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 ...
I love these guys. Doing the work establishment Republicans won’t do.
Same here. I just wish Paul would stop reaching over the fence on other issues.
In any case I’d love another filibuster on this issue. A pre planned filibuster by these three could go on for days. LOL
The republicans in the senate have new leadership, while the actual leaders, their seniors in the states, McConnell and Cornyn, follow. (and the other, Hatch, voted in lockstep with Lee so he could get reelected)
If it’s moved to the filibuster stage, doesn’t that mean we’ve basically already lost the battle, because it will finally pass whent he filibuster runs out of steam?
This time, if you plan on standing up for 13 hours straight, run down to the Red Wing store and get yourself a pair of crepe-soled work boots to wear.
Pretty much. Still good to see a dead cat bounce from at least a few of the Republicans willing to fight.
No. That means they need 60 votes to advance it. Even if it passes in the Senate once the House waters it down, or defeats it, many Dems will walk away from it. Remember we have two Houses of Congress.
Give him a wizinator too.
Isn’t the filibuster here happening at the motion to proceed, which requires 60 votes? That, I’m told, is the critical fight, because if that passes, everything subsequent only requires a simple majority(?)
Just like tge brought the issue of drones to yhe public’s awareness, they should bring to light DHS’s ammo hording and armored vehicle purchases.
Most right-leaning low info citizens follow the belief that “if its not being reported by Fox, its just a crazy conspiracy theory”. That needs to change and Sens. Paul, Cruz and Lee can get it done again.
I assume Georgia’s senators will be behind them
as far behind them as they can get.
I love it! It gives us the floor and people have to report it and listen. This is a good way to get our message out. I say fillibuster everything just for the mere reason of being heard unfiltered. IMHO
Upbraiding by Juan McQueeg and Lispy Grahamnesty to commence in 3...2...1....
The old maverick is nothing more than a MSM Show-Pony!
Paul filibusted and then voted for what he was filibusting. I hope history does not repeat itself.
His feet weren’t the problem. He needs to get some sturdy Depends to wear.
Paul voted FOR drone strikes on U.S. citizens in America who weren’t a danger to the public safety at the time of a strike??
Uh, no he didn’t. There wasn’t a vote on that issue. Paul brought up that issue while a vote was pending on Brennan’s appt. to the CIA. So he refused to let the vote on that appt. go forward until the Justice Dept. and WH answered the question of whether such strikes would be constitutional, or not.
They did finally answer the question. Then the vote on Brennan was allowed to go forward.
Paul always said I’m using this as an opportunity to air this issue. I’m not filibustering to stop an Obama appt. from happening.
What part of that don’t you understand...
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.
I would think it's now half past this morning in D.C.
I wonder if Paul and Cruz went ahead with this plan? It would be so fun to get to watch another one of these, and to see how many squishy R Senators would join them on the floor now that they've had a chance to see the positive press Rand Paul got from his drone filibuster.
After reading a post that seemed to have confused what happened during the Hagel vote with what happened during the Brennan vote, I think that might be the source of some confusion.
If somebody says Rand filibustered then voted for what he filibustered, all other facts being correct and understood, that could only apply to Hagel. Rand joined other Republicans in delaying Hagel’s nomination for Defense. Harry Reid called it a filibuster. The media and even here, ran with that word. Be that as it may, when Hagel was voted on, Rand voted FOR him.
So that might be leaving a misimpression. Because the issue under discussion is Rand’s lone filibuster stopping the Brennan for CIA vote over the drone issue, until Rand could no longer hold the floor and a vote occurred, at which time Rand voted against Brennan. So that doesn’t fit at all with the scenario that “he filibustered, then voted for what he filibustered”.
But the Hagel vote does. Except, that was not the occasion of Rand’s lone filibuster until he could no longer. That occasion was Brennan’s nomination, and yes, Rand ultimately voted no on it.
I don’t really care. Rand’s vote, yea or nay on Brennan, wasn’t and isn’t the issue I’m addressing. Brennan is awful, but I agree with Ted Cruz’s votes against Kerry, Hagel and Brennan, whereas Rand voted for the other two.
Oh, you are correct. Was refuting the perception LSM put out that Paul went against what he filibustered for. It was Brennan, not Hagel
You could be right about what confused the other poster, hard to know.
In any event, I totally agree with your concluding sentence. I've got my eye on all these guys. At the moment, Cruz is looking good to me.
All those stalwart “conservatives” in the Republican party... and yet we’re increasingly seeing fight out of the “libertarian” Republicans while we see nothing but step-n-fetch bowing and scraping from the likes of “conservatives” in the GOP.
So-called “conservatives” are a joke. Most of them are spineless, and the worst are like McCain - selling out in a second for no gain.
One of these guys will hopefully be our next nominee for President.
Catheterize him, load him up with Imodium, black beauties and a camelbak w/ 3.5ltr hydration bag filled with Mountain Dew or Jolt Cola.......... he can fly that podium just fine with that prep !!
God please keep McVain and Ghrahm Cracker in check while these MEN try and save our nation !
The pubs have too little concept of the value of public relations
Rand Pahl hit a home run because he brought the subject up right before the public eye.
Americans don’t want a gun control Bill and this is a way to force the issue out in the open.
They should take advantage of the time and make it clear that an assault weapon can be a pencil, maybe show how stupid limiting ammo is, like someone else said upthread...how about the pubs mention this weird ammo hosting by homeland security.
My 3 Amigo’s!
Too bad Paul is so odd on Foreign Policy Issues... Ted Cruz is looking better and better in 2016
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.