Friday, March 08, 2013

Lawrence O'Donnell obliterates Rand Paul's conspiratorial filibuster.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Excellent job on Lawrence's part. I don't know which filibuster Dionne and Grim saw but the one I saw closely matched the one that O'Donnell is describing.

It was crazy, it was conspiratorial, and it was aimed right at the most deeply held fears of the Tea Party movement, That this president will soon target them with drones for daring to speak out against him.

For those who keep asking what the purpose of Paul's filibuster was, first off I can't believe how slow you are on the uptake, and secondly this:

Paul himself seemed to appreciate that this was an important moment for himself, confidently acknowledging to POLITICO in an interview that he was “seriously” considering running for president in 2016. 

“I think our party needs something new, fresh and different,” he said. “What we’ve been running — nothing against the candidates necessarily — but we have a good, solid niche in all the solidly red states throughout the middle of the country.” 

But he suggested previous Republican candidates have had limited appeal to voters beyond the Republican base. 

“We have to figure out how to appeal to the West Coast, New England [and] around the Great Lakes area. We need to figure out how to appeal to the blue-collar voters that voted — that were Democrats that voted for Reagan and I think are drifting back because they see us as the party of the wealthy. … I do want to be part of making the Republican Party again more of a national party, less than a regional party, which I think we’re in danger of becoming. 

Does that make it more clear?

Paul was able to grab the spotlight, use the drone strike debate to make himself seem vaguely topical, and manipulate a few people out there who don't feel very connected to any one party, into believing that he is not an absolute lunatic.

Which of course is EXACTLY what he is. But hey seeing open disagreement within the Republican party is never a bad thing in my opinion.

And if Rand Paul wants to run in 2016, let him run in 2016. Who knows, considering how discombobulated the Republican party is these days, he might just win.

The black helicopter crowd VS the Democratic party, sounds like popcorn time to me!


  1. Randall6:47 AM

    I think AG Holder missed a golden opportunity...

    When Rand Paul sent his letter asking if the President of the United States could use a drone to kill a United States citizen on United States soil?

    Holder's answer should have been, "Well you're still standing there, aren't ya?"

  2. I ve made myself dizzy here from rolling my eyes and shaking my head. Rand Paul is just not a serious candidate for US President.

    If he were serious, he would've mentioned about how he will take back from Sharia Law and would've given a shout out to all of the good American Patriots, headed by the best Patriot of all, the highest rated- governor in Alaska history and in the nation, Sarah Palin, thanking her for endorsing him when he was a nobody and then again when he told that old man McCain to shut up and take his Viagra. And Rand would've at least said to buy Sarah's brother and daddy's book cuz it don't look like they're gonna be able to sell one to ALL of her 3.5 Million (and growing every day!!!) Facebook friends and family and admirers. And if you don't think them books is heavy to lug around, just ask Bristol. She says it's harder than jayvee basketball was that year she went to high school. Sarah Palin 2016!!!

  3. Anonymous7:37 AM

    Rand Paul is just another clown in the GOP clown car. All he did with his filibuster is encourage the anti-government militias with the idea that the government might come after them with drones.

    1. Anonymous10:45 AM

      ......and hollow-point bullets. Take no prisioners!

  4. Anonymous7:45 AM

    It's interesting McCain brought up the Libertarian college kids hearing this (drone conspiracy) and freaking out. My college kid mentioned just last night that many of the kids he knows ARE freaked out about it.

    There is so much confusion and deceit in politics these days, how can you expect teenagers and low information adult voters to figure it all out? My on head is spinning trying to decypher what is what anymore in politics. There is just so much crazy one can take.

  5. Rand’s different all right, and not in a good way. He’s got some poor old grannies hyperventilating because they attended a Tea Party rally? Oh well, thin out the herd, less money for Sarah.

  6. Anonymous7:59 AM

    At least Rand Paul helped pinpoint who in the Senate identifies with him. Seeing Cruz and McConnell stand up with him was not a surprise. The company he keeps is enough to bring him down.

    What has really scared me are the pundits who have commended him on what he did. Did they ot listen to his rants? Did they nont hear the lunancy in his comments?

    Sure, we need guideliness on donres. President Obama has said that and is asking for Congress to put policiies in place. Why aren't the pundits talking about that instead?

  7. Shari8:04 AM

    Rand Paul will be just like his daddy - a perennial GOP Presidential candidate. He has been a media whore since his first days in office. Nothing is too "out there" for Rand to say and of course a lot of misguided souls believe his non-sense. While I no doubt he will NEVER be President or even on the ticket as VP, his words are as dangerous as Glenn Beck's. How can anyone take a man with a perm seriously?

    1. Virginia Voter9:47 AM

      EXACTLY Shari, unless the people of Kentucky vote this doofus out, we will be subjected to Rand Paul's endless shenanigans every election cycle. He will tun for president for the next twenty years, since he's only about 50 years old. Ugh.

  8. Randall8:39 AM

    Someone should point out to Paul and his tea-bagger acolytes, that the President was given the power to use drones at his discretion by the Congress.

    As well as the power to torture, to suspend Habeas Corpus, detention centers, to invade other countries, etc. etc. etc. The CONGRESS gave the President FAR-reaching powers.

    Of course, the President at the time was George W Bush, but, you see...
    the power went to the office, not the man in office.

    So NOW ...a Democrat has that power.

    1. Anonymous9:01 AM

      And now, instead of being a patrotic rich white guy being led around by another rich power hungry white guy, the man in office is a scary educated black guy with a beautiful family, an intelligent, well-spoken wife, and golly gee Goober, this is scary! How did he get those drones? Why is the Army buying up all those bullets? Why don't we throw a parade for old Rand, 'cause Sister Sarah said he's a real Amurikun hero!! After all, said my sister the lunatic, 'it's right in front of your face.' Yes, dears, it is, and that pile of crap from the GOP grows bigger and stinkier every day. Hopefully they will bury themselves soon.

    2. I can't stand Lindsey Graham, but I do give him credit for asking why the Senate never questioned Bush's policy on drones (and don't forget Cheney!!!) but they are all over President Obama.

    3. Anonymous11:13 AM

      Deni, he only brought it up because it suited his purpose. Those words would never have been uttered if he didn't have a motive.

  9. I live in very, very red Central Oregon. There is no shortage of conspiracy theories out here. This morning I heard that our little airport is being turned into a Drone launching site. It will be closed to all other air traffic (yeah, right). The airport doesn't even have fuel. Another day, another crazy story. Sigh.

  10. Anonymous9:54 AM

    "When a political figure is in the opposing party, that almost certainly means that they're bad on a lot of issues you care about. But if you dismiss them when they're good on something else, then you're dismissing all the people who care about that issue, including the people in your own party who care about that issue."
    ~David Otness

  11. Anita Winecooler12:04 PM

    I'm so grateful that the drone conspiracy can finally be put to rest. Eric Holder's response took 13 seconds and the question took 13 hours. Couldn't he send an e mail an accomplish the same thing?

    Anyone else get the impression little Randy's got a "crush" on Jane Fonda?

  12. Anonymous12:50 PM

    9:54 AM:

    Rand Paul doesn't give a crap about drones. He is a FRAUD! Rand Paul doesn't get a pass, just because he pretended to be "good on something else," while he continues to dismiss the majority of America, and all the other issues the majority of America cares about!

    If Rand Paul was so "good" on drones, then why hasn't he introduced any legislation, or done any real WORK to do something about it? All Rand Paul has offered is a phony dog and pony show, in the senate!


  13. Anonymous2:37 PM

    So the question that Paul posed to President Obama was whether he would ever use drone strikes against non-combatant Americans on U.S. soil. How did nobody realize that that is the same as asking the president if he would ever use any aspect of the military against non-combatant Americans on U.S. soil. Why didn’t Paul ask whether the president would use military sharp-shooters against non-combatant Americans on U.S. soil, he has those at his disposal too. I’ll tell you why he didn’t, because it would never have gained traction and it would have been dismissed as ludicrous. Why? Because we all know that that is obviously unconstitutional and that unless a certifiably insane person was in the White House there is no grounds to ask such a question. However, Paul was very sly. Instead he cloaked his question with the very controversial word “drone” and then he wrapped it in an actual “talkie filibuster”, a creature so rare these days the media doesn’t even care what the person actually says when he is standing there. The media went so crazy with joy over the spectacle, as they do these days, that they missed the odious assertion Paul was actually trying to make about our current President. I believe that there are many questions that the administration needs to answer when it comes to the Drone program, but asking the president whether or not he planned to use them against non-combatant Americans is idiotic and highly insulting. Here a few things to note: the filibuster is an act which should only be admired when the intent behind it is admirable. The true intent of Paul’s rant was not admirable. He filled much of his time using speech that was at times a kin to yelling “fire” in a crowd theater against our government. He sowed seeds that feed the minds of isolated, dejected, and mentally unstable citizens. Aside from spreading paranoia and fear, he used it mostly to boost his profile. I’m tried of people hailing this guy as a hero. Yes, for a moment it was nice to see a filibuster used in the way is was intended. However, that does not dismiss the fact that Rand Paul is a very ambitious guy with seriously crazy ideas...that is never a good combination.

  14. Anonymous3:12 PM

    Fuck you Lindsey Graham. How dare you ask why no republicans asked if bush would use drones on americans on us soil! How dare he. This is the same asshole that won't let go of the Bengazi issue but has yet to address the 31 others that were killed during 7 other embassy raids during bush's 8 yrs. I want to know why he has never asked about those embassy attacks.

    1. our lad3:50 PM

      All true, however in his defense, he did a wonderful job decorating his office with Sherman, his personal aide. It's really quite lovely and in understated and very good taste. He is a wonderful cook and has a large collection of antique women's bath products that is one of the most complete in the United States. He also owns many of Imelda Marcos' designer gowns. He can sing the entire score from My Fair Lady, all the parts. All of these things point to one thing; Lindsey Graham is a heck of a guy!


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.