Skip to comments.Paul, Cruz promise filibuster on gun-control bill (Lee as well)
Posted on 03/26/2013 5:41:48 AM PDT by Perdogg
A few weeks ago, Rand Paul revived the talking filibuster in a scene reminiscent of the Frank Capra classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He highlighted the Obama administrations odd reluctance to state that it wouldnt assassinate Americans on American soil with CIA-controlled drones for a full day, helped by fellow Senate Republicans such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, among others, and also by Senate Democrat Ron Wyden. The White House finally gave a more specific answer to the question, and Paul raised public awareness on the drone issue, although its arguable what effect that actually had.
If you liked the original, get ready for the sequel. Paul and Cruz will inform Harry Reid this morning of their intent to filibuster the gun-control bill that Reid wants to bring to the floor for a vote, supposedly with bipartisan support:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Sad but true.
Then again, I think Ted's loving every minute of it!
The media portrayed it as his filibustering Hagel’s nomination, a report undisputed by faux news.
The filibuster was what it was, what he was talking about, the drones. It was t get Holder to answer the question.
Paul said repeatedly, he wasn’t against the nomination. How could he be? who the heck else is BO going to nominate? His list gets worse as he goes down the line.
What kind of patriot would want to be on his staff?
Paul is wrong on other things, that can be argued.
FIVE thumbs up. IF we are not to have a “Tea Party” then the RINO establishment MUST be purged if this Republic is to survive.
We need to send 4 or 5 reinforcements for them, I'd take a 51D 49R Senate with 8 or 9 Men or Women of Steel.
In that process we must throw Linsey Grahamnasty's sorry butt to the curve.
That 51 to 49 number would tie Harry Reids sorry manhood in knots... Good !!!
The three of them should get fitted up bathroom equipment.
It’s not a ‘filibuster’ unless it busts the filly, I.e. stops the bill.
I don’t see them doing this. It’s all just theater.
These “wacko birds” are at it again and will upset my friends on the other side of the aisle
McCain's office needs to hear about this from the people of Arizona. He is nothing but a weasel with his finger in the air. If it looks bad for his "standing" and "leadership" role in the GOP, he'll cave.
Don’t worry, this bill will never pass the Senate.
-Republican talking heads on Obamacare, Mar 2010
These 3 guys are the bomb!!
“I assume Georgias senators will be behind them”
Yeah, those two are straight out of the Gay Army. “They never leave their buddy’s behind!”
We’re not going to get the perfect candidate, ever. Even Reagan had flaws and if you find two FReepers in total across the board agreement, ping me.
I like Rand’s federalism, his aggressiveness and fearlessness in the face of liberal lies. As you know well the President is still limited by Congress and the Courts. I don’t think he’d be able to drift too far afield, but wouldn’t it be great to have a president present a budget that eliminated a department or two?
“Paul filibusted and then voted for what he was filibusting.”
Uh, no he didnt. There wasnt a vote on that issue. Paul brought up that issue while a vote was pending on Brennans appt. to the CIA.
As you state, Paul clearly said many times that his filibuster had nothing to do with the confirmation of Brennan as CIA director.
But, in addition to that, when the filibuster ended and the vote to confirm went forward, Rand Paul was one of the few Senators to vote against confirming Brennan.
Facts are pesky things.
I believe it was filibustered during Brennan’s nomination for CIA. And the issue was, Drone strikes on American citizens inside America while they didn’t pose an immediate threat of attack. The issue wasn’t even Brennan, according to Paul. He simply chose to use that opportunity to make a point.
What happened during Hagel’s nomination was, if I recall correctly, the Republicans (and Rand was prominent in this, but was joined by the others) at first stuck together and refused to allow a vote on Hagel, they said because they hadn’t received enough information on what they had questioned Hagel about. After that brief stand, they relented and did allow a vote on Hagel. And Rand Paul voted FOR Hagel, angering quite a few folks, and apparently confusing others.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.