Slashdot Mirror
What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?
An anonymous reader writes: Sen. Rand Paul held up a vote on the Fast Track Authority for an eleven hour dissertation on the flaws of: the Patriot Act, the replacement the USA Freedom Act, bulk data collection including credit card purchases, the DEA and IRS's use of NSA intel. for "parallel construction", warrant-less GPS bugs on vehicles, as well as the important distinction of a general warrant versus a specific one. "There is a general veil of suspicion that is placed on every American now. Every American is somehow said to be under suspicion because we are collecting the records of every American," Paul said. The questions is what did the "filibuster" really accomplish? The speeches caused a delay in Senate business but it's unclear what larger effect, if any, that will have.
Public relations... What was everybody expecting?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end. About the only real action I see happening is that he's getting attention for his presidential campaign. However, given his fringe opinion on many subjects I doubt he'll ever get the nomination, much less actually get elected. But since he's tied into the party insiders, it's likely his true intention is to keep his demographic distracted during the primaries while the party maneuvers a mediocre candidate into place to get the nomination. If he was serious about getting into the oval office and serious about his libertarian ideals, he'd run as an independent.
The senior senators have more to hide that the NSA already knows about.
And if anyone thinks that isn't at least a factor, I may have some shares in a bridge for sale.
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.
So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.
Not so.
There's a fable about a man who preached everyday for 20 years in a public place, only to be asked by a friend why wouldn't he quit -- since nobody was caring about the issues he talked about. He answered: "If I quit, they will have won."
I didn't hear his discourse. But 11h talking is enough for me to believe at least one American is concerned by the current state of the USA and, by extension, of the world.
As a foreigner, I believe Obama is a more than reasonable guy; I also believe he's caught amid the highly defective machine that is American Politics. He can have ideas and see which ones the Democrats and the GOP will let him make happen. IOW, bottom line: he cannot do much.
Whether this will benefit or be a hindrance to Mr. Paul, he did a good citizen work by touching these important matters. If I had voted for him (I'm not from the US), I'd be very satisfied. In the end, all we can do is try. If enough people try, together they may succeed against the crooks, the greedy, the powerthirsty and those who want a Thought Police.
If the world is to be a better and safer place, we should pay attention to our own defects (not just the USA), try to hear what others say about us and start a real negotiation to make the world work better than till now...
Here is why:
One: He is forcing the cloture vote on this to be next week, there is not time (its complicated) for the cloture vote to happen before the NSA must shut down the program.
Other business, like the pending trade agreement will have to be dealt with to come back to the NSA.
So for at least one weekend, there will be no NSA spying, and they will have to get it back on line if and when it is reauthorized. Inertia is our friend, if it is down, there will be pressure to keep it down.
Two: He also prevented it from passing cloture by unanimous consent, which is really silence. The chair asks a variation of "Without objection, so ordered" and if everyone is silent, it passes. There are no up/down votes, so no up/down vote is recorded
Now people are going to vote yea or nay, and THAT will be on the record for the next election.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the lack of action is your fault, not Rand Paul's. He's more than done his part. He's offered a rallying point for anyone who cares about the issue, and he's elucidated in the most detailed way possible just what the hazards are. He's actually stopped the machine for a moment, and all you can manage is to diss him for too little, too late?
Look, I don't even like the guy. He stands for a lot of things that I fundamentally oppose. But I respect him. At least he is willing to do politics using the machine the way it was designed, rather than breaking it further—which is what the rest of the right-wing establishment seems to want to do.
Rand Paul is someone I feel I could reason with on most matters. I can't say that of most other politicians. And the fact that you're damning him with faint praise is actually enabling the others and contributing to the sense of futility that pervades so much of modern political discourse today.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
No. Obama could have had the NSA to do a right turn and stop their mass data collection 6 years ago. They DIRECTLY report to him. He tells them what to do.
Congress and the Senate can just question them, and limit the things they can do.
Given that he has actively expanded what the NSA are doing, and made a point of going after whistleblowers, he appears to be happy with the current setup.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!