Gay Patriot Header Image

“Mr. Paul Goes to Washingon” – the ending

Rand Paul’s filibuster ended yesterday, after 13 hours. Neither Bruce nor I were clear on how to turn off GP’s post that was counting it, so…it’s gone. We executed it (so to speak). But where did America end up?

  • Before: A poll showed that fully 41% of Democrats think the president should be able to order pre-emptive drone strikes on American soil without review or oversight (that is, “on his own” in the poll’s wording).
  • After: The Democrat-led Senate has refused to pass this resolution, “Expressing the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute Americans on American soil”.

I think that means: according to the Senate, if Obama decides that you are a “suspected terrorist”, he could execute you and your family in a drone strike on your home. At least, the question is open. Obama’s America, Forward!

UPDATE (from the comments): heliotrope informs us that Senator Paul has just received a letter from Attorney General Holder, writing that the president does NOT “have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.” That’s better.

UPDATE: Republican senators McCain and Graham are clueless as ever, while liberal comedian Jon Stewart praises Rand Paul, sort of.



  1. My guess is that 41% of Democrats entertain fantasies of drones firing missiles at Tea Party rallies.

    Comment by V the K — March 7, 2013 @ 2:53 pm - March 7, 2013

  2. Rand Paul has just declared victory due to a Carney/Holder release:

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

    Paul said that was good enough for him. “I’m quite happy with the answer,” he said during a CNN interview. “I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer.”

    This was accomplished by standing up to the President and Holder through the use of Senate “theatrics” which did not require a complex strategy campaign or working to get the media on board.

    Lin-Cain have come out screaming at Rand, but they are going to circling the rinse water drain on this one.

    Well done, Rand Paul. You reached out and touched someone and someone folded like a cheap suit.

    See how easy it is when you have the strength to stand on the truth?

    Comment by heliotrope — March 7, 2013 @ 3:04 pm - March 7, 2013

  3. Lin-Cain… is that like Lincoln? or Lidocain? 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 7, 2013 @ 4:01 pm - March 7, 2013

  4. Lin-Cain is an atypical application that gives you hemorrhoids. Is there any hope that Twiddle Lindsay and Twaddle John will just ride off into the sunset and write their memoirs?

    I cannot recall any other joined-at-the-hip buddy team in the Senate.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 7, 2013 @ 4:22 pm - March 7, 2013

  5. Rand got his confirmation that the “Killer in chief” can’t kill us while we are doing nothing. Brennan gets to be CIA director by a 63-34 vote.

    So, the real question about what Rand did is: Did Rand Paul just move to the head of the line for 2016? Hmmmmmmmm!

    Comment by mixitup — March 7, 2013 @ 5:00 pm - March 7, 2013

  6. Well, kudos to sent. Paul! Leadership!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 7, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - March 7, 2013

  7. Rush Limbaugh interviews Sen Rand Paul “You are a hero to a lot of people today”…

    Comment by Steve — March 7, 2013 @ 9:56 pm - March 7, 2013

  8. So, the real question about what Rand did is: Did Rand Paul just move to the head of the line for 2016?

    He did as far as THIS particular conservative/libertarian is concerned.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — March 8, 2013 @ 4:40 am - March 8, 2013

  9. Yes, he moved to the head of the line with me, but not with the “old guard” GOP.
    I don’t if the political machine is there to take him to the White House. So we end up with Hillary 2016?

    Comment by Linda Strickland — March 8, 2013 @ 11:06 am - March 8, 2013

  10. Interesting excerpt from Jonathan Moseley’s article at — highlighting the guidelines for defeating left’s propaganda machine.

    Rand Paul unveiled a conservative answer to the Left’s Saul Alinsky tactics:

    • Rand Paul shoved Obama’s agenda off the public stage. Just getting the political world talking about Republicans’ message instead of Obama’s means Republicans are winning and Obama is losing.

    • Rand picked his issue very carefully. He chose the hill he wanted his opponent to die on. Rand showed what happens when you wisely pick the right issue to defeat your opponent with.

    • Yet Rand’s issue seamlessly fit within his larger philosophy. He didn’t just take a cheap shot. Rand chose an example that proves his larger point. As a caller to the Chris Plante show on Washington’s WMAL said, “the biggest minority in America is the individual.” Rand’s filibuster fit within Rand’s overall defense of individual liberty. The specific point created an effective argument supporting his larger theme.

    • Rand advanced his strategic goal. The entire filibuster episode portrayed a radically different image of Barack Obama. Even among low information voters, Obama’s public image just took a serious hit. Instead of being the cool guy who loves you, Obama is now the tyrant who reserves the right to kill you any time he feels like it. On an emotional level, Rand Paul undid in one day years of spin about Obama.

    • Rand had a sense of the role of theatrical drama. Conservatives are rightly wary of selling an invalid argument. But even to promote the truth, one must understand that humans are emotional beings. Communicating a message in a crowded, busy world requires a feel for the dramatic.

    • So Rand did this in a way difficult for the news media to ignore. In politics, if a tree falls in the forest and the news media doesn’t report it, it never happened.

    • Rand then hammered the issue perfectly. Who can defend U.S. Government drones assassinating American citizens inside America if they are not engaged in any violence? The issue is a blinding searchlight leaving the critters nowhere to hide. You can’t say it doesn’t matter. And there’s no defense.

    • Rand focused like a laser beam, anticipating the misrepresentation and caricatures he knew would be attempted. He repeatedly emphasized, probably a dozen times an hour, how modest his request was. He understood how his actions would be lied about, and cut the scoundrels off at the pass. He repeated what he wasn’t demanding, what he wasn’t arguing. He emphasized how he had voted for Obama’s other nominees.

    • Rand wasn’t careless. His argument withstood scrutiny. And it got scrutiny. Yet he had a solid argument. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin asked about killing Osama Bin Laden. But Seal Team 6 was trying to arrest Bin Laden. It was Bin Laden’s violence in resisting arrest that got him killed. Rand repeatedly emphasized that inside the USA the government should arrest people and question them, not assassinate them.

    • Rand was nimble. He admitted that he hadn’t planned the filibuster. But when the Obama Administration repeatedly confirmed that they believe the president has the authority to murder U.S. citizens inside the USA when they are not actively attacking anyone, Rand saw an opening and pounced. But he had the wisdom to know if it was a good opportunity or not.

    • Rand Paul had guts.

    Read more:

    Comment by Jane Austen — March 8, 2013 @ 3:57 pm - March 8, 2013

  11. I heard an interview with Rand Paul in which he talked about how measured he was in his filibuster language so that he would not be sidetracked into defending his language as opposed to keeping the focus targeted and precise. That is a very smart strategy. Too many politicians blindside themselves and walk straight into a haymaker.

    Samson slew the Philistine using the jawbone of an ass. Many Republicans wander off topic and use the same instrument to knock themselves out.

    “Hence that general is skilful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skilful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.”
    ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    Comment by heliotrope — March 9, 2013 @ 4:42 pm - March 9, 2013

  12. Civil liberties are a major issue that Democrats have ceded – they have to, it gets in he way of their progressive goals. If only the GOP were smart enough to take it up. Big government is not just about spending and fiscal issues alone are not inspiring. Drones and data, these are 21st century issues. You don’t have to be paranoid to see that. it is all of a piece. Everywhere you look the individual is losing while Government invents new rights or itself.

    Comment by El Gordo — March 10, 2013 @ 4:48 pm - March 10, 2013

  13. […] “Mr. Paul Goes to Washingon” – the ending […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » McCain doesn’t get it — March 10, 2013 @ 5:51 pm - March 10, 2013

  14. Just curious, were is this poll documented, aside from a conservative website? The linked article doesn’t note where it came from. Also, if you accept the results of this poll, in the slightly different question (US Government is used in the place of “President”), indicates that 47% of Republicans approve of this type of drone attack.

    In addition, in comparing the 2 questions, it’s odd that the majority of the groups drop around 10% or more in the area of US vs. President authorizing force, except Dem (only a 3% drop) and non-white (6%).

    Comment by Kevin — March 15, 2013 @ 12:50 am - March 15, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.