If you want a fighter…
…you’ve got one in Rand Paul.
I’m not familiar enough with Paul’s positions to know whether I agree with him in general or not. I certainly am not especially keen on his father, although I do subcribe to a great deal of the libertarian approach. But I am in complete agreement that we need someone—or rather, a lot more than one—with the courage to stand up and do more to fight against the opposition rather than cave to them for the sake of collegiality, and who isn’t afraid to look a bit ridiculous in the process.
Truculence for truculence’s sake is not my goal, either, and it has to be done with intelligence. But it must be done. And yes, Paul’s cause was doomed; it was a sort of stunt. But it shows a spirit that’s needed, although that’s hardly all that’s needed.
That was one of the best things about Sarah Palin when she was first chosen to run, and it’s something I really admire in Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Arizona’s Jan Brewer as well. Christie certainly used to have it (not sure exactly what’s going on with him lately), as did Giuliani (one of the reasons I supported him long ago). It was one of the things I actually liked about Newt Gingrich, although the Grinchyness of his demeanor took away a lot of his appeal to the sort of voter he would have to attract. Reagan and Thatcher, of course, had it in abundance.
You’re right. And your post reminded me that I needed to make my annual pilgrimage to this 2 minute clip of Margaret Thatcher at her best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
Courage personified.
I am not a Paul fan either, & like you certainly not Paul. But I will disagree, I don’t think Rand Paul’s filibuster was a stunt. I think the man spoke from his heart. I think he hit some hard points, tactfully and at times obliquely, that the ‘Old Guard’ Republican’s, and certainly Graham and McCain, either fail to see, refuse to see, or are simply incapable of seeing. Points that many American’s do, or at the very least have concerns on.
I hope the ‘Young Turks’ will gain momentum, manage to stay focused, have some humility, and not do anything profoundly flaky to blow it.
I mean Ron Paul fan..
Kate: no, I didn’t mean it was a stunt in terms of his motivation at all. I meant a stunt because it had no chance of stopping the nomination, or even of changing Obama’s policy (which was the point of it, rather than anything about Brennan himself).
It fit the definition of the word “stunt” here, the first one in terms of “daring,” and also the second one. Sincerity or insincerity has nothing to do with it:
Rand Paul as candidate, opposing compulsory anti-discrimination laws as prescribed by the Civil Rights Act of ’64:
“In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior.”
Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, mildly rebuked Mr. Paul:
“I hope he can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
And Rand Paul relented:
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws. As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years” [Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight, Rand Paul for US Senate, May 20, 2010]
Even the staunchest of conservative Republicans, Jeff Sessions (R-AL,) sighed a long sigh of relief:
“I think that was settled a long time ago, and the country is better off.”
Better off!?
The Right abounds in the conservative palimpsest — an underlying conservatism/Libertarianism sufficiently scrubbed to allow for Republican electoral success.
If the men of liberalism find that aligning themselves with ‘women’, so to speak, is aided by estrogen replacement therapy perhaps the conservative men might take a clue and start boosting their testosterone.
Perhaps Mr. Paul has started treatments, we’ll see.
Neo,
We can probably agree that Rand Paul used a lesser ‘doomed’ cause to advance a greater cause–his understanding of the Constitution. If his act helps some think more about the Constitution, that greater cause was not hopeless.
Some deride Rand Paul’s fillibuster as folly. Throughout history, many have derided the notion that free people can govern themselves as folly.
I do not trust Rand Paul.
There is something about his appearance and demeanor that causes this.
I haven’t yet read this post carefully. Will in a moment, but first I must point out a huge usage howler — very unlike you, Neo. It’s not “ascribe to,” it’s “subscribe to.”
Mizpannts: Ooops! Haste/waste.
Will fix.
I also don’t trust Rand Paul.
I believe his true aim is to have the U.S. turn away from the war on terror because he, like his father, thinks it’s primarily payback for our mistreatment of Muslims and support of Israel, and that we should handle it much like a police matter.
Witness his effort to not renew the Patriot Act and his opposition to indefinite detention of captured Islamic terrorists.
And, most recently, his vote to approve Hagel for secretary of defense.
What Paul’s stunt did was to dramatically point out how desperate conservatives are for some sort of leader with cajones. If only someone would step up, and take it to BHO and the Dems, and not have a sullied past like Newt.
What it also showed, if it really needed showing, was the true nature of MCain and Graham, and the GOP establishment. If the Dems have turned red, then these two definitely qualify as at least a shade of pink. It also shows that the GOP establishment is more like the Dems of the 60’s. I know others disagree, but it certainly is looking like we need a 3rd party to eventually supplant the GOP. As it is now, the GOP is just what used to be called the moderate wing of the Democrats.
Andy McCarty argues at NRO that Paul was wrong to criticize drone usage on the constitutional basis rather than calling for changes in the Armed Use of Military Force laws, because the latter can be changed rather easily on the basis of a congressional vote, where as a Supreme Court decision has longer and unforseen consequences.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342568/what-rand-paul-misses-andrew-c-mccarthy
Sorry, Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
Ann,
Like you, I distrust Paul’s intent. He wants to sabotage the War on Terror.
expat,
The great John Yoo has argued the same legal distinction as McCarthy. Bush took a balanced approach by adopting an aggressive posture within a contained modular legal structure so the power could be removed once the need for it was over. Obama replaced Bush’s bright lines with an uncontained vague balancing test that is constitutionally dangerous.
The proper approach to protect the constutionality, per McCarthy and Yoo, is to restore Bush’s legal structure. But the Republicans run away from Bush’s legacy.
physicsguy,
I agree with you that Paul has seized the opportunity of weak GOP leadership and highlighted it.
My take: Protesting the constitutional danger of Obama’s approach is fine. However, the alternative to Obama’s approach that the GOP should be advancing that balances an aggressive posture in the War on Terror with constitutional integrity is the Bush approach, not the Paul approach.
The Left’s demonization of Bush and the inability of the Right to, then, counter the demonization and, now, rehabilitate Bush’s legacy continues to damage our national affairs.
“I don’t trust Rand Paul”.
Well, I don’t trust any politician. But, I sure as heck would be more likely to trust one that emphasizes Liberty.
I liked the notion of being a free person living in a free country. Was it an illusion?
The problem with McCain’s and Graham’s criticism of Paul is that they have been like dogs chewing a bone in trying to get answers from Obama about Ben Ghazi. An act that I support and wish would result in some answers from the administration.
IMO, Paul seized on the opportunity to hold up Brennan’s nomination because he felt the administration wasn’t being forthcoming about drone policy. He took dramatic action to force an answer. And it worked!
Why didn’t McCain and Graham see the opportunity to block Kerry’s nomination until the administration provided more answers about Ben Ghazi? IMO, because they are hung up on the idea of the Senate being a “Gentlemen’s Club.”
Paul made them look like second raters by taking on the administration so openly. Maybe that is the source of their angst.
McCain and Graham can say it (the drone policy) didn’t matter, that it wasn’t an issue of great importance, but Holder’s letter to Paul on the issue was just a continuing slap in the face for Congressional Republicans and the people they represent. They think they don’t have to give straight answers. Paul’s response got their attention. It was a good move.
RP” “I believe the support I received this past week shows that Americans are looking for someone to really stand up and fight for them. And I’m prepared to do just that.”
Instapundit: “Well, it’s a lot easier to win, if you’re willing to fight.”
May every conservative have Rand Paul’s spirit, and courage.
If have them had his intellect we’d wipe the floor with Democrats.
If we start fighting we will win. If we ever nominate a Romney or McCain ever for anything we deserve to lose.
Eric,
Good comment. Bush is still being blamed for things like Homeland Security and the TSA, which I think he would have been willing to change as problems arose. People forget that these things came right after 9/11 as a response to something that we didn’t know enough about. I seriously doubt that he would have been unwilling to change the groping or the new uniforms. No one has ever thought about how Obama would have responded to the attacks. Of course, we know that Obama is only good at criticizing, voting present, and letting his friend Valerie stick her finger to the wind before offering advice.
JJ,
I liked your point about the Gentlemen’s Club. There is a condescending air about McCain and Graham when they talk to Republicans and conservatives that drives me crazy.
JJ formerly says, “Why didn’t McCain and Graham see the opportunity to block Kerry’s nomination until the administration provided more answers about Ben Ghazi? IMO, because they are hung up on the idea of the Senate being a “Gentlemen’s Club.”
Excellent question followed by the correct answer. 😉
We need people in the GOP to stop playing nice and take the gloves off. There is no need to be gentlemanly when the opposition is so utterly loathsome and duplicitous.
Learned a new word today over at Ace of Spades.
eleutherophobia — fear of freedom. Fits the 51% who voted for BHO and his cohorts in congress, and it applies to McCain and Graham as well.
Mark Steyn, no shrinking violent, is also against the drone program because of what it represents- fecklessness, basically. And read this:
http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/mr-paul-goes-to-washington/ (She was a naval intelligence analyst).
But it was not only the stance on the issue here, but holding the administration to account. They feel they are beyond all of that, not from the press, not from Congress, and not from the People. He made them give an answer they, for some reason, did not want to provide.
Here’s the Steyn article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342564/panopticon-state-mark-steyn?pg=2
But it does amaze me that somehow we’ve all agreed that we can assassinate US citizens, no matter how bad they are, simply because they’re on foreign soil. We lose due process rights when we travel? Roman citizens had stronger rights.
holmes: “But it does amaze me that somehow we’ve all agreed that we can assassinate US citizens, no matter how bad they are, simply because they’re on foreign soil.”
In war, American citizens who join the enemy are not immune from the status of enemy. There are precedents for America killing enemy Americans in war, eg, the Americans who fought for their fatherland Germany against their country in the world wars.
An official state of war includes a legal framework. The challenge and controversy has been adapting the legal structure for conventional war to the unconventional War on Terror. On the question of American enemy combatants, Bush tried to retain as much as he could of the established legal framework in order to firewall the Constitution. Obama, in contrast, uses a looser threat standard, and that’s the issue. Neither President has given a free pass to terrorists with American citizenship. Bush just cared more about preserving the constitutional side of the balancing act than Obama does.
“In war, American citizens who join the enemy are not immune from the status of enemy. There are precedents for America killing enemy Americans in war, eg, the Americans who fought for their fatherland Germany against their country in the world wars.”
I am aware that some American citizens heard the call to defend the fatherland. They were viewed the same as any other German soldier, and rightly so. Americans on American soil in the “war on terror” will not be wearing jihad uniforms. Unless they are engaged in an act of violence against Americans on our soil, due process must be followed. Its called the 5th Amendment. It should not require a filibuster to clarify this issue.
Give power to a good tyrant, and good will result, mostly. Give power to an evil tyrant, and only evil results.
Trying to justify this by saying Obama might have made a good decision, is not seeing the true nature of evil. Well, there’s plenty of company for that. Just look at McCain and most other Republicans.
Neo,
Funnily, I agree with everything you say in that post. Over the past 8 or so years I have been searching for something politically and not really knowing what it was. I think I have finally gotten there (or at least close). I am looking for conservative policticans that understand the philosophy so deeply that their response to any issue whether thought out or extemperaneous is from a conservative place. That they have totally internalized the history of the country, where the governing philosophy, natural law, and all the rest of it comes from. I want them to draw from that well rather than from a “power point deep” level which is dependant on place or situation. I want them to be able to automatically question and correct premises and assumptions and then draw their answers from a deep understanding of conservatism.
I have a favorite quote (I think from “Finnegan’s Rainbow”) that goes: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers. That’s what the liberals do. They control the conversation. They set the tone, the assumptions, and the Repubs are continually left playing catch up. Paul turned the tables (and so did Cruz by not letting Holder get away) and stole the control. That’s what I’m looking for in a conservative.
In pariah mode: where is the declaration of war against whom? All along this has been a problem from my POV. Terrorism is a tactic. Identify nations that sanction, aid, and abet terrorism and declare, officially, war. Let loose the dogs/drones. Otherwise, its a continually shifting sight picture resulting in wasted blood and treasure. Forget about “nation building” and concentration on nation destroying. After it is completely destroyed we can talk about building. Otherwise, make rubble and stand back.
What makes an enemy an enemy? An enemy destroys the opponent’s land, culture, creation, and will.
The question of the geo constraints is merely one of resources. If America has enough resources it can keep some, most, or even all of it’s freedoms on its own land. America can defend itself except from itself.
If everybody would get on board and recongnize Islam for the horror and crime that it is, then America would quickly dispose of the problem.
But we won’t until it is nearly too late and in between that time and now we seek the power to combat Islam and Socialism because our academia, entertainment, culture, and gov’t suppresses the truth and ecourages its spread.
Our gov’t suppresses the truth to capitalize on the situation and grow large and socialize our institutions. Rand Paul sees the agreement between the two forces; he sees how both the socialists and Islamists are working together to destroy our country. If they are successful, there will be a fight between them, but after we have beens subdued, who cares.
So, you’re missing the point to argue about whether Paul’s filibuster was a stunt or whatever it was. How riduculous to even be attracted to that argument when the threat is the duo forces of Islam and Socialism cooperating together. Rand knows full out war is not possible and seeks to mitigate the consequences of a police state wherein the final assholes, the socialists, seek to overcome our Constitution. He knows we must fight the Socialists at home while fighting Islam abroad.
He defends the Constitution while our own Party, which is stupid beyond belief, focuses more on petty definitions than the incredible threat from Islam and Socialism.
Dumb asses.
It seems to me we have an enemy: pee cee authoritarian statism, or maybe call it by something else. I don’t care. But we must recognize that it’s an enemy and it’s not in a mood to take prisoners.
We are at war with them. McCain doesn’t see that, Graham doesn’t see that, Christie doesn’t see that; but a few, like Paul and Cruz, do see that. We gotta go with what/whom we’ve got.
We have to find the enemy’s weak spots, and focus like a laser on them [heard that expression before?].
Rand Paul found a weak spot, and he focused like a laser, and the good guys finally scored a hit when the authoritarian side blinked.
It’s a start.
No, the reason for the filibuster had nothing to do with the nomination at hand. At this point, I’ve stopped giving a %$#@ about niceties and whether holding up a nomination to publicize an unrelated issue is really a non-sequitur of sorts. We’ve got an enemy to defeat.
Was Rand Paul’s filibuster a stunt? I don’t give a %$#@ (the same one as in the preceding paragraph). We’ve got to get to work finding and exploiting weaknesses in the regime* before it’s too late. We’re already behind by a few decades. It was a stunt in the same way Sandra Fluke’s fifteen minutes of fame was a stunt. It derailed the opposition (with a little help from George Stephanolopous) and got Fluke’s side talking about what ^their^ side wanted to talk about. Never mind that it was a distraction and a fabrication.
(*by “regime”, I do ^not^ mean the current administration; I mean the regime of control of the culture and institutions by the authoritarians, which has been ongoing for quite some time now.)
Can’t vouch that this was Paul’s purpose, but I think he has opened the door to a much bigger question. How do we feel about all the control we have allowed the Feds to seize over our lives over the last 100 years? I don’t think I’m the only one here who would answer, “Strongly dislike”
I like Rand Paul and I would prefer he be in office right now, rather than that other guy. But that doesn’t mean that I have to look at that filibuster attempt and see anything but an attempt to increase his visibility with a doomed cause.
He’s a politician. This makes it rational for him to be a stuntman. But I don’t have to like that the people guiding my society have more in common with Evel Knieval than a presiding, non-activist leadership. I would like to think that Paul can go higher in the game, but for his libertarian approach to be successful, people would have to accept taking responsibility for their families and communities in ways they currently do not. He can sell “don’t tread on me” all day, but selling the notion of a government that doesn’t make a business of bailing out failure is quite a different thing.
The debate about the Rand Paul’s fillibuster is very instructive and highlights the differences in the Republican party as a whole. What some of us view as a valid question and reinforcement of constitutional rights, others view as a distraction from “real issues”.
On the one hand, we have the likes of McCain and Graham, who assure us they are busy focusing on what’s really important. Their mishandling and ineptitude during the Bhengazi hearings speaks for itself; they accomplished nothing and got slapped around (Hillary) or stonewalled by the rest of the suspects. Their best efforts are always spent destroying their own colleagues; many of whom are brighter and more imaginative.
On the other hand, there are a few senators not willing to take for granted that this administration accepts its responsibilities or understands its limitations under the law, and they are villified for being trivial in demanding the administration acknowlege what ought to be obvious. Even while the administration has appalled most Republicans with its lack of regard the constitution or its responsibilities, McCain assumes the administration will behave within those bounds. His unbelievable naiivete is what got his ass kicked in 2008, and continues unabated today.
McCain and Graham objected to the “stunt” simply because it draws attention away from them. The 2 of them are utterly useless in advancing even moderately conservative policy.