Thursday, March 7, 2013

The Neocon Points That Rand Adhered To

By, Chris Rossini

Earlier today, Bob Wenzel asked the following:
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.
Later today Rubin gave us the checklist that garnered her approval (my emphasis):

Paul was clever to pick an issue, a specific and narrow issue, on which virtually no one can disagree. He wasn’t attacking the war on terror. He wasn’t attacking drone use overseas. He surely wasn’t attacking indefinite detention at Guantanamo for enemy combatants. He was objecting to the refusal of the administration to say whether it is constitutional to use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens who are not combatants.
Bob was on the money.

And Rand was able to get onto the Lincoln adorning Glenn Beck show as well as Rush Limbaugh.

Follow @ChrisRossini on Twitter


  1. And the public got their answer too. "No." Which everyone will sing the praises to Rand for.

    Of course, what the super-majority don't realize is that the definition of "combatants" is up for grabs. It will surely be defined to favor the president once drones are used to kill a citizen on US soil.

  2. The resolution ( says that using on americans that are not an imminent threat is unconstitutional. This implies that if one is deemed an imminent threat then drones would be allowed (I smell a loophole here). The real question is who does the deeming?

    And of course no concern for the ethics involved with drones. American or not, killing people without any sort of due process or killing people mistakenly is plain wrong.

  3. Although I generally agree with you guys about Rand, I think that credit should be given when due. A Senate filibuster is not exactly rocket science -- it requires a bigger bladder than a brain, so I don't think this had the level of sophistication you and Robert are attributing to it.

    I also agree that Rand Paul kept it very narrow, and I think your criticism of that is justified. However, the fact that Rand et al had so much difficulty getting Obama to agree to his very simple, narrow statement is telling. In the long run, given the lack of sophistication of most people, that simplicity may turn out to be fortuitous.

    In summary, I agree Rand is being cagey, but I think it has drawn attention to an issue that is important. I also think the reaction from "luminaries" like John McCain are starting to open people's eyes.

    Rand's not a libertarian, but this was a pretty good action on his part. The fact that it would not work in the end is irrelevant unless you also think Ron Paul's presidential run is irrelevant since he didn't win.

  4. But, Ron Paul said he was 'proud of what [his] son was doing'. Does that mean Ron Paul sold out to the neo-cons as well?

    1. Ivan, Ron Paul can do no wrong, don't you know? When he does something politically objectionable or uses a "private" group to steal people's property, it's cool and will be spun appropriately. If Rand tries to play the political game and sets himself up nicely for the GOP nomination [he is in a better position than Ron ever was], he is a neo-con fascist.

    2. You're raising a straw-man argument. Rand was filibustering based on a narrow premise. It's a good premise overall, but the devil is in the details. There's nothing wrong with Ron saying he's proud of his son's filibuster. To then say that Ron sold out from that statement has nothing to do with a Father's admiration for his son. You're trying to make Bob look bad for highlighting real issues associated with Rand and his political agenda not being congruent with libertarian principles.

      People were rightfully happy it was happening, but without completely understanding the ramifications (none!) of the outcome.

      When you think about it, the end result maybe even worse than "nothing" because now people who are ignorant enough about the system and how it works actually think that Rand stopped something from happening. They had their awareness raised about the issue, which is very good. But now they think it's been resolved when it hasn't been. That's the bad.

      The reality is, we have no clear definition or jurisprudence of what a combatant is in this circumstance. Holder (you can bet your a** as approved by the president) was extremely careful in choosing the statement released to Rand. There is a very good reason for it. Don't kid yourself.