Whatever his other "out there" political views, Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster was thrilling. It was thrilling merely as a civics lesson: This is how filibusters were done before the 1980s, where a senator had to take and hold the floor, maybe with the help of other senators, maybe alone. Sometimes it was in the service of an immoral cause, as with Strom Thurmond's epic 24 hour and 18 minute stand against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Others acted in the interests of republican govenment, as with Bernie Sanders' filibuster opposing extension of the Bush tax cuts. Even if you think Paul's was a stunt, it showed how we should insist that senators actually take the floor and defend their position, rather than telling the Majority Leader they will deny him the 60 votes for cloture and calling it a filibuster.
It was thrilling because, if only for a few hours and largely on social media, it broke out national spell of stupid. President Obama, our constitutional-law professor, has taken as casual an approach to civil liberties as his predecessor, perhaps even more so. Paul wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him about the drone program and whether it could be used by the president, without due process, to kill American citizens on American soil. Instead of a simple "no," Holder, who has refused to extend the rule of law to the big banks, implied that the president indeed held this power. This is an outrage. It is fundamentally unconstitutional. Where the hell were the supposed "liberal Democrats"? It was left to the usually kooky Rand Paul to actually act like an American senator in the best tradition of the office.
Finally, it was interesting in the way it scrambled the usual hard partisan lines and momentarily forced open some minds, revealed character. Paul's support and criticism came from across the spectrum. Chief among his critics were wealthy Republican John Sidney McCain III and his cocker spaniel Lindsey Graham. Why do these men have any standing on any topic, especially national security? Both remain unapologetic supporters of the war in Iraq, apparently still believing those "weapons of mass destruction" are still there, somewhere. John McCain is the best the Republican Party has as a senior statesman? It's a sick joke.
The ability to make war and the control of armies and fleets are, throughout history, the greatest threat to republics. This is why the Founders gave Congress sole power to declare and fund wars, and made the president commander in chief. It's not a foolproof system — from the Mexican War and Spanish-American War to Iraq, we can see how public opinion, hysteria, greed and partisan discipline can lead the nation into wicked or foolish conflicts. But ever since the Korean "police action," as supposedly blunt-speaking Harry Truman first called it, the checks and balances have been eroding. One big consequence was Vietnam. The usurpation of presidential power reached new highs under Bush and Cheney, but Mr. Obama has not sought to rebalance things. Far from it.
Do not be fooled by the circus of the Congress, sequester, etc. It is the war-making powers of the president and national security state where grave danger lies. Probably not with Mr. Obama; with a successor, surely. The breakdown of our party system and Congress inability to address the real issues facing us. The cost of soft empire (or, if you wish, playing world umpire with a few atrocities on the side) and the risks of a miscalculation (say when China takes Taiwan and we lose five very expensive carriers, and must decide whether to go nuclear or withdraw from the Far East). These things are real and will empower a man or woman on the white horse to take control. Particularly when things start to get hairy with climate change, when the "hundred year supply of natural gas" and shale-oil boom turn out to be another lie told to placate the duhs and ignos. He or she will control the military and (thaks, Buford) Die Homeland Security apparatus. He or she will think they're doing us a favor, saving the nation. Caesar certainly did.
Jon, you have written truth in this piece. Too bad your words will not reach very far.
Posted by: terese dudas | March 08, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Holder to Paul: No.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/611939-senator-rand-paul-second-letter.html
Posted by: koreyel | March 08, 2013 at 01:18 PM
Police kill armed and dangerous criminals all the time if they won't surrender.
If an armed and dangerous criminal declares war against his own country, threatens American citizens from afar, and has demonstrated the will and the means to carry out those threats what's the difference?
That person should be stopped by any means necessary. And, if such a person seeks shelter by hiding in a citizens house, those citizens are going to have to decide what is a better way to die: by killing the terrorist themselves or allowing themselves to be collateral damage.
There is a price that a country pays for deliberately harboring deadly criminals.
Posted by: headless lucy | March 08, 2013 at 01:41 PM
. . . ."harboring deadly criminals", . . . like the Obama thugs perhaps?
Posted by: terese dudas | March 08, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Don't be fatuous, Terese. That kind of nimnull argument is what gives liberals a bad name.
I've just pointed out to you that civil authorities can kill deadly criminals if they won't surrender, and you've given me a pap slogan as a refutation.
Posted by: headless lucy | March 08, 2013 at 04:15 PM
The police kill unarmed and innocent citizens all the time too. The police have mistaken wallets, staplers, and hair dryers as guns and shot these "criminals". Are they just collateral damage? So headless lucy puts the onus on innocents rather than the criminal or the police or the military. It is a strange world where I'm in agreement with the Kook Rand Paul.
Posted by: eclecticdog | March 08, 2013 at 04:22 PM
"Fatuous". indeed, Lucy; I know thugs when I see them. I am a Chicago native.
Posted by: terese dudas | March 08, 2013 at 05:51 PM
nimnull
fatuous
pap slogan
refutation
Man, if I knew what that shit meant, I sure would have something to say about it.
But I don't, so I won't.
You nerds kill me, you absolutely kill me.
Posted by: AZRebel | March 08, 2013 at 09:45 PM
@AzRebel, those two are killing me for different reasons, since I do know what that shit means, except maybe for "nimnull," which appears to be a neologism.
Oops. Sorry about that last bit, Reb.
Posted by: Petro | March 09, 2013 at 09:00 AM
neologism?
Thanks Petro.
They had me duct-taped to a chair and you came in and delivered the "coop de grass".
They always send someone you know and trust to do the deed.
So Petro, I heard you paint houses??
Posted by: AZRebel | March 09, 2013 at 10:08 AM
I'm glad Lucy & I introduced some levity (humor) into this thread.
Posted by: terese dudas | March 09, 2013 at 10:39 AM
A real AZ Rebel would be someone smart and literate. You sound like some Iowa transplant who thinks they're an AZ Rebel.
Posted by: dorky dorkman | March 09, 2013 at 12:03 PM
A nimnull is an Orkian word that Mork used to describe AZ Rebels (dumbos).
Posted by: dorky dorkman | March 09, 2013 at 12:06 PM
I'm not a dumbo. My Mother had me tested.
Recently had my IQ tested,(just out of curiosity, since it had never been done), 120.
I realize that is quite low for some of the IQ's on this blog. AND that is why I like hanging around these folks, always learning new stuff.
That's also why I like riding with Petro in the truck. The average IQ in the truck goes up 50 points.
Posted by: AZRebel | March 09, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Actually, if your number is correct, it only rises 18.5 points, Reb... ;)
Posted by: Petro | March 09, 2013 at 02:17 PM
Headless Lucy's arrival is a definite enrichment for the Rogue!
Posted by: morecleanair | March 09, 2013 at 04:42 PM
I think Sen j. McCain is the most important Democrat in the Republican Party.. I don't know what happened to him..maybe Obama has promised him a job??
Posted by: Skip | March 09, 2013 at 05:26 PM
I'm sure that the only reason McCain appears on all the teevee shows is that he holds an Actor's Equity card and union rules demand it.
He's simply bad entertainment (and Ms Lindsay's tricks are fun to watch.)
Posted by: bearsense | March 10, 2013 at 09:19 AM
An IQ of 120 is above average, Rebel Man.
Posted by: headless hucy | March 10, 2013 at 09:48 AM
When Azrebel and i get together we are average.
Posted by: cal Lash | March 10, 2013 at 09:51 AM
Slams on azrebel! Be careful you don't rile up the Apache in him. Iowa my ass!
Posted by: eclecticdog | March 11, 2013 at 09:08 AM
There are no Apaches in Iowa? That's racist.
Don't get the Shinnecock riled in me. Not unless you want your rear end smacked with a string of wampum!
Posted by: headless lucy | March 11, 2013 at 10:19 AM
"Why do these men have any standing on any topic, especially national security?" - Rogue
I recently watched "Game Change". An excellent movie about very, very disturbed people. Though, Ed Harris found a way to squeeze some nobility out of the character of Senator McCain.
Posted by: Social Castout | March 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM