Associated Press
Sen. Rand Paul hasn't done much in his career on Capitol Hill, but he certainly managed to cause a stir this week with his 13-hour filibuster. With one rather long spectacle, the Kentucky Republican not only gained national notoriety, he also drew cheers from libertarians, progressive skeptics of executive power and the national security state, and Republicans who are reflexively pleased by criticisms of the Obama administration.
Given the attention and the senator's ambitions, it stands to reason that Paul would take steps to exploit the success of his grandstanding. Indeed, it wasn't at all surprising that the senator sent out a fundraising appeal, trying to cash in before the headlines faded. The problem, however, was with the pitch.
"I had been trying for more than a week to get a straight answer on whether or not the Obama administration believed it had the authority to use drones to target and kill American citizens on American soil -- without due process. And after receiving a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder claiming they DO have that authority, I could no longer sit silently at my desk in the U.S. Senate.
"So I stood for thirteen-straight hours to send a message to the Obama administration, I will do everything in my power to fight their attempts to ignore the Constitution!
"Millions of Americans chose to stand with me and put President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Congress in the spotlight... And the good news is, it worked! Just hours ago, I received a letter from Attorney General Holder declaring the President DOES NOT have the authority to use drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil."
Apparently, donors are supposed to contribute so that Paul can "continue the fight."
The problem, as Mother Jones' David Corn noted, is that Paul's claims aren't true. Holder, Corn explained, initially told Paul "if the United States were under attack from within, the president might have to order the use of lethal military force within the territory of the United States." For more Democrats and Republicans, including Paul himself, this isn't problematic.
The fundraising letter goes on to say the filibuster "worked" when the Obama administration reversed course. Except, it didn't reverse course -- the Justice Department's position hasn't changed. Holder's second letter just reiterated what was already true -- there could be no strikes against Americans "not engaged in combat."
Paul's letter tells prospective donors that his tactics "worked," but the administration's policy is identical to what it was before. So why is the senator suggesting otherwise? Apparently because he wants you to write him a check.
Corn added that Paul, at the height of his notoriety, seems to be a "crass operator," "untethered from the truth," pushing a "money-shaking email."
Take away all Paul's hyped-up hysteria -- watch out, Jane Fonda! -- and he didn't truly disagree with the administration's position that in an extraordinary circumstance, such as an ongoing terrorist attack, the U.S. government can deploy lethal force against evildoers who happen to be American citizens. So why did Paul go ballistic? Here's a clue: the day after he ended one of the longest filibusters in U.S. history, he tried to cash in on his stunt by zapping out a fundamentally inaccurate fundraising email for his 2016 reelection campaign.
Those with legitimate questions about the legality, morality, and efficacy of counter-terrorism strikes could use more champions shining a light on the issue. These are critical, life-and-death questions that need to be subjected to a transparent debate.
But given his flexibility with the facts, and his inconsistent principles, Rand Paul is a poor choice to serve as one of those champions.
Leave a Comment:
"But given his flexibility with the facts, and his inconsistent principles, Rand Paul is a poor choice to serve as one of those champions"
Tricky little devil, you are deliberately trying to get him a job at FOX!
He doesn't work there now? Are you sure?
Yeah! wouldn't he look good in a slit skirt and pumps?
...a mental image that will scar me for life, thanks, Mark. lol.
Follow the money!
Unfortunately for the country, the GOP has tapped into a seemingly bottomless vein of gullibles. I expect to hear that Paul will have raised $1M+ from this stunt.
On another note, look at the difference between what propels Democratic and Republican pols onto the national stage. In 2004, Barack Obama did it in 20 minutes with an inspiring speech for the ages. Rand Paul does it with a 13-hour ramble which featured his invoking of Hitler and his mangling of an issue he claims to care so much about. Really points to what attracts the rank-and-file to their prospective partys' "rising stars."
Shorter Rand: If you don't want to die, send me money!
I attended a WWF style "debate" in New Orleans yesterday between Karl "Bush's Brain" Rove and James "the ragin kagen" Carville where King Karl waived the first letter around claiming Holder was asserting the legal right to use a drone to take out a Starbucks in some American city where an American citizen suspected of being a terrorist was drinking a cup of coffee. I had to look up the facts on the internet when I got back to my hotel. A lot of people are only heariing the Fox News version of the events.
Oh, King Karl and the Ragin Kagin didn't wear tights and there weren't any scantily clad women prancing around the ring between questions holding up signs. The event, however, had the same staged feel of a WWF event.
Really? After the sequester hysteria and the global warming despair today, you're going to ding Paul sending out a fundraising letter that exaggerates?
Glass houses Benen, glass houses.
That unsolicited admonishment is predicated on the Sequester not actually being bad for our economy, and that Global Warming isn't actually happening (LOL). Since neither of those statements are valid, they certainly can't be leveraged when childishly trying to dismiss this unrelated topic.
But then, 1 + 1 = Cake, in Crazytown.
Oh, so you agree that he is a liar and you are ok with that?
Acorn, tree.
All fund raising letters have a consistent theme:
"Help!
God/Freedom/Marriage/Mom/Apple Pie under attack! Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money. You can forget the first two. . ."
"Republicans who are reflexively pleased by criticisms of the Obama administration."
These are the portion of society who don't care what the truth is, for them politics is nothing more than a blood sport, and as long as their side keeps taking shots that please them on some sort of primordial level, they will keep sending in the checks. To put it in plain language, Rand Paul is an idiot who is slightly smarter than those whose dollars he wants for himself.
Sweet Baby Jesus, you just described the entire Conservative Philosophy in one, simple sentence!
Where else would the Tammy Faye and Jim Baker enablers send their dollars?
What is it with these republican tea baggers? They do one thing and think they can win the presidency. Rand Paul spoke for thirteen hours, so what. Now he thinks he can win. Rubio becomes the republican frontman for the latino vote, big deal. So he thinks he can win. Another is Scott Walker of Wisconsin. He thinks because he won a recall election by a not so overwhelming amount thinks he can win. None of these teabag toting rumdumbs would stand a chance in a general election.
Romney thought he could win too or more accurately he did not think he could lose because the unemployment numbers did not favor incumbents.
Walker also won by outspending hi opponents by about 7 to 1, mainly with money raised outside the state.
The paulturd doesn't fall far from the outhouse.
Of course he's a defender of freedom. He's certified it himself.
Paul favors drone killings, he just made up this freaky scenario to gin up government hate.
What he really did was shine a light on the abuse of the filibuster. That is why McCain and Graham scolded him. Now, Democrats are having second thought about reforming the filibuster rule. If the Republicans lose the silent filibuster, they cannot any longer control the Senate. Paul got the press, but the Republicans used the silent filibuster to block yet another Obama court appointee.
And in 2015, when Republicans become the majority in the Senate, they'll be ready and willing to sign on to getting rid of the filibuster.
Someone is surprised that one of the con artists is shaking down the easily-confused?
Just looking at the Mother Jones headlines in order shows that at least the headline writer initially thought differently:
Here's Why Obama Won't Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can: Fri Feb. 15
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil: Tue Mar. 5
Attorney General: Obama Can't Order Drone Attack on Americans on US Soil: Thu Mar. 7
And now that Rand seems to be getting more support the headline reads:
Rand Paul Exploits Drones Grandstanding with False Fundraising Letter: Fri Mar. 8
Granted, you can read into the details (which are important) and find some qualifications for drone attacks, but reading the tone of the articles, Mother Jones was not convinced that the administration had clear understanding of drone us on US citizens on US soil.
That's an odd way of putting it, isn't it? Look, for all practical purposes, the War on Terror is over. It's time to put the genie back into the bottle. If concentrations of executive power doesn't bother you because Obama is President, then imagine what it would be like the person living in the White House was named President Bachman.
Quite so.
So . . . you guys would deny the President his second amendment right to bear arms?
But that would mean he signed up for the local Slave Patrol.
Boy, that's awkward.
Just what we need. We're laying off Forest Service personnel all over the place, and the last freaking thing we need to do is equip the freaking wildlife with firearms.
Because, let's face it, that's what I've been doing since the day you (poor suckers) elected me.
Actually he hasn't been "silently sitting", he's made his share of the talk shows babbling his pablum for all to hear.
Obama say--Senator Paul is pleased that we have agreed not to attack with drones Americans who are innocently minding their own business Whew! Are we ever glad that we got that cleared up. (obamasay. com)
Grifter's gonna grift...
This is sorta like 'we voted for the HOUSE version of VAWA...just not the one that passed!' So Rand 'won' cuz he got a snarky letter from Holder that said 'yeah we aren't gonna target you in Starbucks'. What a bunch of MORONS.
What is this distracted Republican interest in drones and what they can or cannot do?
The powers of the Executive Office are valid or invalid depending on it's occupant. If I remember correctly, and I do, the last Republican president's comportment while in office was to flout his powers in ways contrary to our national stance, condoning torture and spying on Americans.
Ridiculous that such questions to this president is congratulated by those who allowed their own president all the freedom in the world, regardless of law.
And no, dear trolls, I don't want Obama to go rogue, but am sick to death of the right's hypocrisy, ongoing since the days of Gingrich/Clinton.
Remember the southern states thought they could succeed from the union without a hitch because it was their right to succeed and they had a right to build an army to protect themselves from the rest of the states, yeah a bit simplistic but reality is they never learned their lesson. They still believe they can succeed from the union and don't like that drones can be sent in to hit them before their civil war can get off the drawing board. How do we know this, rather simple, look at the way they misinterpret the 2nd amendment, they have a right to guns in order to over throw the government, which another group in the 60's thought as well, Weatherman underground, only because they weren't conservatives they were labeled criminals, how dare they try to over throw the government, lol right wing nuttery at its finest. They were against government over throw before they were for it.
Said it when he took to the floor:
this is all about THE GRIFT.
His daddy bilked those rubes for two decades.
he's gotta continue the family tradition
The media really needs to ignore Rand Paul. He hasn't done anything of consequence to help anybody but himself.
Rand Paul wasted 13 hours of the Senate's legislative time demanding answers to questions nobody was ever in any doubt about other than him and and the conspiracy theorists that back him. He took 13 hours to get an answer to a question when all he needed was a five minute phone call. And then the beltway cheers this nonsense? They call this substantive political dialog? What a farce. And what proof that even if rules required talking filibusters, it wouldn't make the Senate any more productive.
We'd just have more hours of Marco Rubio preening for cameras telling us how much he likes rap music and would youngsters please remember that in a couple years and vote for him for president because of it, thanks.
Paul did something that Repubs should have been doing all along & now he has the hubris to believe he should be POTUS? That is one huge misread.
Steve, weak way to start off "Sen. Rand Paul hasn't done much in his career on Capitol Hill" the majority of politicians don't accomplish much. Just by you mentioning him is evidence he's done more than most.
And that would be......?