Mother Jone’s David Corn reports that Senator Rand Paul didn’t waste one iota of time: he quickly exploited his political-star-turning use of the old time talking filibuster into a fundraising letter peppered with inaccuracies.
Lest you have any doubt: Paul has his hat in the ring for 2016 — and I’m betting he will find lots of response not just among libertarians others in the GOP who seek a bigger break from the Bush years and the GOP establishment. And he’ll appeal to a chunk of younger voters who liked his Dad Rand Paul.
Here’s the beginning of Corn’s piece:
Though foes of drones on the right and left cheered Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster this week, with the tea partier delaying confirmation of CIA director John Brennan for a day, Paul’s rant targeted a nonexistent dispute: whether or not Obama administration officials believed they could use drones (or other weapons) to kill American citizens within the borders of the United States without due process. Take away all Paul’s hyped-up hysteria—watch out, Jane Fonda!—and he didn’t truly disagree with the administration’s position that in an extraordinary circumstance, such as an ongoing terrorist attack, the US government can deploy lethal force against evildoers who happen to be American citizens. So why did Paul go ballistic? Here’s a clue: The day after he ended one of the longest filibusters in US history, he tried to cash in on his stunt by zapping out a fundamentally inaccurate fundraising email for his 2016 reelection campaign.
The note begins:
Go to the link and read the note.
Corn’s conclusion:
Paul thoroughly mischaracterized Holder’s statement for his money-shaking email. The attorney general limited his no-drones declaration to Americans “not engaged in combat.” An American participating in a terrorist attack that constitutes an extraordinary circumstance could still end up on the wrong end of a Hellfire missile (with Paul supporting such a development).
Paul did not force a change in Obama administration policy or even a clarification of policy. What Holder said in the second letter was a reiteration of what he said in the first letter that Paul essentially endorsed while filibustering.
There are real controversies and disputes regarding the administration’s drone policy. The White House has declined to show the public the legal justification for its drone strikes overseas against suspected terrorists who are American citizens, and it has been reluctant to share legal memos on this matter with members of Congress and their staff, thus impeding oversight of these constitutionally dicey assaults. The White House has not answered questions on its general use of lethal drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. But decrying the administration for possible drone assaults against noncombatant American citizens within the United States is a phony issue, a modern-day equivalent of black-helicopter-phobia. In an unsurprising, it’s-really-about-politics move, Paul distracted from the real concerns, and the quickly written email pushing his Stand With Rand money bomb shows this senator as a crass operator untethered from the truth who’s eager to exploit his own grandstanding.
Several things:
1. Expect more of the same from Paul, who has already promised we’ve just seen the first of him.
2. The GOP can quickly change its rhetoric and jettison many principles on a dime, despite what some partisans insist (as Obama correctly notes, he can embrace a Republican position and GOPers will quickly then oppose it.)
3. Paul has been praised effusively by Rush Limbaugh. ENOUGH SAID. Right?
4. Now Republicans see that they can get milage out of the talking filibuster. I suspect they’ll battle to ensure they have BOTH filibusters totally intact: on issues where they don’t really want to get up and broadcast their reasons, they’ll just vote for a filibuster. On issues where they think a talking filibuster might rally the base and garner media print and broadcast time, they’ll leap at a chance to do a talking filibuster.
5. Obama increasingly looks back to where he was after the last election: his political mavens helped him win an election, most of them have departed, and then he has to govern but his political skills here are not as good as when he campaigns. Governing effectively requires another set of political skills, an ability to anticipate what your foes will do, even anticipate the seemingly impossible to anticipate…and be ready with a plan B. Obama, like after 2008, now looks like he’s suddenly on the defensive on several fronts.
6. Paul won’t help the GOP’s branding with the groups it lost in the last election and needs to woo.
But Senator Paul is now one of the top contenders — if not the top contender — for the 2016 nomination due to how the filibuster is being praised by many Republicans, including The Man in the party (Rush Limbaugh) who many do indeed parrot and follow.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.