Rand Paul's Filibuster is Live on CSPAN2.

[Townhallsavoy]

Paul with the balls protecting us from drones.

[GH2001]

Awesome. We have at least one guy up there with sense.

[bottomfeeder]

Awesome. We have at least one guy up there with sense.

He's the only one up there with any sense. Just look at Alabama's NUTLESS reps, BWAHAHA! Instead of shaking Session's hand one day, I actually flipped him off and told him to "Go fuck yourself." SS wasn't anywhere around. I guess, because it was early in the morning at Waffle House. I was hoping and praying he would puke up his breakfast, take flight on those Dumbo ears and land in traffic. Then get run over by some welfare recipient with no auto insurance. Then to top it all off, the Aflac duck would shit on one if his Dumbo ears.

[Townhallsavoy]

I watched about an hour of it.  Made a lot of sense.  Eric Holder's inability to answer their question speaks volumes to what the White House thinks of the fifth amendment. 

[AUChizad]

If Republicans don't fuck this up, this could be a major turning point in popular opinion. IF they don't fuck this up.

It was funny reading my timeline on Twitter. The few liberals that spoke about it at all, were truly butthurt. They wanted to bash Paul and support Obama, but couldn't bring themselves to. Instead it was more of "Oh now America is paying attention. Code Pink & the ACLU were praising Paul and many people's heads were exploding.

If Republicans can take this moment to flip the narrative on who the party of tyrannical war-mongerers, and who is in opposition to abuses of executive power in war time situations, this could be very good for Republicans.

[Townhallsavoy]

If Republicans don't fuck this up, this could be a major turning point in popular opinion. IF they don't fuck this up.

It was funny reading my timeline on Twitter. The few liberals that spoke about it at all, were truly butthurt. They wanted to bash Paul and support Obama, but couldn't bring themselves to. Instead it was more of "Oh now America is paying attention. Code Pink & the ACLU were praising Paul and many people's heads were exploding.

If Republicans can take this moment to flip the narrative on who the party of tyrannical war-mongerers, and who is in opposition to abuses of executive power in war time situations, this could be very good for Republicans.

Could be.  But I doubt it.  For one, I don't think the Republicans are doing themselves any favors by bringing up the George Bush angle.  Just reminds people that they perceive Republicans as the ones who are prone to be war mongerers. 

[GH2001]

If Republicans don't fuck this up, this could be a major turning point in popular opinion. IF they don't fuck this up.

It was funny reading my timeline on Twitter. The few liberals that spoke about it at all, were truly butthurt. They wanted to bash Paul and support Obama, but couldn't bring themselves to. Instead it was more of "Oh now America is paying attention. Code Pink & the ACLU were praising Paul and many people's heads were exploding.

If Republicans can take this moment to flip the narrative on who the party of tyrannical war-mongerers, and who is in opposition to abuses of executive power in war time situations, this could be very good for Republicans.

I'm telling you, there are two factions of the GOP right now. The establishment neocons are the ones you are referring to. Rove, Kristol, Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, McCain are the main ones. If the republicans dont put one of the guys from yesterday's filibuster up there in 2016, I'm done with them. Between Rubio, Paul and Cruz you have three capable guys who get it. You may have small disagreements on them in re to ther things such as social stances but Constitutionally they get it. And yesterday proves it. They aren't gonna back down and conform like the mainstream GOP.

[AUTiger1]

I'm telling you, there are two factions of the GOP right now. The establishment neocons are the ones you are referring to. Rove, Kristol, Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, McCain are the main ones. If the republicans dont put one of the guys from yesterday's filibuster up there in 2016, I'm done with them. Between Rubio, Paul and Cruz you have three capable guys who get it. You may have small disagreements on them in re to ther things such as social stances but Constitutionally they get it. And yesterday proves it. They aren't gonna back down and conform like the mainstream GOP.

Exactly right.  There are the Tea Party/Libertarian Leaning/Freedom and Liberty Movements (whatever the popular phrase is right now) Republicans and then there is the old guard.  Notice the outcry on social media last night when Senators McCain, Graham, Johnson and others went to dinner with Obama and not being on the Senate floor in support of Rand Paul.  Even though Toomey and Chambliss came back and Mitch McConnell showed up late, there was a lot of pissed off people in the twitter and facebook world at those guys last night. 

We had a good old fashioned filibuster yesterday and it was the junior guys that took charge.   Cruz, Rubio, Barrasso, Scott, and Flake are the ones that come to mind first.  I hope, I mean I really hope those guys take over the party and start leading.  Last night was a tremendous first step.  Too bad the old guard is going to fight them to the bitter end.

[GH2001]

Exactly right.  There are the Tea Party/Libertarian Leaning/Freedom and Liberty Movements (whatever the popular phrase is right now) Republicans and then there is the old guard.  Notice the outcry on social media last night when Senators McCain, Graham, Johnson and others went to dinner with Obama and not being on the Senate floor in support of Rand Paul.  Even though Toomey and Chambliss came back and Mitch McConnell showed up late, there was a lot of pissed off people in the twitter and facebook world at those guys last night. 

We had a good old fashioned filibuster yesterday and it was the junior guys that took charge.   Cruz, Rubio, Barrasso, Scott, and Flake are the ones that come to mind first.  I hope, I mean I really hope those guys take over the party and start leading.  Last night was a tremendous first step.  Too bad the old guard is going to fight them to the bitter end.

And the fact that he is quietly building a coalition of supporters from all sides is great. I've seen demos, republicans and libertarians all supporting him. This could be good.

And chad is right about the old guard in the GOP. They are looked at as old, crusty, rich and "the man". Could this be the beginning of the end for them? I sure hope so. But people like Karl Rove and Bill Kristol will not go quietly.

[AUTiger1]

And so it begins.....two that I mentioned by name. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/ 

Graham, McCain blast Paul filibuster

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times

March 7, 2013, 11:51AM


Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster didn’t thrill all of his colleagues.

Almost exactly 24 hours after Mr. Paul began his information-seeking filibuster against John O. Brennan, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to the Senate floor to denounce his demands and say he was doing a “disservice” to the debate on drones.

“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain, Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2008 — who topped Mr. Paul’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul, in that year’s primary. 

And where Democrats praised Mr. Paul for using Senate rules properly to launch a filibuster, Mr. McCain said it was an abuse of rules that could hurt the GOP in the long run.

“What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused,” the Arizona Republican said.

Mr. Paul said he was filibustering to get the administration to affirm it won’t kill non-combatant Americans in the U.S. — and his effort was joined by more than a dozen other senators who said they, too, supported his effort to get answers.

Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.

Mr. Graham and Mr. McCain led a Republican delegation that held a private dinner with President Obama on Wednesday, as Mr. Paul was holding the floor with help from other GOP colleagues.

Mr. McCain even joked about Mr. Graham’s “behavior” at the dinner.

“He was on his best manners and everyone was impressed,” Mr. McCain said.

Speaking to reporters after he came off the floor Wednesday, Mr. Graham said he defends Mr. Paul’s right to ask questions and seek answers, but said the filibuster has actually pushed him to now support Mr. Brennan.

Mr. Graham said he had been inclined to oppose the nomination because he’d found Brennan to be qualified for the job but also “arrogant, kind of a bit shifty.” He said he wasn’t going to filibuster him but would have voted against him on final passage, but now he’ll vote for him.

“I am going to vote for Brennan now because it’s become a referendum on the drone program,” he said.

Mr. Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is up for re-election next year and could face a primary challenge in the deeply conservative state, also fired back against anyone who would question his decision to meet with Mr. Obama.

“If I can’t go have dinner with the president of the United States to talk about the problems that face our nation, I shouldn’t be running,” Mr. Graham said. “If you want to elect me and for me to promise you I’ll never talk to any Democrats or to the president about solving our problems, you’re voting for the wrong guy.”

[GH2001]

And so it begins.....two that I mentioned by name.

At this point, no one really cares what these old fossils say anymore. Their message is stale. It's old and worn out. And frankly their platform just doesn't work. Top this off with the fact that they can't win an election - Dole, McCain, Romney - and you can pretty much deem them irrelevant. So they can crow all they want. There's a new sheriff in town.

[Snaggletiger]

At this point, no one really cares what these old fossils say anymore. Their message is stale. It's old and worn out. And frankly their platform just doesn't work. Top this off with the fact that they can't win an election - Dole, McCain, Romney - and you can pretty much deem them irrelevant. So they can crow all they want. There's a new sheriff in town.

And his name is Reggie Hammond

[AUTiger1]

The more I read the above article the more furious I get.  I can't believe that Graham actually said “I do not believe that question deserves an answer”.  Are you fucking kidding me?  Now he plans on voting for Brennan's conformation b/c of Mr. Paul's actions?  Real convenient thing to say the night after having dinner with the President.  Considering his voting record in the Senate I honestly believe he would voted "yea" with or without the filibuster.

McCain called it a political stunt but political pundits across the nation last night called it a stroke of political genius.  Not a wee bit jealous that you were upstaged are we Mr. McCain?   What a fucking joke the old guard has become.  How in the hell did I ever support them?  I honestly question how in the world from around 98 to 2006 did I just blindly follow and support them?   

[AUChizad]

How in the hell did I ever support them?  I honestly question how in the world from around 98 to 2006 did I just blindly follow and support them?

The #1 symptom of a two party system.

[GH2001]

The #1 symptom of a two party system.

As long as one of them is good, it's ok. Unfortunately both are corrupt now as evidenced by both Obama and McCain.

Hopefully Paul and the others can get the GOP back on track. It seems when Newt left congress in 98, it went to the shitter and had been ever since. The establishment hated him too back then (Dole and DeLay).

[AUTiger1]

As long as one of them is good, it's ok. Unfortunately both are corrupt now as evidenced by both Obama and McCain.

Hopefully Paul and the others can get the GOP back on track. It seems when Newt left congress in 98, it went to the shitter and had been ever since. The establishment hated him too back then (Dole and DeLay).

In response to Chadskins, what GH said.  At one point I honestly was behind what the GOP led house and Senate (I would throw Trent Lott in that too, GH.) were doing with the Contract with America.  Then, something happened, it got out of control.  Too much spending by an R-led congress and not enough wielding of the veto stamp by a president who was supposed to be conservative.  Little by little for 10 years it got out of control.  A little gov't growth here, and some more there, spend more here, spend more there until the next thing you know we almost doubled our debt in 10 years. 

[AWK]

As long as one of them is good, it's ok. Unfortunately both are corrupt now as evidenced by both Obama and McCain.

Hopefully Paul and the others can get the GOP back on track. It seems when Newt left congress in 98, it went to the shitter and had been ever since. The establishment hated him too back then (Dole and DeLay).

I am sorry friend, but in my opinion political parties are never "good."

[GH2001]

In response to Chadskins, what GH said.  At one point I honestly was behind what the GOP led house and Senate (I would throw Trent Lott in that too, GH.) were doing with the Contract with America.  Then, something happened, it got out of control.  Too much spending by an R-led congress and not enough wielding of the veto stamp by a president who was supposed to be conservative.  Little by little for 10 years it got out of control.  A little gov't growth here, and some more there, spend more here, spend more there until the next thing you know we almost doubled our debt in 10 years.

Agree. Lott and Gingrich were doing some good shit. It pissed off the establishment which was Dole, DeLay, Cheney, and G HW Bush. Much the same we see right now.

Awk - not saying parties don't have their flaws. Was just responding to what Chadskins said about ONLY having 2 parties being bad. Not having a "party" in general.

[AUChizad]

I am sorry friend, but in my opinion political parties are never "good."

This. And even worse is blindly swallowing your shit sandwich without thinking critically about what's inside.

That's what I was saying is bad about a two party system. The blind faith that everything "their" party does is beyond reproach. I'm betting a lot of people on the left woke up to this reality within the last 24 hours.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

Most importantly, it worked...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/07/historic-filibuster-renews-bipartisan-focus-on-drones-regulation/

Sen. Rand Paul declared victory Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a noncombatant American on U.S. soil -- an assurance Paul had sought during his 13-hour filibuster the day before.

"Hooray!" Paul responded when the letter was read to him for the first time during an interview with Fox News. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question, so there is a result and a victory. Under duress and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

During his dramatic filibuster, which delayed a vote on CIA director nominee John Brennan, Paul had demanded the administration clarify the government's authority to kill on U.S. soil. The filibuster ended past midnight early Thursday morning. The Senate voted, 63-34, to confirm Brennan later Thursday afternoon.

Shortly before the vote, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that read: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

In response, Paul said Thursday that "we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil." He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general's response, as the Senate moved to confirm Brennan.

Though Paul's 13-hour stand drew praise from all sides of the political spectrum, the senator also took heat Thursday from some in his own party who claimed he stirred unnecessary fear about the use of drones.

The senator "should know better," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said, arguing that some of the concerns raised about drone missile attacks on Americans -- like Paul's suggestion that the U.S. could have killed Jane Fonda when she went to North Vietnam -- were "ridiculous."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., displayed a sign that showed the number of Americans killed in the U.S. by Al Qaeda -- 2,958 -- versus the number killed in the U.S. by drones, which is zero.

Paul, though, argued that he was raising concern about how future presidents might use their drone authority.

Paul told Fox News the critical senators "think the whole world is a battlefield, including America."

"I don't think the laws of war apply to America. I think the Bill of Rights do," Paul said.

While the Obama administration increasingly employs armed drones as a pivotal counterterrorism tool overseas, domestic law enforcement agencies are also moving to broaden the use of surveillance mini-drones over the next several years. The Federal Aviation Administration projects as many as 10,000 licensed systems by 2017.

The lethal drones used in Pakistan are a far cry from the unarmed eyes in the sky used in America. But Paul and a host of other lawmakers see constitutional pitfalls across the board -- namely focusing on how armed, and unarmed, drones might someday be used against American citizens.

Paul and the senators from both sides of the aisle who joined him on the floor Wednesday described a bleak future in which an unscrupulous government might use drones against its own population if left unchecked.

"Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?" Paul asked.

Lawmakers have already started pushing legislation to rein in the drone program -- legislation that might get a second look after Paul's dramatic performance Wednesday.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas, last month introduced a bill to regulate domestic drones much like the government regulates wiretaps.

It would require officials to obtain a warrant in order to perform many kinds of surveillance with those drones. Further, it would prohibit law enforcement drones from being equipped with firearms or explosives in U.S. airspace.

"As we enter this uncharted world of drone technology, Congress must be proactive and establish boundaries for drone use that safeguard the constitutional rights of Americans," Poe said in a statement last month.

The use of armed drones in U.S. airspace fueled Paul's lengthy filibuster Wednesday. Before he took the floor, Paul announced that he had received a letter from Holder which opened the door, in extremely rare circumstances, to using a drone to kill someone within U.S. territory. Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen or a suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat.

Paul, during his filibuster, said he wanted a formal assurance from the administration that it would not use drones to kill noncombatant Americans, which prompted the Holder letter Thursday.

Aside from the legislation in the House, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have floated the idea of establishing a sort of drone court to screen potential targets -- much like a court screens surveillance of foreign targets in the U.S.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/07/historic-filibuster-renews-bipartisan-focus-on-drones-regulation/#ixzz2MtiNETl0