Rand Paul filibuster brings GOP rats out into the light for us all to see

By David McElroy · March 7, 2013

Rand Paul has a better chance of being elected president than his father ever had. That’s partly because he’s more willing to play the pragmatic party political game, but it’s also partly because he’s not the doctrinaire libertarian that his father generally was.

Paul’s filibuster in the U.S. Senate Wednesday was nothing but political theater, but it ended up achieving something unexpected. It flushed out some of the highest-ranking Republicans and forced them to show the disdain they feel whenever individual liberties are concerned.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham not only didn’t support Paul, but they spent Thursday actively attacking him. McCain took to the Senate floor to attack Paul’s concern that the Obama administration would ever use drone strikes on Americans inside the borders of the country. Graham not only attacked Paul, but praised Obama’s use of drone strikes to kill people on the other side of the world.

After starting his filibuster alone Wednesday, Paul was eventually joined by a few Republican senators and one Democratic senator. While they talked about constitutional rights and lambasted the Obama administration for its refusal to say that it didn’t have legal authority to unilaterally kill Americans in this country, where were McCain and Graham?

They were with the Republican establishment having dinner with Obama.

If you’re one of the many conservatives who believe that the Republican Party is your savior when it comes to battling big government, think again. There’s a small core of GOP politicians who are somewhat more likely to be on the side of individual freedom than the statist old guard is, but those who believe in freedom are a minority in their own party.

All Republicans talk loudly about individual freedom and smaller government, but few of them mean it. Even fewer are willing to take concrete steps to implement their ideas. And a few of them — including McCain and Graham — are downright hostile to those who take constitutional freedoms seriously.

You might tell yourself that the GOP is going to change. After all, the senators who supported Paul Wednesday were generally younger ones who were elected in the last few years. It’s a good theory, but look at how this pattern really works.

Remember back in 1994 when Newt Gingrich led a group of “radical” conservative Republicans to take over the U.S. House? Their Contract with America was going to change everything. These young congressmen were going to be the ones who restored freedom and reduced the size of government. That’s been almost 20 years. How’s that working out? Is government smaller today?

People who go to Washington and become part of the system are going to tend to become quite happy with government. They’re going to say and do whatever they need in order to keep their constituents from revolting at election time, but most of them aren’t going to do much beyond that — partly because they can’t. The worst of them are going to become so friendly with government that they’re actually happy to trust politicians with the unchecked power to kill, just as McCain and Graham are today.

Paul’s filibuster isn’t going to change anything. The nomination of Obama’s choice for CIA director was easily passed Thursday. Obama is going to keep using drones to kill whoever he wants to kill. And if it ever becomes convenient and politically expedient, he’ll kill whoever he wants to kill here in this country. That’s not because Obama is especially evil compared to the rest. It’s simply because he’s a U.S. president who enjoys power and believes he’s entitled to use it.

On Thursday, the Obama administration finally responded to Paul’s question about killing Americans with a curt letter admitting that the president doesn’t have the power to kill Americans “not engaged in combat on American soil.” It’s amazing that an administration could fight so hard to avoid saying something so obviously true — and it’s also amazing that anyone could believe their statement carries any weight if they change their minds later.

Long-term, I see two things noteworthy about the filibuster.

First, it’s raised Paul’s profile greatly in the Republican Party. He showed the kind of political savvy that it takes to ignite a party’s base and win a presidential nomination. Can you think of any other recent president who’s been elected with no political experience other than a single term in the Senate? Yep. Barack Obama.

Second, Paul’s filibuster got some establishment Republicans to show which side they’re really on. For the most part, it’s not Red vs. Blue in Washington. It’s Establishment vs. Outsiders. In this case, the Establishment rats showed themselves for what they are. I hope the real Outsiders across the country were taking notes.

The filibuster itself didn’t change anything. It’s not going to change anything. But it was emotionally satisfying to hear someone get so much media attention for telling the truth about individual rights for a change. I’m not under the illusion that anything will change.

But it did feel good.

Share on Social Networks

On a live awards show Sunday night, one man made a joke about a female celebrity. The husband of the celebrity was offended and hit the man who made the joke. Or maybe it was staged for entertainment. Who knows? Who cares? Social media is full of discussion — and even arguments — about this idiocy today. This baffles me. Let’s assume for a moment that the event happened as reported. People have been having such idiotic fights ever since there have been humans. Half the bars in the world see such brief dustups regularly. It simply doesn’t matter. The fact that so many people believe they need to talk about this — or even need to have opinions about it — is more evidence of the bizarre media brainwashing that convinces many to care passionately about brain-dead trivia. Your life will be happier and saner if you focus on yourself, your family and your friends, not on whatever scripted (or spontaneous) bilge that the media wants to pipe into your home.

I’m in the middle of migrating this website to new servers this week. This means you might encounter some unexpected behavior until I get all the bugs worked out. Clicking on my links (including this one) might cause your browser to give you the message that it’s a site without a current security certificate. It’s not actually unsafe, but there’s something which isn’t yet set up for the security certificate. I apologize for any such errors you might encounter while the process is going on. If you notice any problems with content which didn’t migrate properly, I would appreciate you letting me know the details at davidmcelroy@mac.com. Thanks for your patience.

I often wonder what animals think when they look at us and consider the society we’ve created. Yes, I know this is fanciful and unrealistic, but what if they could? Would they be astounded at how we treat each other? Would they be disgusted by the ugliness and pettiness which fill so many of our daily interactions? The truth is that I’m feeling pretty disgusted with humanity tonight. I made the mistake of reading some online interactions that I should have avoided — and it sickened me. The people involved appeared to be vile and stupid and arrogant. I wish I could pretend they’re a tiny minority, but I know better. It’s times such as this when I most need to escape much of “civilization” and disconnect from their world. If humans are going to be worthy of “ruling this planet,” we have a lot of growth to do. And I fear that growth is nowhere in sight. So my buddy Thomas, above, and all of his friends would be right to judge us harshly — and to think, “Why do you folks get to be in charge?”

I should have expected this, but I honestly didn’t. The article I wrote last week about disagreements over treatment for autistic children brought me angry emails. You could almost call it “hate mail.” Of the five emails about it so far, two have been to tell me that I’m wrong to even listen to critics of the most popular therapy for autistic children — and the other three tell me I’m wrong for not condemning the treatment as the “obvious” abuse it is. If you read the article, you know I didn’t take a position on the issue, because I simply don’t know enough to have an opinion. But by talking about the issue, I stepped into a heated controversy. The emails from the two sides convinced me of nothing. But they did give me even more empathy for the unfortunate parents who have to figure out for themselves where the truth lies for their children.

Have you ever had what you thought was a new idea — and then discovered that “old you” had the same idea years ago? I had that experience tonight. And it’s been wonderful. I came up with an idea tonight for a very short satirical film that would be a promotion for a fictitious college. The point is to make the college promote — as good things — everything which is actually terrible about most modern colleges. Then I remembered a fake college that I invented back when I was in college. I had created student recruitment brochures and various newsletters back then, so I decided to call my “new” college by the same name I’d invented years ago: Ochita College. As I searched my computer for any old material I might still have about Ochita from the past, I discovered an email I sent to someone in 2009 — outlining essentially the same idea which I came up with tonight. Since I didn’t remember writing that, it felt like magic. So my next film project just might be this one instead. If all goes well, you might soon see “Ochita College: Your Future Starts Here.” This should be fun.

Related Posts