Rand Paul gains my grudging respect

[Davka]

I don't like Rand Paul. I don't like his politics, I don't like his blatant partisan lies, and I don't even like Kentucky. And I hate political grandstanding.

But today Paul did something which I have to respect, even if it means gritting my teeth. He staged an old-fashioned talk-til-you-drop filibuster.

I've been annoyed for years at the depths to which the filibuster has sunk. It used to be that if you were going to try to block a bill from coming to a vote without a 60-vote supermajority, you had to actually get up and talk, forcing the Senate to vote repeatedly to cut off debate. If they couldn't come up with 60 votes, the "debate" would continue until the speaker either could no longer talk, or until one party was able to muster the 60 votes to cut off debate. It was a useful tactic for calling attention to an issue that the minority felt was serious enough that it warranted the risk of public embarrassment. Anyone who has seen "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" knows what the old-fashioned filibuster looks like.

But for the past decade or so, the minority party in the Senate has simply had to threaten to filibuster in order to immediately change the simple majority (51 votes) needed to bass a bill into a supermajority. I have often said that this should be illegal. If you want to filibuster, you should by-gawd be forced to get your ass up there and talk, not just threaten to talk.

Today Rand Paul got his ass up there and talked. And talked, and talked, and - talked. And even though I think he's a dangerous demagogue and a grandstanding liar, I have to applaud his effort. Hell, he even chose an important issue to filibuster over, instead of some tea-party imaginary whine: he wants the President to clarify the administration's legal stance on drone strikes against US citizens on US soil. This is something Obama has been coy about, which is simply not acceptable.

Now, I can see circumstances under which law enforcement might legally and ethically employ drones against US citizens on US soil. In a firefight/standoff, for example, using a drone might be the best way to take out a shooter without endangering police; or in a Waco or Ruby Ridge situation, a drone might allow for accuracy that a frontal assault cannot. But the administration needs to spell out exactly which circumstances would warrant the use of armed drones, and which would not.

So kudos to Rand Paul for pulling an old-fashioned filibuster to bring this issue front-and-center. Good job, Senator. You grandstanding right-wing fuck.

[Shiranu]

Unfortunately... yeah, I respect him for this.

[NeoLogic26]

Interesting. I think it's good that we can still respect a person's actions even though we don't agree with them on some things. It's how we get along in society.

[mnmelt]

Rand Paul will never get my respect till he gets that F--ing rug off his F--ing head...!!!!

[billhilly]

Good for him and the others that have joined him.  We do need to have a serious discussion about whether or not any president can order the deaths of US citizens especially here in the US.  The obvious answer is hell no.

[stromboli]

I don't like Paul at all. But I honestly can't see a situation that justifies the use of drones in the continental U.S. for air strikes. Even surveillance is a bit iffy. For voicing that concern, I will give him credit.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't like Rand Paul. I don't like his politics, I don't like his blatant partisan lies, and I don't even like Kentucky. And I hate political grandstanding.

...

Today Rand Paul got his ass up there and talked. And talked, and talked, and - talked. And even though I think he's a dangerous demagogue and a grandstanding liar, I have to applaud his effort. Hell, he even chose an important issue to filibuster over, instead of some tea-party imaginary whine: he wants the President to clarify the administration's legal stance on drone strikes against US citizens on US soil. This is something Obama has been coy about, which is simply not acceptable.

I also applaud it.  I've been wary of him ever since he back-stabbed his dad in the 2012 presidential race.

But I also see the connection between his positions (the ones you despise) and the important issue to filibuster over.  Everyone who doesn't like him but grudgingly respects this particular act isn't seeing that connection.  Too bad.

[billhilly]

Don't worry about the connection between this and any other positions he holds.  It is enough that people can call bullshit on extrajudicial executions here in the states.  More please.

[Plu]

It always amazes me when people respect and applaud a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system in order to get their way when officially, they shouldn't be getting their way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I detest Rand Paul, but this is one hell of a good post, Dav.

[Shiranu]

It always amazes me when people respect and applaud a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system in order to get their way when officially, they shouldn't be getting their way.

I think you should research the purpose of the filibuster then, especially since he is one of the rare few who is using it properly.

[Plu]

A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill,[1] and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

Yeah, that sounds like a tactic specifically designed to obstruct the proper flow of the judicary system to me.

[Shiranu]

If its a part of the judiciary system, then it can't obstruct it

[Plu]

I guess that just makes it a dumb part of the judicary system, then.

[Shiranu]

I guess that just makes it a dumb part of the judicary system, then.

I think it has its rare usefulness, but I agree it is generally a harmful part of the law.

Sorry, that was a bit of a grammatical nitpick.