Skip to comments.Rand Paul ready for a standing filibuster 2.0 on Syria? (Video in the link)
Posted on 09/04/2013 2:02:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
Remember Sen. Rand Paul’s epic talking filibuster last spring over the government’s use of lethal drone strikes? It lasted a little bit less than 13 hours and garnered him a lot of mainstream- and social-media attention, and it sounds like he feels strongly enough about the resolution on a Syrian strike the White House is hoping to push through Congress that he’s isn’t unwilling to have another go at staging a similar Senatorial showcase. Via National Journal:
Paul was not bullish on his chances of success, however, saying “it would be historic” to stop the authorization, as it has the support of President Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “50-50 [odds] might be optimistic,” he said.
Still, Paul vowed to fight on in the Senate. He said that opponents of intervention in Syria, following allegations of chemical-weapons use by the government of President Bashar al-Assad, would almost assuredly push for a 60-vote majority in the Senate. …
“Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster,” he said, “I’ve got to check my shoes” and ability to tame his bladder, which is what ultimately caused the end of his drone filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid let it be known earlier today that he expects that he’ll have the votes to pass the resolution even if there is a filibuster, but whether that was a serious assessment, or a bullish ploy to make it seem more popular than it really is, remains to be seen. When the resolution does come to a vote, Paul gave us a preview of what a standing filibuster might sound like during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier today:
I think you misunderstand.
A filibuster allows him and Cruz and others of their persuasion to talk and invite Americans to listen. As long as they can hold the floor uninterrupted. They can inspire and educate.
In the end it does not stop a vote unless there are enough votes to stop one, and Rand Paul knows there won’t be. Reid and the Senate Dems along with the McCain insane faction of “R”s will pass this in the Senate.
They will get to engage because that’s how the Senate is set up.
There will also be a vote, just delayed for a few hours.
Rand filibustered on a nomination, for 13 hrs, in order to demand that the WH clarify its position on the legality of killing Americans in America with Drones, something they had dodged before.
There was then a vote on that nomination after Rand gave up the floor, and that nomination passed overwhelmingly.
No Blood for Oil signs, too. With a side of pitchforks!
Now we have a 21st Century Tonkin Gulf Resolution. There were no Nay votes in the House, and only two Senators voted Nay in the Senate, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernst Gruening of Alaska. Morse is a hero of the anti-war left for that vote. I am not a fan of Morse but he was correct in his assessment of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and Paul is right in his assessment of this obvious fraud.
Paul made a great point to horseface, if the president will go to war without the Congressional vote, it makes a mockery out of Congress.
I guess Congress has now become the U.N.
His old man lectured on using letters of Marque and Reprisal. Ron, wanted to use them to go after OBL.
Secondly, Rand is wrong on War. A State is also empowered to engage in War. Congress and a State are the only principles that can do that.
This is REAL leadership.Can you believe in light of the absolute fact that the Al Qaeda had Sarin and Assad had no reason to gas his own people that rrepuublican leadership want to give obama cover for his gullibility
True. If we had of done that, instead of bombing Afghanistan, maybe the world would still be on our side as every country was after 911.
Slowly, they have turned against us. So many innocent people have been killed.
Now we are going to bomb Syria. That will kill at least a few more innocent people just as happens every time a drone strikes and kills another number two Aquada leader.
I'll appreciate Rand if he does this, but I find Cruz far more consistent and trustworthy.
Considering how the pattern for the last few decades has been each new administration is worse than the one it replaced, you might survive this one only to get something even worse. And be careful tempting fate about saying no one could be worse.
RINOs are the worst type of warmongers. Most are draft-dodgers who have never heard a shot fired in anger. They will send you children off to die in a heart-beat, because they think it’s “patriotic” to support any and all warmongering, whether it be from a republican president or democrat president. They are bloodthirty warmongers of the first degree. Like democrats they think war is but a game, to be played by anyone but them.
I am sure she meant this part of the statement.
"Rand Paul is not among them. He is a statesman because he knows history, has a brain to think with and principles to uphold. He is not beholden to the machine. A true statesman is a rare figure in the halls of Congress and Senator Paul, I think, is one."
You’re kinda late, see post#9
I hope he does it. Americans are on Rand’s side on this issue. This country needs some leadership to explain, discuss what is going on in Syria. We aren’t getting any leadership anywhere else.
Yes, we are
You want me to read your threads? This is what I call shameless self promotion. Sorry, ubba, but I am not interestedWell here; let me remove your fake reason for not clicking on the links in those FreeRepublic links that actually lead to the articles in question.
Perhaps you are right about the strategy, but I think this would be a misuse of the term “filibuster.” To filibuster is to extend debate on a bill to such a length that it consumes all the time in a session allocated to a given matter, thereby delaying a call for a vote on the bill until at least the following session. Debate may be ended by the body with a vote of cloture, requiring at least 60 votes.
The president pro tempore or committee chairman can give deference to a member to allow him to speak for a long time, if that's what he chooses to do. But I don't think he's obligated to, and he has the power to limit time taken by a senator to speak on the floor if he wants to; and he probably would if he thinks that he has the votes for cloture.
Anyway, I don't think Paul can block the parliamentary procedure of the Senate at will. He really needs 60 votes to be able to talk beyond is alloted time. If he has the 60 votes, he can filibuster. But I don't think he should filibuster a vote to take the country to war even if he has the votes for the reasons stated in my previous post.