish or Israeli lobby is not anti-Israel, Hagel basically acknowledged what their role was as a lobby group. As for Iran, Hagel never said he wants to let Iran have a nuke.

Most of this whole Hagel mess is trumped up and has no basis in reality. He is not an isolationist or a full blown interventionist. I don’t agree with him completely on issues, but my main issue with him is competancy.

Chucky never complained about any of the other powerful washington lobbies. He did say he supported a policy of containment on Iran nukes and then after poorly backtracking 3 or 4 times he claimed that his policy was to prevent nukes. Chuck has a long history of anti-Israel actions and talk including being the only senator without the guts to condemn the human rights abuse happening against the Jewish people.


#15

Ted Cruz is such an inspiring speaker.


#16

The RINO’s are doing their ‘old school’ too. McCain and Graham are just disgusting!!

Graham, McCain blast Paul filibuster - Washington Times


#17

Sen. John McCain took the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon to respond to Sen. Rand Paul‘s filibuster about drones — and made it abundantly clear that he does not in fact “stand with Rand.”

“I don’t think we should have any doubt that there are people, both within the United States of America and outside of it, who are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9/11,” McCain continued — but “to somehow 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, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous.”

It’s a “disservice to a lot of Americans for by making them believe that somehow they’re in danger from their government,” he charged. “They’re not.”

“I don’t think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people,” McCain pressed. While we do need to discuss our state of “almost interminable warfare.” But Paul’s filibuster brought a serious discussion into the “realm of the ridiculous.”

Sen. McCain Tears Into Rand Paul’s ‘Totally Unfounded’ Filibuster: ‘A Disservice To A Lot Of Americans’ | Mediaite


#18

Anything both Lindsay and John are for…I’m against. No good can come of it. I’m with Curly Top on this one!


#19

I guess today’s vote has proved your little theory wrong

Paul voted no to confirm Brennan, so much for allowing the president to choose his employees.

Paul voted yes on Hagel because the “liberty movement” approves of Hagel’s foreign policy

Paul voted no on Brennan because the “liberty movement” disapproves of Brennan’s drone policy

Paul is beholden “liberty movement” above all else


#20

Absolutely agree on this too…while supporting the No Drone Attacks over USA theme.

I note that PART of Rands’ speech yesterday was an attack on the Lochner decision of 1905 reversal by Parrish in 1937…basically a decision which reversed the “right” of workers and employers to freely enter their own contracts in which the state could not intervene with silly things like limited work weeks, minimum wages, overtime laws etc.
The “return to Lochner” is another much cherished idea of the libertarians…so this was another big signal Rand was sending about where his sympathies truly lie.
I happen to agree that the Lochner reversal by the FDR intimidated Court was wrong as well… but to bring this up during his fillibuster on Brennan was strange and really meant for one audience since no one else would care at this point!