Rand Paul and The Filibuster

Filibuster  (/ˈfiləˌbəstər/)

Noun: The use of obstructive tactics, especially prolonged speech-making for the purpose of delaying legislative action such as a vote.

Verb: Act in an obstructive manner in a legislation, especially by speaking at inordinate length.

 

The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. He spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against and to prevent the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. 

To me, the filibuster is an example of what's wrong in DC. The attitude of obstruction at all cost.... and it IS at a cost to the American people - is much like bullying. Make your point. Take a stand and vote against what you feel is wrong. Deal with consequences. Change things. But don't just keep people from voting. Game playing with people's lives should not be a political sport, but it is.

Last night, Sen. Rand Paul filibustered and spoke for almost 13 hours against the use of drones in order to prevent the vote for John Brennan. (It could be said that he droned on and on but that might be a little too corny!) One thing he said during his tirade was to ask if the President has the authority to use a weaponized drone against American citizens on American soil that aren't doing anything wrong. NOT that the President or anyone has ever said that was the case.

 SOMEONE has to lead the CIA. The vote was whether or not John Brennan is the right person. Rather than vote yes or no, he blocked the vote to discuss drones, a topic for another debate. It'd be quite appropriate (and smart) to draft legislation with guidelines for drone use by the CIA. That is actually something the Congress can and should do. But rather than try to solve a problem, he just blocked the process. It's like being offered an orange or an apple and responding by protesting grapes.

When I pointed out that his filibuster was not good, in my opinion, several people accused me of supporting drone attacks on US citizens without due process. For the record, I'm against the use of drones to kill people without due process, UNLESS of course they are indeed terrorizing. Not stopping someone in the act of terrorism would be like saying it's okay to stand by and watch someone shooting kids and not stop them because they haven't had their due process rights followed. Perhaps this puts gun rights advocates in a twisted pretzel position. CAN you actually shoot someone without giving them a trial? Oh, it's okay if they're doing something wrong. Kinda like killing someone, even an American citizen, if he's attacking?

But for all his grandstanding, and claims of winning, today they held the vote for John Brennan as head of the CIA.  He was confirmed. In addition, the Attorney General sent Rand Paul a note addressing his midnight tirade. "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." 

So, unlike Strom Thurmond's misguided filibuster that stopped the vote on the Civil Rights Bill - for that time anyway - Rand Paul's filibuster seems to have all been for naught since the vote went forward a few hours later. The issue of drone strikes has also been addressed, and will most likely continue to be. In his eyes it was a success though, as he got what he was probably out to get in the first place - national attention.