#StandWithRand – The Epic Filibuster


12 Hours And 54 Minutes Later, The Junior Senator From Kentucky Yields The Floor


For more than half of an almost magical day, Sen. Rand Paul treated American political junkies to something we haven’t seen much of lately: senators doing senator stuff. Dripping with decorum, “Thank yous” and gentlemen from everywhere, we were treated to a drawn-out grand political spectacle the likes of which doesn’t happen much in the short attention span era.

Sen. Paul relentlessly made his case for civil liberties, receiving support from Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon, as well Code Pink and the American Civil Liberties Union, two groups not known for cheer leading Tea Party politicians. From his own party, Paul was backed up by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee (who did the heavy relief lifting to spell Paul), as well as host of others who showed up to lend support in the eleventh hour. Several members of the House were also seen milling about as the evening wore on. He even got a support tweet from Van Jones.

And all he wanted was some assurance from The Lightbringer that he wouldn’t get drone-happy with his own citizens. He didn’t get it.

When I was a kid I imagined that this was what Congress was like – elected leaders holding polite debates on important issues of the day. The reality is very different, but for one shining moment Hollywood came to life.

You don’t have to like Rand Paul or agree with him on other issues, but yesterday he was right on. Unfortunately too many people closed their minds to his words because of his infamous father and the party he belongs to. (He’s not just a Republican, he’s one of them “Tea Party” types.) That’s really too bad because they missed a helluva show.

Will it make a difference? I have no idea.

But it was great to watch. You had to have CSpan because the networks ignored it but the Twitterverse followed every word. The drama spiked when other Republicans showed up and joined in. Then Harry Reid tried to cut it off but failed. Before it was over even Mitch McConnell made an appearance.

About Myiq2xu

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Drone Wars, Law and Constitution and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to #StandWithRand – The Epic Filibuster

  1. myiq2xu says:

    “I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Washington Examiner:

    Sen. Rand Paul just offered to end his filibuster and allow a vote on CIA nominee John Brennan if he could get a vote tomorrow on a non-binding resolution regarding drone killing of US citizens on US soil. But Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin objected to allowing a vote on the resolution. So Paul resumed speaking.

    Paul’s resolution said it was the sense of the Senate that “the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights” of due process.

    • “the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights” of due process.

      I LOVE that Rand Paul had the guts to stand up and shine a spotlight on the evil. But that part sort of bothers me. Citizens who pose no imminent threat? That leaves the gate wide open imo. Who decides when a citizen is an imminent threat?
      Due process would seem to me to mean we go by “innocent until proven guilty.” That imminent threat thing allows someone in the govt to decide. On possibly manufactured evidence. And we have seen that the current admin is very very good at ginning up charges and using their lapdogs to promote them. (See Bill Clinton, racist, 08)

      • myiq2xu says:

        We use that standard all the time when cops shoot bad guys in the commission of a crime. It’s called “justifiable homicide.”

        Cops who fail to meet that standard can be prosecuted but it rarely happens, even when the suspect is unarmed and gets pumped full of bullets by four cops.

        • Ok. I understand that. But droning a citizen? Seems a bit excessive. If we have enough evidence to understand someone is an imminent threat- shouldn’t we allow law enforcement to do all in their power to apprehend?
          I will have to catch up on the rest of the thread later- have to go out to a clients first day at work.

      • yttik says:

        I agree, “imminent threat” leaves too much power in the hands of the gov, because it’s so vague. Tea Partiers pose an imminent threat in some people’s opinion.

        • wmcb says:

          It wasn’t a binding resolution. Also, if you read the whole thing, it went on to say how the president needs to spell out what imminent is.

      • angienc (D) says:

        Everyone knows what imminent threat means — actually standing their and about to kill/cause grave bodily harm to someone at that very moment — not planning on doing it at some time in the future (even an hour from now isn’t “imminent”) — that is what arrests are for.
        Everyone telling you that the term is “vague” is lying to you.

  3. Lulu says:

    I think Paul made his point and I do not think the Dems are going to like the message that was passed on to the public. My non-political husband watched a bit of it and said “Obama and the Dems want to murder us without having to tell us why. The Republicans don’t”.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    No More Mister Nice Blog:

    To what extent are Rand Paul’s partners joining his filibuster out of concern for civil liberties — and to what extent are they doing it out of a right-wing tribal paranoia?

    They did the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Why not applaud that?

    I’m sure Steve M. is never motivated by left-wing tribal loyalties.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Just say no to fascism:

      Philo Vaihinger said…

      2nd Amendment paranoia aside, it’s an interesting question how satellite or other forms of gizmo intelligence can be or are used to track people and perhaps even determine if they are carrying guns, other weapons, or other things.

      But who did not know positional tracking of cell phones and other gadgets like tablets and the TomTom navigator you have on the dash of your car is possible and perhaps even used in criminal or terrorist investigations?

      Frankly, this is not the 18th Century and civil libertarian concerns in an age when criminals and terrorists can have much more threatening weapons than anything available in 1789 (when the constitution went into effect) can be easily overdone and out of place.

      In that light and in light of the president’s constitutional responsibilities for the protection of the nation, the AG’s position re the possible killing even of Americans within the US on the say-so of the president makes sense.

      Not everything is really a due process issue.

      Just a thought.

      This is why Obots scare me.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    If you were to believe WaPo, the #StandWithRand filibuster was a ho-hum affair that nobody watched:

    As Paul spoke, a collection of security guards, Senate pages and tourists kept watch. During one stretch, a man responsible for operating the Senate television cameras was seen reading a newspaper.

  6. myiq2xu says:

  7. votermom says:

    A historical day, and media & Dems are sticking their fingers in the public’s ears and going lalalalala.

    • leslie says:

      This morning on CBS news radio in Chicago, the filibuster was covered 3 times in one hour. Each time with more information and no negative reporting (that I heard).

      Immediately after the last filibuster report (that I heard), came a report that Bob Woodward had spoken in Chicago yesterday blaming Rahm Emanuel for the tenor of division and vitriol in the government today.

      Woodward may not be long for this world – speaking ill of the esteemed Mayor of the fair city of Chicago like that.

    • votermom says:

      List of Senators who participated


      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.).

      Just one Democrat joined in the filibuster, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) spoke but only asked questions of Paul and didn’t officially speak as part of the filibuster.

    • angienc (D) says:

      And this is where Breitbart.com has continued to become de facto Obama supporters. Instead of keeping the focus on Obama, they insist on splitting up support among those who would be inclined to not support Obama. Did it occur to these asshats that say when it was apparent that when Rand came up with the idea to filibuster that it was better for others to attend the Obama “GOP outreach” dinner so the MSM didn’t characterize the filibuster as Rand “ruining” Obama’s “outreach,” for example?
      No, no –much better to keep those against Obama sniping & fighting with each other to insure there is no united front against him so traffic can stay high at breitbart.com. It went a long way to helping Obama withe cover for his “re-election.” I’m sure the next big fight will be helping to primary McConnell with some nitwit like Akin or Murdoch so that Ashley Judd can take the seat.

  8. votermom says:

    Ted Cruz reading #StandWithRand tweets yesterday

  9. myiq2xu says:

  10. votermom says:

    What? We were all thinking it!

  11. DeniseVB says:

    Nick Gillespie’s wrap-up has some good points, notably that RP didn’t act like a “career politician” yesterday 🙂


    • myiq2xu says:

      After yesterday I’m gonna have to take a closer look at that guy. Ted Cruz made a helluva good impression too.

      • votermom says:

        Yup! I also am curious about Mike Lee now.

      • angienc (D) says:

        Ted Cruz not only was a national debating champion while at Princeton, after he graduated from Harvard law he clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist & in private practices has presented oral arguments to SCOTUS 9 times. It doesn’t matter what you may think of Rehnquist as a Justice or Cruz’s politics–no dummy works as a law clerk for any SCOTUS Justice.

        Nonetheless, he won Texas by 100,000 votes LESS than Romney. Obviously he can build support from where he started, but . . .

    • foxyladi14 says:

      more like a first term one. 😆

  12. votermom says:

    This is cool. If you go to the c-span video page for the filibuster, and for timeline, click on “Graphical timeline” you can see who was talking at what time, and if you hover, the start of what they said pops up.


  13. votermom says:

    Still talking! I would think he’d be whispering today. Whattaguy! 🙂

  14. votermom says:

    While we’re calling out people, where were the women?

  15. votermom says:

  16. HELENK says:


    I hope so.

    someone at no quarter mentioned that a couple of weeks ago the left were all atwitter over Christopher Dorner not getting due process before he was killed

  17. HELENK says:


    a really great article about the filibuster.

    when McConnell finally arrived it was like the GOP past shaking hands with the GOP future

Comments are closed.