I'm a bit tired this morning after watching about 10 hours of Senator Rand Paul's epic filibuster yesterday. It was "only" 13 hours long, but it was also the only filibuster I can think of that stuck to a narrow policy focus the entire time -- no discursions or tangents and no reading from a phone book.

There was much discussion about the benefits and downsides of drone warfare, but Paul was laser-focused on the problem being that the Administration wouldn't rule out as unconstitutional a drone strike on an American on U.S. soil who is not posing an imminent national security threat. He was principled, charming, engaging, thoughtful, and solid as a rock.

I had my children watch some of this wonderful and historical moment. The 3-year-old calls Paul "the other President" and says "he talks the most." I'm hoping this is prescience.

In a thread yesterday, member John Walker wrote:

I do not recall watching something which gave me as much hope about turning around the U.S. since Reagan's “A Time for Choosing” speech in 1964.

And that was hours before Ted Cruz read from that speech late in the filibuster to help Paul out! The Washington Post analyzed the filibuster's political effect (in a piece that quotes our very own Rick Wilson):

What Paul proved during his “filiblizzard” — it hurts so good to write that — is that he is a politician with a) a core set of beliefs  and b) a willingness to stand up for them.

That’s a rare thing in modern American politics where the tendency is to find where the public — or the primary electorate — is on a given issue and then find a way to get there.

What inspired so many people -- and was appealing across the aisle, too -- was just that: leadership in the eternal fight for liberty.

Or as Jim Geraghty put it:

A day that was supposed to be just another Washington snow day brought us something we haven't seen in a long time: an honest-to-goodness, in-keeping-with-the-Constitution, old-fashioned filibuster, all over a basic, fundamental concept central to our founding: the power of the central government is limited, and the government's authority to exercise lethal force must be particularly and specifically limited. 

The Republican senators who participated in the filibuster with Paul include Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

In terms of being principled and winsome on this fight, Lee, Cruz, and Barrasso were also highly impressive.

Ace of Spades wrote:

I have the same feeling of receding cynicism I did when the Tea Party first exploded on to the scene and began doing things that just weren't done in America anymore -- taking politics seriously, taking the Founders' legacy to us seriously, showing up at Town Halls to ask their once and future representatives some real questions, engaging, questioning, insisting, demanding.     

There was a time 200 years ago when this was commonplace. Americans had just won their liberty and were enthused about it.  They treated their civic duty not as a mere duty but as the highest aspiration of political man...

But this filibuster is bigger even than that issue (which is itself large).  This filibuster is about the basic character of a Democratic Republic, and restoring that character to good working order.

Exactly. The filibuster is done and Brennan's nomination will be approved. But something big happened yesterday even if everyone in big media will obscure it.

Comments:


Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

and no reading from a phone book.

I was only trying to help.

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

I woke up yesterday morning feeling a little down at the mouth - and not just because I had a dream about eating a giant marshmallow ;-)

Then I watched the Filiblizzard, saw that even though Conservatives were not going to win this day either, it was not for lack of a fight.

That picks me up.  I leave you with an image of hope (not the one you'd expect)

Worf, Son of Mogh

Joined
Jan '12
Barbara Kidder

"He was principled, charming, engaging, thoughtful and solid as a rock."

This is the best line that I have read about Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster!

It really does boil down to, 'character', for all the talent and political acumen  will not save the Republic, without virtue.

das_motorhead
Joined
Dec '10
das_motorhead

I loved it. Watching was like sitting in front of a game in overtime; so tired but couldn't pull away from the TV. Paul scored big.

An honest question, though, Mollie - what about Paul's vote for Hagel? Plenty of people around here thought he was being disingenuous for approving Hagel but filibustering Brennan. Was it a matter of allowing the president to have the cabinet he wants? Why not abstain, as some suggested? It's not a loaded question, I really don't know enough to have an answer; I'm curious how you would explain it.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

On the contrary, Rand Paul's 12-plus hour evisceration of a strawman is a symptom of our increasing cynicism.

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

BTW, I saw at Politico that the people who hate Rand Paul & Republicans really only have three things to say about them.

One is "Queen". 

(Another is "moron", which is a word for, well, Morons who lack the imagination to come up with other, more eloquent terms for people who lack intelligence or fail to apply it - "dullard", for instance.)

Being a New Yorker, I know one particular meaning for "Queen".  And although I find the lifestyle strange and do not endorse it, I think that Liberals should think about how much hard work this particular Queen has put into looking better than many women do.

Ru Paul

 I know this because I worked with an Army Staff Sergeant who went to a bar and was very impressed with how well put together a cross-dresser there was.  Perhaps this is because Ru Paul did not start out with the natural advantage of being a woman.  In the same way,  people with flawed voices often sing better than people born with with perfect pitch.

At any rate, I do wish Liberals thought more about their insults.  Their choices reflect poorly on the characters and their intellects.

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

From about 1:00 pm yesterday afternoon, I was watching. I streamed it live while I worked, then drove home and turned it on there. Had to pause a bit while I took the kids to church, then came home and watched again until Rand Paul finally gave in to the urging of his bladder.

It was fantastic. I'm glad I was there. And yes, I allowed myself to hope.

I came away very impressed with Ted Cruz, too.

Paul/Cruz, 2016!

Joseph Paquette
Joined
Oct '12
Joseph Paquette

DrewInWisconsin: From about 1:00 pm yesterday afternoon, I was watching. I streamed it live while I worked, then drove home and turned it on there. Had to pause a bit while I took the kids to church, then came home and watched again until Rand Paul finally gave in to the urging of his bladder.

It was fantastic. I'm glad I was there. And yes, I allowed myself to hope.

I came away very impressed with Ted Cruz, too.

Paul/Cruz, 2016! · 2 minutes ago

Cruz is a naturalized citizen and can't run for any higher office, I think that's why he's fearless in the senate.  Try Paul/Ayotte as a great alternative.  Cruz should stay right where he is and run the senate when the Republican's are in the majority. 

Joseph Paquette
Joined
Oct '12
Joseph Paquette

Rand Paul has shown that the Republican's can grab the high ground on liberty.  You can be tough on crime and defend liberty. 

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

I thought it sad that this was the tactic left to Rand Paul.

But whose fault is that?  Obama & Company will not treat with "dross" like Rand Paul.  So a Filibuster over a straw man it is.

It is not for Rand Paul to clarify for Barack Obama that he his not an Emperor.  It is for the American people, half of whom were too cynical to vote in 2012, to do so.

You fight the fight using the tactics and tools that are at hand and make sense.  So long as you fight.

Imagine a warrior with the best of weapons encountering an opponent with no training defending his family with only a 2'X4'.  If that warrior has any sense of dignity, he will yield.  He is trained and equipped.  His opponent has only his heart and what was at hand.  Who is the better warrior at that moment.

Sadly, Obama has none of the dignity of a warrior.

Scott Reusser: On the contrary, Rand Paul's 12-plus hour evisceration of a strawman is a symptom of our increasing cynicism. · 6 minutes ago
dittoheadadt
Joined
Oct '10
dittoheadadt

"But something big happened yesterday even if everyone in big media will obscure it."

Isn't that self-refuting? If Big Media obscure, ignore, and/or misreport it (as I've seen already), then something "big" happened only in the abstract, not in reality or in practical terms, because it will be lost on most of the American people.

It's the old "if a tree falls in the woods..." thing, isn't it?

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

dittoheadadt:"But something big happened yesterday even if everyone in big media will obscure it."

Isn't that self-refuting? If Big Media obscure, ignore, and/or misreport it (as I've seen already), then something "big" happened only in the abstract, not in reality or in practical terms, because it will be lost on most of the American people.

It's the old "if a tree falls in the woods..." thing, isn't it? · 2 minutes ago

Well, I think the big problem is that many folks have been despairing. That despair is related to everything from the lack of principled leadership to the media partisanship. So even if the big media ignores what happened yesterday, we didn't -- we saw and heard and share through the myriad other outlets.

dittoheadadt
Joined
Oct '10
dittoheadadt

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

dittoheadadt:"But something big happened yesterday even if everyone in big media will obscure it."

Isn't that self-refuting? If Big Media obscure, ignore, and/or misreport it (as I've seen already), then something "big" happened only in the abstract, not in reality or in practical terms, because it will be lost on most of the American people.

It's the old "if a tree falls in the woods..." thing, isn't it? · 2 minutes ago

Well, I think the big problem is that many folks have been despairing. That despair is related to everything from the lack of principled leadership to the media partisanship. So even if the big media ignores what happened yesterday, we didn't -- we saw and heard and share through the myriad other outlets. · 0 minutes ago

Agree wholeheartedly. What I meant was, it'll be lost on the low-information voter (which is a majority, I think) because the media won't report it properly.  So while it was a great event, a momentous event for us, I think it'll be little more than an American footnote in the long run.

Fricosis Guy
Joined
Jun '11
Fricosis Guy

I reject the premise of many commenters that this was ignored by the MSM. I saw a number of reports in the MSM acknowledging the filibuster, largely because it was a real filibuster that could be constrated with faux filibusters. Holding the floor shows conviction in a way that cannot be easily dismissed.

Also, this filibuster seems like it was well orchestrated by Paul and company.  Could we have a few senators who have a clue? 

Edited to rework unclear first sentence, which made it appear Mollie said MSM was ignoring the story.

Edited on March 7, 2013 at 5:23pm
Eric Wallace
Joined
Feb '12
Eric Wallace

The biggest error is to assume anyone saw the filibuster. We saw it so now it's our job to tell everyone else about it. We already know we can't count on anyone else to tell the story - the ground game never ends.

Albert Arthur
Joined
Oct '11
Albert Arthur
Eric Wallace: The biggest error is to assume anyone saw the filibuster. We saw it so now it's our job to tell everyone else about it. We already know we can't count on anyone else to tell the story - the ground game never ends. · 2 minutes ago

The crews at Commentary and Powerline obviously didn't see it, because they are yammering on about how Paul is so ideologically opposed to drones that he won't concede the federal government should be able to use them to counter an imminent threat. I lost count of the number of times that Paul stated that he did not dispute this. Sadly, Jonathan Tobin, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff, and John Hinderaker are missing the point.

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

What was that skirmish that George Washington mounted which helped keep the Continental Army together?

It was in New Jersey, and the Continental Army crossed over from Pennsylvania (& Valley Forge) on Christmas Eve to do it.

Albert Arthur
Joined
Oct '11
Albert Arthur

das_motorhead: 

An honest question, though, Mollie - what about Paul's vote for Hagel? Plenty of people around here thought he was being disingenuous for approving Hagel but filibustering Brennan. Was it a matter of allowing the president to have the cabinet he wants? Why not abstain, as some suggested? It's not a loaded question, I really don't know enough to have an answer; I'm curious how you would explain it. · 1 hour ago

It's my opinion that Paul voted for Hagel precisely so that he could filibuster and say, "this is not a partisan issue. I voted for the president's nominees. This is about principle. I would be here regardless of whether the president was a Democrat or a Republican."

Tom Meyer
Joined
Jan '11
Tom Meyer

I cannot overstate how pleased I am with Paul's performance.

I'm making a donation to his war chest this afternoon.

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.

das_motorhead:

An honest question, though, Mollie - what about Paul's vote for Hagel? Plenty of people around here thought he was being disingenuous for approving Hagel but filibustering Brennan. Was it a matter of allowing the president to have the cabinet he wants? Why not abstain, as some suggested? It's not a loaded question, I really don't know enough to have an answer; I'm curious how you would explain it. · 1 hour ago

It's a fine question but I'm not the person to answer it.

I had no problem with Paul's vote for Hagel. I liked that he voted against cloture in an attempt to get more answers from the administration but I don't have the problem with Hagel that many here do.

Some would say, though, that senators should vote to approve nominations except under extreme circumstances.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In