Skip to comments.Rand Paul ready for a standing filibuster 2.0 on Syria? (Video in the link)
Posted on 09/04/2013 2:02:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
Remember Sen. Rand Paul’s epic talking filibuster last spring over the government’s use of lethal drone strikes? It lasted a little bit less than 13 hours and garnered him a lot of mainstream- and social-media attention, and it sounds like he feels strongly enough about the resolution on a Syrian strike the White House is hoping to push through Congress that he’s isn’t unwilling to have another go at staging a similar Senatorial showcase. Via National Journal:
Paul was not bullish on his chances of success, however, saying “it would be historic” to stop the authorization, as it has the support of President Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “50-50 [odds] might be optimistic,” he said.
Still, Paul vowed to fight on in the Senate. He said that opponents of intervention in Syria, following allegations of chemical-weapons use by the government of President Bashar al-Assad, would almost assuredly push for a 60-vote majority in the Senate. …
“Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster,” he said, “I’ve got to check my shoes” and ability to tame his bladder, which is what ultimately caused the end of his drone filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid let it be known earlier today that he expects that he’ll have the votes to pass the resolution even if there is a filibuster, but whether that was a serious assessment, or a bullish ploy to make it seem more popular than it really is, remains to be seen. When the resolution does come to a vote, Paul gave us a preview of what a standing filibuster might sound like during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier today:
Somebody has to stop the psychopaths.
Shouldn’t be a need for a filibuster but the left is willing to start a war to get away from the current scandals that appear to be fading away anyway.
The majority of the GOP are castrated lemmings.
...”The majority of the GOP are castrated lemmings”...
This is what happens to career politicians. The people are the least of their concerns. They are padding their wallets at the expense of America and it’s people. Rand Paul is not among them. He is a statesman because he knows history, has a brain to think with and principles to uphold. He is not beholden to the “machine.” A true statesman is a rare figure in the halls of Congress and Senator Paul, I think, is one.
Add to that Sen. Ted Cruz as well.
Wow - Kerry would not look up the entire time that Sen Paul was addressing him - not once. He was pretending to write notes, etc but would not look up. Not once.
Isn’t what this regime is about - refusing to acknowledge others’ points of view and attempting ridicule to minimize others’ opinions?
What a sad state we’re in with these morons. We have Russia’s president much closer to the position of Americans. We have Isreal’s head schooling 0dumbo multiple times. We have leaders around the world calling him a coward to put politics above leadership. We have a world falling to pieces on his watch and he lays blame at others’ feet. He gives weapons to drug lords and blames others. He uses the police power of the executive branch in criminal operations and blames others.
This guy is an absolute joke. I hope we survive him and his cabal of morons.
What do you have against Senator Cruz?
Nothing. Both Paul and Cruz ARE GIANTS in the the Senate. Should had better explain myself. Having my second cup of morning joe.
Is Rand Ready? If he does, and is outvoted, and if it goes badly for America—Rand Paul will be the next president of the USA. Imagine if russia starts to release all the stuff they have on Obama? what happens if Iran is pulled in and Israel? I fear things could go badly fast.
I'm of the belief that if Obama pulls the trigger, we will loose at least one navy vessel and there will be great loss of life and great embarrassment for the US. I also believe these are the last days... turn to God while there is yet time... the US is out of time.
Bring in the porta-potty and a coffee maker and have at it Senator! And, a wireless mic...
That's not exactly correct. The Constitution also empowers Congress to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Many pretend these don't exist, and that they're from a bygone era.
However, what they are are military or covert operations less than war that injure an enemy for reasons of reprisal or national security interest.
So, Congress can grant a letter to pursue an objective that injures an enemy, even militarily, but that is less than war.
How about Rand Paul drop his own Amnesty Proposal first.
I’d trust him a whole lot more then.
I’d also believe, a whole lot easier, that this was more than just political theater.
If he filibusters on this I think people will start gathering at the Capitol.
Many No War for Ego signs.
If he filibusters, he will be the head of Whatever party he chooses. He will be a remarkable leftist fighter.
No War For Snake Oil! No War For Gas!
Sadly, most people can't bestir themselves to phone their congressman, never mind protest. The usual excuse: "Phone call's useless...and I have to work."
Sorry, but the topic is 0bama’s war on Syria, not amnesty. Don’t change the subject by trying to hijack my thread
Oh, okay thanks. I misunderstood you.
This is the path followed by the Left: rule by mob. Whomever is the loudest carries the day. We should avoid such behavior. I am completely sympathetic to Senator Paul's position, but I disagree that a filibuster would be an effective strategy politically or an appropriate course for a duly elected official of this great Republic. Going to war is a grave decision and Congress deserves to have a vote. Denying the people's legislative body the right to express its preference is wrong, and I am certain that the Founding Fathers would not support a parliamentary gimmick to forestall a vote on the most serious question a country can ever pose to itself. The Founding Fathers would not approve of the erection of such a barrier to the legitimate democratic process even though to a man they would condemn this unwarranted incursion in the affairs of another country.
I think you misunderstand.
A filibuster allows him and Cruz and others of their persuasion to talk and invite Americans to listen. As long as they can hold the floor uninterrupted. They can inspire and educate.
In the end it does not stop a vote unless there are enough votes to stop one, and Rand Paul knows there won’t be. Reid and the Senate Dems along with the McCain insane faction of “R”s will pass this in the Senate.
They will get to engage because that’s how the Senate is set up.
There will also be a vote, just delayed for a few hours.
Rand filibustered on a nomination, for 13 hrs, in order to demand that the WH clarify its position on the legality of killing Americans in America with Drones, something they had dodged before.
There was then a vote on that nomination after Rand gave up the floor, and that nomination passed overwhelmingly.
No Blood for Oil signs, too. With a side of pitchforks!
Now we have a 21st Century Tonkin Gulf Resolution. There were no Nay votes in the House, and only two Senators voted Nay in the Senate, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernst Gruening of Alaska. Morse is a hero of the anti-war left for that vote. I am not a fan of Morse but he was correct in his assessment of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and Paul is right in his assessment of this obvious fraud.
Paul made a great point to horseface, if the president will go to war without the Congressional vote, it makes a mockery out of Congress.
I guess Congress has now become the U.N.
His old man lectured on using letters of Marque and Reprisal. Ron, wanted to use them to go after OBL.
Secondly, Rand is wrong on War. A State is also empowered to engage in War. Congress and a State are the only principles that can do that.
This is REAL leadership.Can you believe in light of the absolute fact that the Al Qaeda had Sarin and Assad had no reason to gas his own people that rrepuublican leadership want to give obama cover for his gullibility
True. If we had of done that, instead of bombing Afghanistan, maybe the world would still be on our side as every country was after 911.
Slowly, they have turned against us. So many innocent people have been killed.
Now we are going to bomb Syria. That will kill at least a few more innocent people just as happens every time a drone strikes and kills another number two Aquada leader.
I'll appreciate Rand if he does this, but I find Cruz far more consistent and trustworthy.
Considering how the pattern for the last few decades has been each new administration is worse than the one it replaced, you might survive this one only to get something even worse. And be careful tempting fate about saying no one could be worse.
RINOs are the worst type of warmongers. Most are draft-dodgers who have never heard a shot fired in anger. They will send you children off to die in a heart-beat, because they think it’s “patriotic” to support any and all warmongering, whether it be from a republican president or democrat president. They are bloodthirty warmongers of the first degree. Like democrats they think war is but a game, to be played by anyone but them.
I am sure she meant this part of the statement.
"Rand Paul is not among them. He is a statesman because he knows history, has a brain to think with and principles to uphold. He is not beholden to the machine. A true statesman is a rare figure in the halls of Congress and Senator Paul, I think, is one."
You’re kinda late, see post#9
I hope he does it. Americans are on Rand’s side on this issue. This country needs some leadership to explain, discuss what is going on in Syria. We aren’t getting any leadership anywhere else.
Yes, we are
You want me to read your threads? This is what I call shameless self promotion. Sorry, ubba, but I am not interestedWell here; let me remove your fake reason for not clicking on the links in those FreeRepublic links that actually lead to the articles in question.
Perhaps you are right about the strategy, but I think this would be a misuse of the term “filibuster.” To filibuster is to extend debate on a bill to such a length that it consumes all the time in a session allocated to a given matter, thereby delaying a call for a vote on the bill until at least the following session. Debate may be ended by the body with a vote of cloture, requiring at least 60 votes.
The president pro tempore or committee chairman can give deference to a member to allow him to speak for a long time, if that's what he chooses to do. But I don't think he's obligated to, and he has the power to limit time taken by a senator to speak on the floor if he wants to; and he probably would if he thinks that he has the votes for cloture.
Anyway, I don't think Paul can block the parliamentary procedure of the Senate at will. He really needs 60 votes to be able to talk beyond is alloted time. If he has the 60 votes, he can filibuster. But I don't think he should filibuster a vote to take the country to war even if he has the votes for the reasons stated in my previous post.
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Our Federal government should be addressing the issues of the vulnerability of our power grid and infrastructure to EMP attack, closing our borders, strengthening our military for defensive use only, abolishing unconstitutional laws that prevent us from becoming energy independent
rather than committing our military to another civil war in the Middle East where they will be fighting alongside the terrorists who attacked us 12 years ago and hate us.
A filibuster would be magnificant. But for it to be a political victory would require making it a standing filibuster - talking about the many ways that this proposed resolution could lead to our national security being threatened, terrorism being enabled, etc. This is a rare opportunity to lay it on the line about how Obaba and the party of international terror will destroy the United States.
This is the path followed by the Left: rule by mob. Whomever is the loudest carries the day.
We are already ruled by mob, bullies and totalitiarians. If we don’t show some size and force, history will say of us as Solzenitzen said:
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
How is that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find the strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit and then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose the taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery.
Rand is kind of a grandstander. I’d be more convinced of his intentions if he said what kind of military action that he would endorse (not Syria specifically).
If I recall correctly he is an isolationist and while we dont need to be the world police, we also dont need to stick our head in the ground and pretend that the world has stopped because we arent looking anymore.
I think it’s a done deal in the senate and the senate will vote first. Then those in the house can vote “no”.
Not even in Siege of Damascus in 634AD, the Capture of Damascus in 1918, or the Great Syrian Revolt in 1925?
And those are just the times Damascus was a “ruinous heap” off the top of my head.
Isaiah 17:1-2 says “The burden against Damascus. ‘Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city, and it will be a ruinous heap” Take it or leave it...
I agree with Paul that Kerry is making a show of consulting Congress. This is no more than theatre. It came about only because Cameron got his ass handed to him by the House of Commons. Fortunately for Kerry he really doesnt have to stand and deliver, knowing that the opposition has more than a few minutes to shred his arguments.
The object of debate her is not what tactics is to be used but whether our trust should be put in Obama. You seem to be willing to do this; I do not.
Indeed, they were let loose in Wisconsin, and more recently in Austin.