Rand Paul's Rant

[Robert Prey]

Normally I see the use of the fillibuster - or, rather, the use of the threat of a fillbuster - as some kind of political gamesmanship where the Rules Of Order are used to subvert the Will Of The People. But y'know what? I really do get jazzed at democracy in action, probably because it is so rare on Capitol Hill, and when the fillibuster is used with real passion, that's a glimpse of what I think Congressional debate is supposed to be - not endless blathering about rules, and cloture, and tables and whatnot but speeches with passion. misguided or otherwise.

Normally I have a low regard for the opinions of the Senator from Kentucky - despite the practical advantage of his followers being allied with me on some social libertarian causes I just can't stomach their philosophical underpinnings. I actually do agree considerably with his opinion about the Executive use of drones, and enjoy his realignment of the Democrats as the War Party (especially now in the time of Defense cutbacks due to sequestration.) But I can't help but be cynical at the political expediency of Paul trying to assert some leadership amidst the wreckage of the Republican Party.

But moreover, I see it as a good thing that once in awhile a member of Congress holds forth on what he really thinks about an issue.

The real purpose was to force the main stream in-the-tank-for Obama liberal media to cover an anti-Obama issue -- for once.

 

[grunion]

The real purpose was to force the main stream in-the-tank-for Obama liberal media to cover an anti-Obama issue -- for once.

Strange that the "Obama Liberal Media" can be "forced" to cover a story of Rand Paul's choosing when they were easily able to ignore a far more insightful filibuster by Senator Sanders speaking against the Tax Giveaway a couple months ago.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Sanders long speech wasn't a filibuster as it wasn't timed or intended to block action on anything like Pauls was (CIA Director nomination). A small but important distinction. Otherwise you could call just about every speech on the Senate floor a filibuster.

 

[fuelair]

McCain and Graham are two of the more reasonable guys in the GOP.
Which is why the Libertairians don't like them very much...

McCain used up all the honor he had within a short time following when he told that slime women that Obama was not a muslim 4 1/2 years ago.

 

[fuelair]

It runs in the family.......

Amazingly, it runs just like diarhea.

 

[grunion]

Sanders long speech wasn't a filibuster as it wasn't timed or intended to block action on anything like Pauls was (CIA Director nomination). A small but important distinction. Otherwise you could call just about every speech on the Senate floor a filibuster.

Neither Sanders' nor Paul's speeches were filibusters for exactly the reason you state. Both were intended to give pause to an impending Senate action to put their viewpoint on the record. The difference was that Rand Paul's was covered by the media.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

A filibuster is an unplanned interruption in the ongoing proceedings with the intent of slowing them down (usually, but not always, with some back room dealings going on to alter the legislation at hand or get some votes to go a certain way), that's what makes it a true filibuster. There were no ongoing proceedings going on when Sanders made his speech hence no filibuster. Otherwise you are correct in that both took up time on the Senate floor with a long speech.

It's a technicality but that's the difference.

Rand Pauls filibuster was really just a method of making his question a very public event and not to make some time for backroom dealings. Some may call it grandstanding (or Randstanding as some have called it), but if he had asked the question in any other format it would never had made the news and the answer may not have been so speedy or direct. So in his case it worked out the way he wanted it to.

 

[Ausmerican]

A filibuster is an unplanned interruption in the ongoing proceedings

Then grunion is correct to say that neither were filibusters. Unless you actually think Paul's routine was "unplanned".

To use your own phrase;
It's a technicality but that's the difference.

 

[SezMe]

As I understand it, it was unplanned in the sense that McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate leadership knew nothing of his intentions.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Then grunion is correct to say that neither were filibusters. Unless you actually think Paul's routine was "unplanned".

To use your own phrase;
It's a technicality but that's the difference.

In that case there would be no filibusters at all seeing as the person doing the filibuster has to know what he was going to do before he did it.

A filibuster in the United States Senate usually refers to any dilatory or obstructive tactics used to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

Sen. Pauls was a filibuster while Sen. Sanders was not. The difference being that nothing was being brought up for a vote when he started. I thought I made that clear when I said:

Sanders long speech wasn't a filibuster as it wasn't timed or intended to block action on anything

 

[Denver]

Paul spent 13 hours doing a live commercial for his 2016 presidential bid.

This could very well be. Or maybe more of leader in the GOP, as people begin to rally behind him for at least seeming like he is willing to DO something. (Not that he DID anything, but still).

 

[Toontown]

This could very well be. Or maybe more of leader in the GOP, as people begin to rally behind him for at least seeming like he is willing to DO something. (Not that he DID anything, but still).

Hey, Paul did something. He ranted for 13 hours about something that has not happened, is not planned, and is very unlikely to happen, based on a hypothetical.

If he accomplished anything at all of value, it was to demonstrate his utter uselessness.

 

[stevea]

Normally I see the use of the fillibuster - or, rather, the use of the threat of a fillbuster - as some kind of political gamesmanship where the Rules Of Order are used to subvert the Will Of The People.

Sometime when you can afford $2, I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the word "subvert". The longest filibuster in US history was a little over 24hrs and [Strom Thurmond, Democrat, senate member till his death in 2003, segregationist, arguing against the civil rights act of 1957].

A ~24hr delay, as strongly held minority opinions are expressed & argued, is not a subversion of the democratic process, but rather an expression of it. Congress is meant to be a deliberative body, where a 24hr delay can be of no great importance.

Instead the dangerous notion which is actually subversive to democracy, and recently mostly advance by progressives, is that minority opinions must be shouted down and suppressed. That people holding alternative views must be restricted, blacklisted and labeled with nasty epithets such as "racist" or otherwise stopped from expressing their opinions.

I have a lot more respect for Mr.Paul's position than Mr. Thurmond's, but both should have their say.

Hey, Paul did something. He ranted for 13 hours about something that has not happened, is not planned, and is very unlikely to happen, based on a hypothetical.

So, for example, if the police in your town announce that will shoot-to-kill jay-walkers then your position is that it "has not happened, is not planned" and therefore the threat can be ignored ? Ridiculous !.

Yes this sort of activity was actually planned & carried out already. What precisely is the case against Anwar al-Aulaqi once we reject "executive said so" is a valid argument ? What is the case for killing al-Aulaqi's 16yo son two weeks later ?

 

[grunion]

Sometime when you can afford $2, I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up the word "subvert".

Perhaps you can lend me your dictionary so I can find the source of your misunderstanding. Mine includes the words "or rather, the use of the threat of a filibuster" so I would imagine anyone as well-versed in the English language as you claim to be, and can afford the $2 for a dictionary, as you claim to be able to, would know what that phrase means as I used it. It has been what has effectively permitted a minority of 40 senators to threaten to block any legislation by threatening to filibuster it, and making a majority of 59 afraid to take action less their will be thwarted. Yes, this is a subversion.

The longest filibuster in US history was a little over 24hrs and [Strom Thurmond, Democrat, senate member till his death in 2003, segregationist, arguing against the civil rights act of 1957].

No. Filibusters against Civil Rights legislation in the 1940s and 1950s lasted for days and weeks. Thurmond's dubious record was only for that the longest individual speech. His mama must be proud, bless her heart.

A ~24hr delay, as strongly held minority opinions are expressed & argued, is not a subversion of the democratic process, but rather an expression of it. Congress is meant to be a deliberative body, where a 24hr delay can be of no great importance.

So I suppose you find Huey Long's recitation of Shakespeare plays and pot liquor recipes to be a significant contributor to democracy?

Instead the dangerous notion which is actually subversive to democracy, and recently mostly advance by progressives, is that minority opinions must be shouted down and suppressed. That people holding alternative views must be restricted, blacklisted and labeled with nasty epithets such as "racist" or otherwise stopped from expressing their opinions.

Perhaps you can point out the post in this thread where anyone called Rand a racist? Strom Thrmond and Robert Byrd were indeed racists; their use of the filibuster was only incidental to that fact.

 

[stevea]

Perhaps you can lend me your dictionary so I can find the source of your misunderstanding. Mine includes the words "or rather, the use of the threat of a filibuster" so I would imagine anyone as well-versed in the English language as you claim to be, and can afford the $2 for a dictionary, as you claim to be able to, would know what that phrase means as I used it. It has been what has effectively permitted a minority of 40 senators to threaten to block any legislation by threatening to filibuster it, and making a majority of 59 afraid to take action less their will be thwarted. Yes, this is a subversion.

I have no misunderstanding; your use of the term "subvert" is incorrect.

sub·vert
/səbˈvərt/
Verb
Undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution).
Synonyms
overthrow - overturn - demolish - undermine

Using the agreed-to parliamentary procedures to delay a vote while the minority expresses it's opposition is not subversion of the democratic process.

In post #1, you made the claim that filibuster is "used to subvert the Will Of The People", which is an argument to pure demagoguery. You don't speak for and can't assess the "Will of the People". The imperfect political system we have creates elected representatives that are obliged to respect the parliamentary rules, including filibuster, and further have the ability to stop filibusters by a cloture vote. No ! Filibuster is a generally accepted part of the process - not a subversion of some general hypothetical "Will", nor of the rules, nor of a democratic process.

No. Filibusters against Civil Rights legislation in the 1940s and 1950s lasted for days and weeks. Thurmond's dubious record was only for that the longest individual speech. His mama must be proud, bless her heart.

Fair enough - it depends on whether you take filibuster as a "prolonged speech [individual] intended to ..." or as the procedure more generally.

So I suppose you find Huey Long's recitation of Shakespeare plays and pot liquor recipes to be a significant contributor to democracy?

In the sense that it expressed the minorities strong opposition and potentially gathers support for further compromise - yes. It forces a form of deliberation - and the Senate is a deliberative body.

If you examine the context, Huey Long (a stinker) was enticing the Senate to temporarily adjourn by discussing food & drink after 13hrs of speech. So characterizing the general speech as about liquor, oyster recipes ,etc is a distortion. H.Long's 1933 filibuster against the 'Glass banking act' led to revisions in the Glass-Steagall act (the 1933 general banking act, not the 1932 G-S act) which should have reduced the tendency of banks to consolidate to their 'too big to fail' status. That is not a pointless exercise

No one knows or greatly cares what Rand Paul said - but it did gather some popular multi-party support and cause Holder to clarify his position. Yes, that's useful too.

 

[Toontown]

So, for example, if the police in your town announce that will shoot-to-kill jay-walkers then your position is that it "has not happened, is not planned" and therefore the threat can be ignored ? Ridiculous !.

Yes, your strawman "example" is quite ridiculous.

 

[Tricky]

Discussion of how Obama might hypothetically use drones to kill a bad guy American without running it by Congress first, even though it has never come close to happening? That's worth wasting a day of Senate time.

Discussion of how guns kill thousands of innocent Americans every year? Let's not talk about that.

 

[R.A.F.]

Discussion of how Obama might hypothetically use drones to kill a bad guy American without running it by Congress first, even though it has never come close to happening? That's worth wasting a day of Senate time.

Discussion of how guns kill thousands of innocent Americans every year? Let's not talk about that.

Hate to break this to ya....but you are just too smart to be a mod on this forum...

That was intended as a compliment.

 

[stevea]

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
So, for example, if the police in your town announce that will shoot-to-kill jay-walkers then your position is that it "has not happened, is not planned" and therefore the threat can be ignored ? Ridiculous !.

Yes, your strawman "example" is quite ridiculous.

You obviously don't understand what the term "strawman fallacy" means. I am not rebutting with a mischaracterization of my opponents position. I am drawing an analogy of my own construction. Fail !

Toontown said ....

He ranted for 13 hours about something that has not happened, is not planned, and is very unlikely to happen, based on a hypothetical

My point is obvious - It's perfectly ration, reasonable even necessary to rant and rally against extreme acts (like shooting jaywalkers) BEFORE it's ever happened while it is still hypothetical. Holder did in fact claim in hearings that the President/DOJ could kill Americans on American soil in previous testimony, when he was questioned about non-imminant threat persons by sen Cruz. Holder is a dangerous jackass.

Discussion of how Obama might hypothetically use drones to kill a bad guy American without running it by Congress first, even though it has never come close to happening? That's worth wasting a day of Senate time.

WHAT !!

First, Congress is not 007 - they have no license to kill. So if the executive and legislative branches collude to kill citizens w/o due process - it's still a crime. The exceptions are imminent threat or declared combatants.

Next - if you don't understand that three Americans have already been killed by drones, w/o any checks or constraints outside the executive - then you have no business in this thread. It's not hypothetical. There are currently no checks in the creation of the 'kill list'. It's more lawless ad hoc actions by government.

Only slack-jawed ninnies don't care about this issue,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=174597935

This is unacceptable,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi
even if we accept that the 16yo was 'collateral damage', exactly who does Obama think he is ? Killing multiple ppl an a restaurant in a non-hostile nation by drone is as much terrorism as launching missiles at a school bus. He has made us the terrorists.

 

[Olowkow]

McCain used up all the honor he had within a short time following when he told that slime women that Obama was not a muslim 4 1/2 years ago.

I agree, but actually the woman in red said "He's an Arab", or "...a Arab". McCain properly (well, sort of) disabused her of her notion: "No he's not. He's a decent person", etc. which in and of itself is kind of odd, if you really think about it. He has not done anything heroic since, in my opinion. He punched the religious right in the nose once, (Falwell) then proceded to backpedal on everything that decent people would have liked about him, including selecting Palin and never admitting she was a disaster.

Republicans are stuck with the bigoted image because they cultivated it, cherished it, giggled about it, and pandered to it. They all deserve what they have brought about upon their own persona.