Thursday, March 7, 2013

Did the Planners of Rand Paul's Filibuster Forget to Tell Him About Stadium Pal?

Rand Paul's filibuster will go into the record books as No. 9 on the list of longest Senate speeches, clocking in at 12 hours and 52 minutes. One wonders if the behind the scenes controls that came up with the idea of filibuster are happy with the performance. And make no mistake, if neocon Jennifer Rubin and the rest of the crowd were cheering on the filibuster, via tweets during the first hour of the speakathon, that calls were made in advance that Rand could be trusted.

Otherwise, how could Rubin be so cocksure early on in the filibuster that Rand wouldn't say something objectionable to neocons in, say, hour five? Rand came through, nuff said.

But back to the filibuster itself, are his controls happy with No.9? Did they not tell Rand about stadium pal? That sure would have helped Rand break the record. The record was set by Sen. Strom Thurmond in 1957 with a 24 hour and 18 minute filibuster. According to USA Today, Rand joked he wanted to try and eclipse Thurmond, but he needed a bathroom break. Or was Rand wearing a stadium pal and just didn't have the stamina?

Whoever planned this is a very skilled operative. I'm told the idea was not likely developed within Rand's immediate circle. This was a top level sophisticated stuff. It may mean that the real players think Rand can be trusted and molded.

Keep in mind, outside of getting Rand much publicity, the filibuster itself did nothing. It will not prevent CIA nominee John Brennan from being confirmed by the Senate. It will not stop American drones from continuing to blow up foreigners via amazing missile carrying flying iron birds. It was magnificent air.

Further, it was a brilliant stroke for Rand to quote Glenn Greenwald during his filibuster. It brought many more cheers and positive tweets for Rand. Again, the sign of a very clever behind the scenes operative lurking.

I am all for the next Ron Paul but, although the DNA is close, I am not sure it will be Rand Paul. Let's see what happens from here. Lets see if Rand carries a libertarian banner beyond a useless filibuster. If he does, I will be cheering. But I am very suspicious and I am taking a very wait and see approach. There will, of course, be many bathroom breaks we will have to take between now and 2016, far too many for a stadium pal to help us. Let's see how things develop between these bathroom breaks. Overtime, it will become clear whether Rand needs to be flushed also.


  1. What was it the G.W.B. said, "Fool me once?" Funny thing is you could take the same approach to Ron. Wait and see. Still waiting...

  2. I received an e-mail from a friend about this as it was happening who was calling it "history in the making."

    What is very apparent to me is that people are very desperate for change that they can be whispered sweet nothings and believe it is the second coming.

    Like you said, it was very well played.

    My hope is for the day when people will be able to sort out this for what it is, grandstanding. Don't be so desperate and placated by mere pomp and circumstance when specific actions are required.

    This is the same reason why the candy is placed at the register. It is a marketing ploy to get the better of your judgment by tempting you with cheap, childish antics that will eventually rot your teeth and turn your stomach if you consume too much of it.

    1. What I find most disconcerting is otherwise totally self-confessed apolitical "libertarians" positively orgasmic over Rand's "heroic" bullshit show yesterday.

    2. I agree it was well orchestrated and well played.

      But an important question remains unasked... Why were McCain and Graham not included? They have been portrayed by the authoritarian-right media as out-of-touch GOP establishment buffoons...

      Are McCain and Graham out?

  3. I tried to post this on the other post but it didn't take.

    I'm extremely skeptical of motive here.

    1.) Brennan is not highly thought of by Israel. See video as to one reason why:

    2.) Rand just completed his pilgrimage to Israel where no doubt he received "advice" on votes.

    3.) In Rand Paul's confirmation of Hagel he's quoted as saying, "There are many things I disagree with Chuck Hagel on, there are many things I disagree with John Kerry on, there are very few things I agree with the president on, but the president gets to choose political appointees.”

    So now all of sudden Rand stands up against Brennan? Why?

    It's a show. He's not a libertarian. I'll gladly take the small victories when he's the cog in the wheel of the machine but he is still part of the machine unlike his father who was always an outsider.

  4. To say that the filibuster "did nothing" is like saying that Ron Paul's presidential runs did nothing since he didn't have a chance of being elected.

    I'm still unsure what to make of Rand, but I don't discount the value of rhetoric and shrewd political tactics to draw attention to important issues. That's why I got on the Ron Paul bandwagon in the first place, because I believe in voter education far more than I believe in legislative solutions.

    Truthfully, I was pleasantly surprised by how coherent and good Rand's comments were, even four hours in.

    1. I agree. Rand's not perfect, but he moves the Overton in the libertarian direction, and that's a good thing.

      It makes us An-Caps look a little less like outliers... Gives us a little more credibility in the public square.

  5. RAND PAUL'S filibuster was fine as far as it went. But, it did not go nearly far enough. What is needed is for the President to be impeached, convicted, removed from office. And we should be concerned about ANYBODY being murdered by Obama's drones and not just American citizens.

    In any event, “politics” will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.

    John Lofton, Recovering Republican
    Active Facebook Wall

    1. Great point. The "principled" position would be to now block the use of drones - really military power - ANYWHERE and on ANYONE throughout the world and not just Americans or on American soil.