An alternate view of Rand Paul's filibuster

Via Sultan Knish  and his Friday Afternoon Roundup titled The Senator from al-Qaeda.  Go read it all, below is a short excerpt:

[snip]

And here is the ultimate point.

This isn't about opposing drone strikes on Americans, it's about using that to salami slice the debate to get to his real agenda which is opposing drone strikes on Al Qaeda.

Ultimately we as a country need to figure out how to end war. We've had the war in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The war basically has authorized a worldwide war. 

 

This is Rand Paul's position. It's the position of anti-war protesters in 2002. It's Barack Obama's original position before he discovered that war wasn't so easy to end.

If you stand with Rand, this is what you stand with.

Everyone can do what they please, but if you're going to stand with Rand, then let's be clear about his positions and agenda. And be clear about whether you share them or not.

No more dressing this up in "Rand Paul is standing up for the Constitution." That's the same dishonest claim his father made for years. And none of the even more dishonest, "Drone strikes on Americans in cafes" nonsense. 

That's not what this is about.


1. Do you think that the United States is murdering innocent Muslims and inspiring terrorist attacks?

2. Do you think that if we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone?

3. If you think all those things, then wasn't the left, which has been saying all these things since before September 11, right all along? 

Is Van Jones agreeing with you... or are you agreeing with Van Jones?


One blogger called the filibuster the biggest Republican victory since the midterm elections. Sure. In one case, the Republican won the House of Representatives. In the other a guy who believes that drones are a New World Order conspiracy got to trend on Twitter at night for a few hours.

For years Ron Paul supporters believed that flying a blimp and googling Who Is Ron Paul would lead to the people coming over on September 11 being caused by American foreign policy. It hasn't and it won't. Every Paultard victory was an imaginary triumph that took place in their own bubble. Now the Republican Party is climbing into an even smaller version of that bubble.

And then a few years from now we can celebrate every one of the Paul clan's publicity stunt complete with the No Drones blimp while losing by a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don't win by abandoning conservative values.

You don't win by going liberal on immigration.

You don't win by going liberal on government spending

You don't win by going liberal on social values.

And you don't win by going liberal on national defense.

You either have a conservative agenda or a mixed bag. And Rand Paul is the most mixed bag of all, because the only area that he is conservative on is limited government.

If the new Republican position is open borders, pro-terror and anti-values, then what makes the Republican Party conservative?

Reducing conservatism to cutting the size of government eliminates it and replaces it with libertarianism. It transforms the Republican Party into the party of drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, terrorism... and spending cuts. And the latter is never going to coexist with a society based on the former.

This isn't the popular thing to write. The popular thing to write is to praise Rand Paul for his political theater and to call it courage. And then maybe to timidly dissent in one or two areas, while praising him as the future of the Republican Party.

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party... then the party has no future.  (continue reading at Sultan Knish, a/k/a Daniel Greenfield)

As the Republicans try to week out potential leaders and potential presidential candidates, we need to be very careful NOT to latch on to the newest shiny object. 

We need to look at how the politicians act, what they say, what they have done in the past, and their beliefs on ALL issues.

Comments

[McCloud]

Here's where I support Paul--accountability. Obama campaigned on transparency and how Bush/Cheney were Hitler, etc, but he gets in there and keeps up the secrecy and war powers. His AG couldn't even explain whether the POTUS had the power to kill a US citizen suspected of being AQ, on US soil, who wasn't involved in an imminent or ongoing attack.

The left and media will not hold Obama accountable. Doing stuff like this might be the only way. And McCain needs to watch what he says.. he's AGAINST enhanced interrogation but in favor of extra-judicial drone kills? Not sure about others but I had to hold my nose to pull the lever for him in 2008.