Patterico's Pontifications


Rand Paul’s Epic Filibuster

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:52 pm

I have been working all day and haven’t seen any of it, but it appears to have gotten quite a bit of attention. Consider this your open thread while I search for good links about it. Hopefully I can find some clips.

UPDATE: Fox News has a live feed here. Let me look for one that can be embedded. Someone else is speaking right now.

UPDATE x2: Here is an embed from Raw Story. It is an autostart, so I am tucking it beneath the fold.

UPDATE x3: I am adding more video to the post, so I am tucking the autostart embed of the filibuster to this page.

UPDATE x4: Courtesy of DRJ, here is a “question” from Ted Cruz — really a joining of the filibuster to give Rand Paul a break.

Part 2:

UPDATE x5: Here is Marco Rubio joining in:

DRJ also notes that, while these Senators are filibustering, other Senators are dining out with Obama.

We are seeing the difference between Tea Party Senators and other Senators, right here.

UPDATE x6: Here is Democrat Senator Ron Wyden joining in.

Harry Reid was not so amused, and tried to stop it.


I want more video of Paul talking about what he reads on the Internet and such. I heard a lot about that.

UPDATE x7: I think there is a chance that this may be a bigger moment than we realize.

This may be an epochal moment when people finally feel as though Republicans — well, some of them, anyway — are actually standing up for what they believe in.

UPDATE 9:42 p.m.: “I yield the floor.” It’s over.


  1. Share any good links you find in comments.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 5:52 pm

  2. Senator Ted Cruz. Part 2 is here.

    Plus he didn’t forget to Remember the Alamo.

    And before I saw this post, I posted a comment on the other thread comparing the Senators’ filibuster regarding why the President or Attorney General won’t assure us he won’t kill Americans on US soil who don’t post an imminent threat. Compare that with Senators McCain, Graham, and other GOP Senators who aren’t filibustering. Instead they are dining out with Obama.


    Comment by DRJ (8b9d41) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:06 pm

  3. Senator Marco Rubio.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:17 pm

  4. Senator Ron Wyden.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:18 pm

  5. Senator Harry Reid tries to end the filibuster.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:20 pm

  6. National Review has posted selections from several of the filibuster speakers.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:22 pm

  7. Ten quotes from his filibuster:


    “Mr. President, are you going to have ‘Terrorist Tuesdays’ for Americans? Are you going to put up and pass them around the table in the Oval Office, with pictures of Americans on them, and decide who’s going to die and who’s going to live?”

    “Has America the Beautiful become Alice’s Wonderland? Sentence first, verdict afterwards.”

    We need “an answer from the President” — for him to “say explicitly that non-combatants in America won’t be killed with drones.”

    Can the President “say he’s going to secretly accuse you of a crime, and that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to you?”

    “It’s a little late after the drone strike for the person to say, ‘I didn’t really mean what I said in that e-mail.’”

    Comment by Badger Pundit (d64cbc) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:29 pm

  8. I think this is the video of Senator Rand Paul addressing whether internet activism can be treasonous. He uses Jane Fonda as an example.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:40 pm

  9. I certainly find Brennan the worst of a very bad crew of cabinet appointees. It’s interesting McVain puts the principle of comity above human lives.

    I’ll bet he has other principles too.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:40 pm

  10. He is compelling.

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:44 pm

  11. Here is a C-Span link for another live feed.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:47 pm

  12. Senator John Barrasso is speaking now.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:48 pm

  13. I like this comment by Glenn at his blog:

    “The best part was when Rand Paul sought unanimous consent for a sense of the Senate resolution that the President shouldn’t kill American citizens in America — and Democrats, led by Dick Durbin, objected.”

    Sure gives you the Warm & Fuzzies all over, doesn’t it?

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:53 pm

  14. Senator Barrasso is reading one of Senator Rand Paul’s letters to AG Holder. One concerns the FISA standards to issue a wiretap on an American citizen on U.S. soil who is suspected of aiding the enemy. Paul points out that although FISA requires court approval to issue a wiretap, according to Holder’s letter the federal government may be able to issue a drone strike and kill the very same person.

    Paul also asked Holder for statistics regarding how many foreign drone strikes were ineffective, mistaken, or resulted in deaths of people who were not targets or it was later learned should not have been targets.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:56 pm

  15. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:40 pm

    When Jane crawled up on that AA-gun for a photo-op, she committed Treason!

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 3/6/2013 @ 6:59 pm

  16. Now Senator Paul is addressing whether the Obama Administration believes the threat must be imminent. He asked Senator Cruz to address that, and Cruz is starting to speak.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:04 pm

  17. This is awesome and still going on.

    “It don’t get no better than this.”

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:05 pm

  18. I think there is a chance that this may be a bigger moment than we realize.

    This may be an epochal moment when people finally feel as though Republicans are standing up for what they believe in.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:08 pm

  19. How will Messina, Axelknob, Plouffinstuff and the rest turn this on the TEA PARTY??

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:13 pm

  20. #17 Patterico, I thought the exact same thing. Let’s hope this moment shows the GOP how to fight back. This is NOT making Obama look good.

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:14 pm

  21. The honorable junior Senator from Texas just finished speaking. I never watch CSPAN, but this is fun and interesting.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:19 pm

  22. The honorable junior Senator from Texas just finished speaking.

    Actually not!

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:22 pm

  23. Youngstown Steel and Shakespeare.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:33 pm

  24. The nice thing about real filibusters being a thing of the past is that, when you do one, it’s dramatic.

    And it’s being done quite well.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:35 pm

  25. This is more than just a thing.

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:36 pm

  26. Ha! You are right. Maybe he will continue for a while.

    I know everyone on the left wants to paint him as some kind of stupid racist, misogynist Tea Party hick.

    That’s kind of hard to do when he is a Harvard Law graduate with credentials as good as the President’s.

    Of course, they now attack him because he was born in Canada(!!) and his father was a Cuban refugee(!!eleventy).

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:37 pm

  27. We band of brothers — wow, it seems like he’s talking directly to the scumbags dining with Obama, mocking them for not being there.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:37 pm

  28. This beats the TV speech that launched the Tea Party.

    Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:38 pm

  29. Patterico, I am fond of my Senator Ron Johnson, and I know him a little bit. I am very disappointed at his little chat with Greta just now. Obama is the SCORPION. He cannot be trusted. We threw Gotti in jail along with the key. Do NOT trust Obama. He CANNOT be trusted.

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:43 pm

  30. I don’t want to get ahead of the game, but this may be a new rally point for the right and the people who are right.

    I’m watching it and I know that lefties have no idea what is going on. Kos and TPM are largely ignoring.

    Thirty million watched History Sunday night. We may have lost, but we are not defeated.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:44 pm

  31. Rand Paul uses hyperbolic scenarios to paint a picture of peaceful innocent citizens being attacked by Obama while he endorses the elimination of laws that protect women, minorities and other vulnerable classes.

    This is the guy who thinks we should repeal the Civil Rights Act.

    Comment by Dad (b17026) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:51 pm

  32. Someone is going to have to explain the difference between comity and comedy to Chris Matthews tomorrow.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:52 pm

  33. It’s not the top story — not even close — but it looks like the major networks are covering the filibuster. (Although CNN is doing everything it can not to.) It will be interesting to see how they try to frame it tomorrow.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:54 pm

  34. We at know about Medellin, the case Ted Cruz is discussing now.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:56 pm

  35. I didn’t know Cruz sits in Barry Goldwater’s old Senate seat.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 7:57 pm

  36. Wow, Dad. So you think that women, minorities and other vulnerable classes are too stupid to protect themselves without the wisdom of government?

    I just looked at a calendar. It’s 2013. Catch up.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:00 pm

  37. One scary thing is that Holder wrote that letter in response to a professed desire from his boss.

    And he had a chance to redeem himself somewhat by finally doing the right thing, instead he may get his president impeached

    Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:02 pm

  38. Dad, don’t you have a Sandra Fluke Contraceptive FUND RAISER to attend??

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:03 pm

  39. Dad drives by without even watching what is going on.


    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:05 pm

  40. This just in CHRISSY MATTHEWS got a THRILL…………………hehheheehehhe…………….DOWN HIS LEG…tonight.

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:13 pm

  41. Rand is back. Wouldn’t it be something if he could set a record?

    Oh, here’s Rubio again.

    Comment by Patterico (73e7c0) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:14 pm

  42. Rubio is up. Is anyone watching this?

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:14 pm

  43. I don’t want to turn this off. It feels historic.

    Comment by Patterico (73e7c0) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:16 pm

  44. Yes Patterico, but the issue on the table is THE SEQUESTER. Brennan is going to be CIA Director. I pray that this is a START of something.

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:20 pm

  45. I’m watching, on and off. This is fun.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:21 pm



    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:24 pm

  47. Rand Paul:

    “The Fifth Amendment is not optional.”

    That would be tomorrow’s soundbite on every major network if this were a Democrat talking about the Bush Administration.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:25 pm

  48. Senator John Thune is speaking now. One of the things that is most interesting is which side each GOP Senator has picked. The filibustering Senators vs the 12 bipartisan GOP Senators who dined with Obama:

    The dinner, which was requested by Obama, was organized by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and included 11 additional Republican members of the upper chamber: Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John McCain (Ariz.), Dan Coats (Ind.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), John Hoeven (N.D.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.).

    I would be very unhappy if I were a conservative resident of red states like Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Georgia.

    I bet the media will lionize the dining Senators tomorrow and portray them as great statesmen.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:31 pm

  49. The funniest thing about this filibuster is that all the bright lights of the right are arguing a point that is one of the most important rights of the left except when it’s inconvenient to their beloved leader.

    Is it any wonder people are disillusioned? Except they still keep voting for the fools who cause the disillusionment.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:33 pm

  50. Coburn, has learned nothing from his previous outreach to Obama.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:34 pm

  51. Thank you DRJ! Now we know who to blame.

    The Minority Leader is now speaking. I will give him props for showing up instead of eating with the President.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:37 pm

  52. Senator McConnell is speaking. Here is my best effort at transcribing a couple of his statements:

    “Does the Administration take the view that a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is constitutional (he may have said appropriate)?”

    “I think it’s entirely appropriate that the Senator from Kentucky engage in an extended debate … and I want to congratulate him for his tenacity and conviction and for being able to rally a number of his colleagues …”

    McConnell concluded by congratulating Paul on his “extraordinary effort.”

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:39 pm

  53. Senator Pat Toomey is speaking and praising Paul. I guess he just got out of the Obama dinner and wants to please both sides.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:40 pm

  54. Way to go, Toomey. I think I might wear a red tie to work tomorrow. I think red ties or scarfs may be a good idea. We didn’t choose the color, but there’s no reason to ignore it.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:44 pm

  55. “Dad”a comment is instructive insofar as it tells what one of the let’s memes will be.

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:45 pm

  56. As I type this, the Senator will have held the floor into a 13th hour.

    Somewhere, Jimmy Stewart is smiling.

    Comment by Ed from SFV (bc726e) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:47 pm

  57. Well they didn’t use a drone, but Holder brought a swat team down on a Little Havana neighborhood, to order to render ‘state property’ back to Cuba, and they are still calling a terrorist attack ‘a workplace accident’ right.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:48 pm

  58. Too bad Toomey had to go to dinner with the President. At least he showed up.

    I hope this goes on, but I have to go to bed. I’m not a Senator and I have mouths to feed.

    Comment by Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:48 pm

  59. ==I didn’t know Cruz sits in Barry Goldwater’s old Senate seat.==

    I didn’t either DRJ. I take that as good Karma for Cruz.

    Comment by elissa (bd8b1c) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:49 pm

  60. Ag80,

    I suspect that Toomey’s appearance — and McConnell’s, and all the other Senators waiting in line to speak — tells us which optics are resonating with the PR folks with the GOP. They stayed away this afternoon but they aren’t now. I’d like to know what the Congressional switchboard is doing.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:53 pm

  61. It is good Karma, and it’s even better (to me) that Cruz thinks it’s a good thing.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:54 pm

  62. Also, I don’t know if you saw that part but Cruz also said he was getting a leather-bound volume of “Conscience of a Conservative” to put in the desk.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:54 pm

  63. Durbin is droooooling now. He’s a dimbulb.

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:55 pm

  64. Maybe the Democrats have decided the optics are bad for them, because they’ve showed up. Senator Dick Durbin is speaking.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 8:56 pm

  65. This is a problem for the Democrats. The more they have to talk about 9/11 and the need to protect America from citizens who want to attack us, the more they undermine Obama’s claim that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:04 pm

  66. The question from Dick “Dick” Durbin actually helped Paul make his point in a way that distinguished the scenario I talked about in a couple of posts today. He didn’t mean it as a softball, perhaps, but that’s how it worked out.

    Comment by Patterico (73e7c0) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:04 pm

  67. nothing warms the hearts of republicans like the ugliness directed at those who chose to try and negotiate directly with the president while other try another means which is surely to embarass and harden the heart of pharoah but plays well will the crowd.

    Its the 2014 elections that matter.

    Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:08 pm

  68. Another one of the Obama diners, Senator Ron Johnson, is speaking. It’s interesting to see them show up here.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:08 pm

  69. Ron Johnson now talking about the Obama dinner he attended. Hmmm.

    Comment by Patterico (73e7c0) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:08 pm

  70. I know and like Ron Johnson. I pray he takes it to the HOOP.

    Comment by GUS (694db4) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:09 pm

  71. South Carolina’s junior Senator Tim Scott is speaking.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:14 pm

  72. Did I hear Ron Johnson correctly? I thought he said that most of the GOP Senators were coming to the Senate tonight.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:16 pm

  73. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) is speaking about the dangers of drones in the wrong hands or when there’s no imminent threat.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:17 pm

  74. I’m sorry — Jeff Flake (R-AZ), not Dean Heller.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:18 pm

  75. Good answer by Rand Paul. He said it wasn’t about whether drones are a good or a bad idea. It’s about the constitutional authority of the President to use them.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:19 pm

  76. I have to go but Senator Mike Lee is talking about the real issue here — imminence — and he points out the Obama Administration has tried to minimize or eliminate the imminence requirement.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:20 pm

  77. Rand Paul: It sounds like ‘imminence’ now means something that’s not imminent.

    Durbin: Osama bin Laden wasn’t an imminent threat.

    Rand Paul: Touche’

    Ted Cruz: This question isn’t that difficult. We agree that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are times when the government can use lethal force to protect Americans in those situations. The question is what I asked AG Holder: “If there is an individual U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is suspected of being a terrorist — abundant evidence of that — but who is not currently an imminent threat: Would it be constitutional to send a drone to kill that citizen?”

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:26 pm

  78. It’s not a question of appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. The question is whether it’s constitutional.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:27 pm

  79. It took Holder 4 times to answer that question “No.”

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:28 pm

  80. I’m posting one more comment to see if I can be the only person posting in the comment sidebar. And good night all!

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:29 pm

  81. The question from Dick “Little Dickie” Durbin…


    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:29 pm

  82. Oops, didn’t mean to break your streak, DRJ.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:32 pm

  83. I can’t find it on TV. Cspan here is showing the Holder hearing.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:36 pm

  84. C-Span2, JD.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:37 pm

  85. I think it is not protocol for a congressperson to to reject/blow off the preseident of the united states if he inites you to dinner–so they pretty much had to go. I’m not sure it’s fair to hold it against them. I recall that many repubs have been highly critical that zero has zero relationship with most of capitol hill’s elected officials–not just republicans either. So there are some pr aspects to consider as well.

    Was the timing of the invite coincidental, though? Did Obama intend to mitigate the effect or drama of the filabuster by taking some members off the floor? Hmmm.

    Comment by elissa (bd8b1c) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:38 pm

  86. So he’s ending the filibuster because he has to go to the bathroom?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:39 pm

  87. elissa,

    I read that Graham and McCain had been pressuring Obama to meet with Republicans of their choice, and Obama took them up on it. I agree the timing was not a coincidence — Obama probably realized that the optics of a filibuster on TV with nothing to counteract it were bad — and I also realize the GOP Senators had to accept. But Graham and McCain were apparently behind the guest list and apparently the GOP Senators knew they were being considered, and had some degree of choice in whether to participate in the first place.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:42 pm

  88. That’s it. It’s over.

    Comment by Patterico (73e7c0) — 3/6/2013 @ 9:44 pm

  89. So Durbin came because he got word Paul was going to yield the floor. Thus, my question is: Did Paul yield because he had enough (including because he had to go to the bathroom), because the White House signaled it would cooperate, or something else? We’ll find out tomorrow.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:32 pm

  90. Durbin is a dlck.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/6/2013 @ 10:39 pm

  91. I’m proud to say that Wyden is the only democrat I voted for in the last election.

    Comment by Ghost (2d8874) — 3/6/2013 @ 11:25 pm

  92. it looks like the major networks are covering the filibuster. (Although CNN is doing everything it can not to.)

    Erin Burnett’s caption for the whole thing was “Rand Paul Drones On and On…”

    If Fox did that for the State of the Union….

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/7/2013 @ 12:42 am

  93. The majority of republicans work for cnn,abc,cbs,nbc and any other pos network that gives them foodstamps.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 3/7/2013 @ 2:22 am

  94. You don’t like it, Harry? Go on the Internet and complain.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (03e454) — 3/7/2013 @ 3:34 am

  95. Just remember… Holder was a Senior partner in a law firm that specialized in defending the lowest life form housed at Guantanamo Bay.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2be9f6) — 3/7/2013 @ 3:40 am

  96. So it was Senator McConnell’s appearance and statement of support that may have prompted the end of the filibuster, since his support means Brennan needs 60 votes instead of 51. Bad news for the President when the Tea Party and establishment Republicans join forces.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:12 am

  97. I followed some of it listening to hewitt (6-9 here in the east means it overlaps doing dishes, etc. and convenient to do). He had many live clips, as well as discussing Twitter messages suggesting things for Rand to talk about/ask.

    It was great for him to do, great the number of people who joined in, including one dem.

    maybe they should do this more often about any number of topics, such as a benghazi questioning. still, it doesn’t get the exposure we would like if the major networks cover it as “repub senator Rand Paul went on ranting last night for x hours before he gave up”.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:31 am

  98. You should all go read the comments at the HuffPo article on this. It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of lefties there just don’t get it. The spent their time attacking Paul and not addressing the reason behind the filibuster.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (ad7249) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:32 am

  99. Obama and the Senator dictator from Venezuela some on the left are remembering so fondly did not have the same reservations as Rand Paul about depriving people of life, liberty and property without due process. Because, irony.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:33 am

  100. “Just remember… Holder was a Senior partner in a law firm that specialized in defending the lowest life form housed at Guantanamo Bay.”

    Colonel Haiku – Just remember – there was ample precedent for the Guantanamo detentions and Obama has actually shifted to supporting indefinite detention since taking office and dropped the idea of closing Guantanamo.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:38 am

  101. EWPJ,

    I’m not sure who your comment was directed at but the reason I object to the GOP’s dinner with Obama is it provides Obama with an excuse to claim he’s bipartisan. He began his first term with a refusal to negotiate, claiming he didn’t have to because “I won.” he began his second term by incessantly demonizing Republicans and their motives. Elections have consequences but so do actions, and Obama’s actions deserve condemnation, not bipartisan approval.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:40 am

  102. It would appear that Leftists don’t mind the idea of totalitarian government as long as they are in charge, though they rarely recall that most revolutions have their share of counter-revolutions that kill off each other.

    Remember, President Obama commented that government like China has its advantages…

    hewitt commented that someone should offer a resolution for unanimous consent that the president cannot use a drone on the capitol building or white house, just to see if durbin or others would oppose it.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:40 am

  103. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:40 am

    I agree, but it does put the repubs in the position of the proverbial between a rock and a hard place. If you meet with him you know you’re being played, if you refuse to meet then that gets pointed out and looks bad to.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:43 am

  104. Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin’ meters:

    Keep in mind that Rand Paul was vigorously opposed to Chuck Hagel’s nomination for SEC/DEF but then turned around and voted in favor of confirmation. Sometimes I wonder if Rand is as nutty as his father. Not throwin’ cold water, just sayin’

    Comment by ropelight (0ea0bb) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:46 am

  105. But this meeting was engineered by the Republicans, not the President. Obama simply took them up on their offer because it gave the media something to cover instead of the filibuster, and now both McCain and Graham are proclaiming how this may usher in a new era of bipartisanship. Really?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:48 am

  106. DRJ – I was under the impression that the dinner had been planned in advance of the filibuster. I remember reading about it at the beginning of the week. I don’t think there is a connection.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:50 am

  107. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:40 am

    Well said.

    MD – I don’t see the rock or the hard place. Meeting with him will get you the bad faith negotiating Boehner finally had enough of. Not meeting with him will cause you to be called partisan obstructionists, which will be done regardless, and even more so after the post-partisan Messiah reaches out to a dozen Senators and climbs down from his lofty perch to break read with them in a search for common sense. They gave Teh One optics that he needed, at a time when they needed the optics Rand Paul was providing.

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:51 am

  108. In order of badness, bipartisan legislation might be the worst, followed closely by purely Dem legislation. Some truly craptacular things have been done in very bipartisan manners.

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:54 am

  109. I understand your point and it is a good one, DRJ. Some repubs have not yet realized that Obama will manipulate anything and everything to his own political advantage.

    ropelight- i heard rand paul talk about that. he is a principled person and thinks the executive should be deferred to in “advise and consent”. I personally think it is a rational stance (FWIW) even though I would agree with you and others that if one is against you should vote against (even if one gives a large degree of deference).

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:55 am

  110. JD- you make a good point. I guess we both agree that there is no way the repubs can make it work no matter which way they go, so don’t give him the satsifaction of appearances.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:58 am

  111. But this meeting was engineered by the Republicans, not the President

    President called Graham

    Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/7/2013 @ 6:59 am

  112. McConnell said the president requested the meeting through his chief of staff. McConnell’s office said the president last attended the Senate GOP’s policy lunch in May 2010

    Comment by EPWJ (1ea63e) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:03 am

  113. 17. Patterico:

    I think there is a chance that this may be a bigger moment than we realize.

    This may be an epochal moment when people finally feel as though Republicans are standing up for what they believe in.

    I agree, which is why I commend Patterico for calling attention to this most important filibuster.

    This is not a Republican and/or TEA Party issue, this is an American issue for which we must all be concerned.

    In my mind, this story goes back at least to Lyndon Johnson with his Gulf of Tonkin incident, and to George W Bush with his false WMD justification, and now to Barack Obama with his authority grab for the use of drones, perhaps even on American citizens.

    This is not an issue about now CIA Director Brennan, rather it is an issue about transparency and telling the truth, therefore it transcends political parties and goes to the core of who we are as a nation.

    Now let us seize the moment by acting against undue secrecy and hidden agendas, instead by promoting policies of which we can be proud. Let us turn off the dysfunction and turn on collegiality where we begin working together again for the good of all people.

    Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:03 am

  114. I thought the dinner and Obama’s upcoming meetings on the Hill with Congressional Republicans were to counter the bad optics from his “Road Show” presidency where he’s tried to blame everything on the other side and they can point out that he hasn’t even bothered to meet with them to talk about solutions all year.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:04 am

  115. MD – here is their idea of negotiating.

    Teh Won – I want to raise taxes a lot. Again
    Teabaggers – No
    MFM – racist teabaggers won’t compromise because Kock and Grover
    Teh Won – I am willing to accept reasonable common sense balanced solution, moderate tax increases, and illusory spending cuts
    MFM – post partisan wonder child compromised
    Spineless Team R – we are tired of getting battered. Agree to “compromise”
    Teh One – now that we have agreed to moderate increases, I want to talk about trillions in loopholes

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:04 am

  116. “This is not an issue about now CIA Director Brennan, rather it is an issue about transparency and telling the truth, therefore it transcends political parties and goes to the core of who we are as a nation.”

    Perry – This is unusually perceptive of you. Did someone write it for you?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:05 am

  117. Hmmm. Several of the PowerLine folks have a more negative view of the filibuster effort.

    I am ignoring perry’s comment as i don’t agree with some of his assumed points of discussion.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:06 am

  118. rather it is an issue about transparency and telling the truth, therefore it transcends political parties and goes to the core of who we are as a nation.

    I want to be the bigger man, but your recent history here shows that you know or care nothing about the aforementioned concepts.

    Your build bridges and bridge gaps or whatever other euphemisms you choose to you are as hollow as a promise from Teh One.

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:07 am

  119. Perry comments at Dana’s First Street Journal site as Wagonwheel, his posting privileges have twice been suspended for threatening to inform on other commenters to their employers. He’s not in the same league with Kimberlin et al, but he’s cut from the same cloth.

    Comment by ropelight (0ea0bb) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:19 am

  120. It would have been sweet if the senators had declined Obama’s dinner invitation because of a conflict, their regular Wednesday night skeet shooting outing. Nevermind the snow.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:24 am

  121. It’s clear that the overwhelming majority of lefties there just don’t get it. The spent their time attacking Paul and not addressing the reason behind the filibuster.

    That’s why it’s not sarcastic to theorize that if much of black America, or the GLBT community, or the Latino immigrant community — and so on and so forth — suddenly became politically moderate to conservative, a lot of liberals (white “progressives” in particular) would suddenly, quickly lose their ardor for diversity and civil rights.

    BTW, with all the talk about public tours of the White House recently being cancelled, I read on the drudgereport that the director of that program makes $100,000 a year and was given a pay raise of $30,000 over the past few years. Oh, I guess the ludicrousness of truly bloated expenses and budgets perhaps did force some sanity into Obama’s thick skull. Yea, right. It will take a lot more than things like padded payrolls to wake up a limousine liberal.

    “Let them eat cake,” he proclaims.

    Comment by Mark (928c12) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:32 am

  122. Ropelight – link Por favor?

    Comment by JD (31065f) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:35 am

  123. JD, when I quit commenting at First Street Journal several months ago Perry was everyday active there posting as Wagonwheel. I’ve just now been poking around over there and he’s nowhere to be found in current threads. He may have been suspended again, or there’s been a falling out, I don’t know, but I’ll make inquires. Dana will have the 411.

    I’ll get back to you.

    Comment by ropelight (0ea0bb) — 3/7/2013 @ 7:46 am

  124. …and to George W Bush with his false WMD justification…

    Perry @112, what do you know about it?

    Syria’s Bio-Warfare Threat: an interview with Dr. Jill Dekker

    by Jerry Gordon (Dec. 2007)


    When news leaked out of the September 6th Israeli Air Force and commando raid on a Syrian Nuclear facility followed by revelations about the deaths of dozens of Iranians and Syrians in a Chemical warfare missile accident in July the world was jarred. Recently, it was revealed that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) had aided Syria in its chemical warfare programs. I noted in a recent interview with former US UN Ambassador John Bolton his early concerns about the Syrian Bio Warfare threat. Questions arose, specifically about the size, nature and danger of the Syrian bio-warfare military programs. For answers and professional views on how extensive the Syrian bio-warfare threat is, we turned to Dr. Jill Dekker, a consultant to the NATO Defense Establishment in bio-warfare and counter terrorism. Dr. Dekker is also a member of the board of advisors of the Intelligence Summit.

    Dekker: …In the course of this two things happened; I was looking at issues related to the Soviet programs, what pathogens they may have provided to Iraq, Syria, Iran and the DPRK, specifically I was looking at their smallpox and botulinium programs. Then in Afghanistan, you may recall, the US recovered documents which Al Qaeda had on their bio-programs. I moved from an interest in bio-safety and bio-security to looking at the threat state biological warfare labs pose and the types of criteria we need to assess them. Most biological weapons research is dual use. It is quite difficult to determine if it falls within the BTWC, which allows defensive research, or if it is “offensive” which is prohibited. These programs are usually a nation’s most sensitive weapons sections. Thus, it can be very difficult, but not impossible, to estimate how advanced they are.

    …Dekker: Contrary to how the US State Department and other agencies tend to downplay the sophistication of the Syrian biological and nuclear programs, they are very advanced. Syria has always had the most advanced chemical weapons program in the Middle East. The US and other western agencies have in a sense been distracted by this, but their biological programs and the “concept of use” are robust. Syria’s biological weapons capability today is closely tied to the former and current Soviet and Russian programs respectively, the DPRK, Iran and the former Iraq regime.

    …Dekker: The Syrians work on most Category A pathogens: anthrax, plague, tularemia, botulinium, smallpox, aflotoxin, cholera, ricin, camelpox. Some of these they acquired during natural outbreaks, others they acquired from the Soviets, Russians, DPRK, Iran and Iraq.

    …Gordon: We heard that some of the late Saddam Hussein’s Bio-warfare research and pathogens may have been transferred to Syria during Operation Enduring Freedom. Is that accurate to your knowledge, and who facilitated the transfer? What types of bio-warfare agents and materials might have been transferred?

    Dekker: Yes. It is important to remember that the Iraqi programs were far more advanced at the time than what the Syrians had, and were developing. The delivery of certain pathogens in a ‘weaponized’ form taught the Syrians new techniques they previously had not mastered. This is very problematic. I am less concerned about the types of pathogens or specific pathogens as these were available to Syria from other sources. What Hussein’s transfer taught the Syrians was more sophisticated ways of weaponization and dispersal. I believe Russian special ops- their Spetsnaz teams – transported sections of the programs. Remember these are not MIRVed ICBM’s we are talking about – you don’t need to stockpile biological weapons. It is the quality of the pathogen and ‘weaponization’ or aerosolization, milling processes that count, not the quantity.

    I realize the “Bush lied, people died” meme is an article of religious faith to people like you. Right up there with a splinter of wood from the true cross.

    But Bush didn’t lie.

    In 2002 I was sitting in a Singapore airport departure lounge waiting to catch a flight to Diego Garcia. I pick up an Aviation Week and start reading about the happenings in Iraq. I thought it was a current magazine. Until I got to the fourth or fifth paragraph and the mentioned the operation’s name; “Desert Fox.” Then I look at the front cover and realize it’s a four year old magazine dating from when Clinton launched his attack on Saddam for his ongoing WMD programs.

    This isn’t even meant as a defense of Bush. I got tired of defending him about 8 years ago, mostly because of his domestic policies. Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, amnesty. “Compassionate Conservatism” means “might as well elect a Democrat. After a while I said, “screw it, if you lefties want to impeach him go ahead.”

    You’re going to see those “false” Iraqi WMDs again depending on who comes out on top in Syria. It’s going to take at least 75k troops to secure the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and that’s best case. If there’s still fighting going on it’s going to take a lot more than that and nobody is providing that number of troops.

    The Syrians, like the Iraqis before them, didn’t develop their biological weapons for battlefield use but for use against civilian populations. And as Dr. Dekker points out just 1 gram of crystalline Botulinium can kill up to 1 million people if properly dispersed. Which means a pound of the stuff can potentially kill over 450 million people.

    You could have put all of Saddam’s bio weapons in a 40 foot shipping container, which is why it was so easy to send all of it to Syria when we had completely lost whatever element of surprise we may have had. Or don’t you remember the delay caused when France screwed us over by convincing he Turks to not allow US ground forces to enter Iraq across their border?

    Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/7/2013 @ 8:33 am

  125. That vignette about reading Aviation Week in the Singapore airport was meant to illustrate Bush acted on the same intel Clinton acted on. Same CIA director, George Tenet, singing the same tune, different day.

    Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/7/2013 @ 8:39 am

  126. ropelight,

    It sounds like Perry is old enough to have been around at the time of wagonwheels.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (3c3ae3) — 3/7/2013 @ 8:43 am

  127. Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/7/2013 @ 8:33 am

    Thanks for the info.
    I was ignoring Perry in part because of that false assumption in his post, but since you took advantage of it to educate, worthwhile move.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:17 am

  128. 123: Steve57

    …and to George W Bush with his false WMD justification…

    Perry @112, what do you know about it?

    I know that GWB focused on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear threat, you know, the yellow cake and all that stuff, because he had no at that time current evidence for chem/bio warfare capability, especially for the botulinum toxin capability. Saddam could have really easily shipped his inventory, if he had one, to Syria. So we do know that GWB lied about nuclear WMD because they have never been found, nor has botulinum evidence been found.

    Do you know that Saddam shipped chem/bio WMD to Syria, Steve? I would not have been surprised, but what’s your evidence for that?

    I think even now that we have to distinguish between threats, which are always present, and imminent threats. GWB did not make that distinction, then lied to justify his war, which became a disaster on many levels: lost lives, destruction, and our economy. Knowing this outcome, do you still defend this war, Steve?

    Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:22 am

  129. They could make money on selling tickets to these things with advanced warning. I would go on down to watch.

    FWIW, Rand Paul will be on Limbaugh I think about 1 pm EST.

    Some repubs are giving Paul flack. Good for them, they are making clear who to challenge in the primaries.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:23 am

  130. Perry, I have to go no farther than a few words into your post to know that the truth is not what you are saying, whether you know it or not, whether you are intentionally trying to deceive or not.

    I watched the original speech by Bush. I know several of the many reasons we invaded Iraq, and the argument could have been made regardless of whether he had a nuclear program or not. Unfortunately, instead of examining the reasons one by one and discussing them, the opposition wants to chant like a parrot, “Bush lied, people died, Polly want a cracker!!”

    Even when people lose they try to win the history. Very, very sad.
    Stalin was a very, very nice person. He ordered supplies to go to the Ukraine but evil Americans stole them and dumped them into the ocean, causing a fish kill.
    It’s true, I know.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:30 am

  131. 125: Elephant Stone

    It sounds like Perry is old enough to have been around at the time of wagonwheels.

    Actually true! Ice deliveries for kitchen ice box fridges, coal ash pickups, and milk deliveries were all done in Phlly back in that day by horse drawn wagons, which is why we also had public street sweeings fairly frequently.

    Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:33 am

  132. Perry, you are beginning to sound like the muttering old guy who sits in the Mayberry town square and plays games of checkers at the picnic table in between bottles of cheap wine.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (3c3ae3) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:38 am

  133. Meghan’s coward daddy maybe won’t run again so looks like he’s going Full Dick Lugar early on


    but I suspect he’s the type of whore what aspires to die in office, so this might could just be more of his trademark arrogance/cluelessness combo

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:38 am

  134. …which is why we also had public street sweeings fairly frequently.

    How did you avoid getting swept?

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:39 am

  135. 127. Knowing this outcome, do you still defend this war, Steve?

    Comment by Perry (329aa5) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:22 am

    Had I known Barack Obama would have been in charge of the outcome, no, I wouldn’t have defended it.

    The politics of President Obama’s Iraq withdrawal decision

    Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:42 am

  136. Barack Obama a ‘dithering, controlling, risk-averse’ US president

    Barack Obama is a “dithering” president whose controlling tendencies and extreme risk-averse attitude to foreign policy has damaged US interests in the Middle East, according to a new book by a senior former State Department adviser.

    President Prom Queen wanted to end two wars in the worst possible way.

    And that’s exactly what he did.

    Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/7/2013 @ 9:47 am

  137. JD, on December 27th 2012 Dana warned Wagonwheel/Perry: (names of commenters removed)

    The final word: knock off all threats, suggestions, intimations, whatevers, that (xxxx) or any other poster or commenter here should be reported to the police or to his employers, period. (xxxx) thinks I should just ban you, permanently, and after twice suspending you (Wagonwheel) for 15 days for this type of behavior, you have not learned your lesson. This is the last warning! Once more, and I shall take (xxxx’s) suggested action, and impose a permanent ban!

    Then on 19 January 2013 Dana imposed a permanent ban:

    At 5:45 PM EST today, you posted yet another comment referencing a commenter’s position and employment…you protested your innocence in the same manner you did so often…

    I have no idea what part of “This is the last warning! Once more, and I shall take (xxxx’s) suggested action, and impose a permanent ban!” is so difficult to understand. Yet you persist, always attempting to stretch the envelope, always trying to see just what you can get away with.

    Well, if you were somehow unable to understand the meaning of that very unambiguous sentence, no one else is, including your Editor, the man who wrote it. You had a final warning, not even a month ago, but just couldn’t help yourself. And I am bound by the words I wrote, and have taken the action promised. I very much regret having to do that, but that is what you have pushed me into doing.

    Comment by ropelight (0ea0bb) — 3/7/2013 @ 12:30 pm

  138. Thanks, ropelight. I just want people to know exactly the nature of this newest troll.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/7/2013 @ 12:35 pm

  139. JD, the roots of Perry’s perfidy run deeper than anything yet revealed here. I’ve been back and forth with him for years and have yet to plumb the depths of his hypocrisy.

    Comment by ropelight (0ea0bb) — 3/7/2013 @ 1:14 pm

  140. Perry me running
    Or you perry me to tears
    I’m double perried

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (4ee64a) — 3/7/2013 @ 1:26 pm

  141. Colonel,

    We could bottle these tears caused by Perry, and throw a label on it that says, ‘Perrier.’
    Unfortunately, nobody would want to buy that piss water.

    Maybe we could pass a law to force people to buy it. John Roberts says that’s legal, you know.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (ab8de9) — 3/7/2013 @ 1:38 pm

  142. Comment by ropelight (0ea0bb) — 3/7/2013 @ 1:14 pm

    Thank you for your service- 6 months combat pay to you, sir.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/7/2013 @ 1:51 pm

  143. daleyrocks,

    You may be right that the dinner was planned earlier in the week and/or that it was Obama who invited the GOP Senators, not the other way around. But, at the very least, Graham and McCain have taken ownership of the dinner and they do not seem pleased by the fact that Paul’s filibuster overshadowed it.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/8/2013 @ 5:34 pm

  144. What McCain and Graham really don’t like is that while they were on their knees begging scraps from Obama’s table, Rand Paul was on his feet, standing tall and talkin’ back.

    Comment by ropelight (51ed16) — 3/9/2013 @ 6:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3770 secs.