Reason 24/7 Livetweets Sen. Rand Paul's Filibuster


Sen. Rand Paul

You can catch our livetweet coverage here: @reason247

If you don't have access to a television, CSpan is covering the filibuster live on the Web.

In case you haven't been following the fun, Sen. Paul is filibustering the confirmation of John Brennan, President Obama's nominee to take the reins at the CIA. His main point of contention is the Obama administration's claim of authority to decide for itself when and why it may assassinate suspected terrorists, both within and outside the United States.

Our own Brian Doherty made some points out the filibuster here.

NEXT: Tech Problems Delay Kenyan Ballot Counting

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. whatever. I admire the effort – I just don’t care any more. God bless you, Rand, and the good Kentuckians who voted you into office. I’ve voted for the last time – do good things in the Senate, big guy!

  2. “the debate could be resolved if Democrats produced a resolution saying Americans will not be killed without due process”

    This really…REALLY shouldn’t be that hard.

  3. In filibuster about drones @tedcruz is now speaking about the Alamo

    I’m more concerned about the numbers of “droning” jokes being made right now than anything else.

    1. They are droning on and on, aren’t they?

      1. Send in the dronez!

  4. Cruz and Lee have joined in.

    1. So true libertarians must support Drones in order to not be on the side of Cruz and Lee /Raimondo.

  5. “Ron Wyden ?@RonWyden
    Heading to the floor to speak on Congressional oversight of executive branch & rules for targeted killings.”

  6. This is so epic. Travis!!!

  7. You know who else was just like Hitler?

    1. Bruno Ganz?

      1. Do you think people randomly slap him on the streets, like they do Jack Gleeson?

    2. Your mom?

      1. Hitler’s mom was named Hitler. Think about it.

        1. His mom was named Polzl, YOU DOPE.

          1. WRONG. She changed her name to distance herself from Hitler but that doesn’t count.

    3. Charlie Chaplin?

  8. Ahh. Nothing like a good ol tweetfest over a filibuster. Thats the way to spend a day.

    (shoots self in face)

  9. Go Rand!

  10. Ed Krayewski ?@edkrayewski
    Follow us as we follow the Senate filibuster @reason247

    Where’s the tweet linking to the 24/7 article showing the tweets?

    1. It’s not an article, they’re livetweeting it ON the twitter feed.

    2. It’s in the 24/7 feed, if you’d ever bother to look at it through AM or PM Links links.

      1. Fist of Etiquette|3.6.13 @ 4:12PM|#

        It’s in the 24/7 feed, if you’d ever bother to look at it …

        i’m still confused. the what now?

  11. Obviously, the president should declare a state of emergency and send the army to Capitol Hill to place the entire Senate in protective custody at some secure and secret location.

    Eternal vigilance, et c.

    1. Actually, I believe a national state of emergency was declared after 9-11… and has not only never been rescinded but has been renewed.

      1. I don’t believe the US has any “state of emergency” laws at the national level.

        I know PA has one, which was irritating because it banned open carry without a license for 90 days after Hurricane Sandy.

          1. That’s only a “national emergency” with respect to Iran (ie, freezing of assets, etc)

    2. “The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I’ve just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.”

      – Grand Muff Napolitano

      1. I will hate you forever for making me picture Janet Napolitano’s grand Muff.

        1. I bet it’s a very grey grand ol’ muff too.

        2. As the representative from Minnesota’s band once said, you ain’t seen nothin yet….

  12. I agree with RP’s position but this is tactically extremely risky. If he backs down he’s gonna have massive egg on his face. And I don’t see the administration backing down.

    1. What do you mean “backs down”? Runs out of steam and has to leave the building?

      1. He’s going to get savaged in the media and get shirtloads of threats from the rest of the senate and from the GOP establishment.

        1. Except Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and now Ron Wyden have gotten in on this.

          Hannity, by way of example, is in love with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

          The Establishment is going to back off of this one post-haste, I am sure.

        2. Oh and now Rubio’s in on it.

          There isn’t a right wing host in America that’s going to give them a hard time about this. And the left has a hypocrisy problem on this (and the fact that Wyden is D precludes their criticism)

          1. If it works it’s great. I’m not sure it’s going to work, though.

          2. the fact that Wyden is D precludes their criticism

            They’ll just throw Wyden under the nearest bus for siding with those RACIST RETHUGLICAN OBSTRUKSHONISTS!!!11!!1!!! That’s how the left deals with traitors.

        3. I don’t think the rest of the GOP is going to be pissed about this. They may not agree, but he’s not screwing up a GOP nom / program.

        4. That doesn’t really answer the question. How precisely is he going to “back down?” He’s going to vote against Brennan, he won’t have the votes (as he said), and he’ll continue to have the same opinion on this issue and occasionally do things like try to repeal the AUMF.

          1. By “back down” I mean end the filibuster.

            If all he’s doing is trying to delay the vote for a day that’s kind of pointless. He’s trying to PREVENT the vote until the administration gives him a straight answer.

            1. Well, the first question is how many GOPers will support the cloture vote to cut him off.

            2. Well it’s longer than a day (if successful), because Reid wants to gavel out because of the coming storm.

            3. So it isn’t pointless then. The issue of not getting a straight answer about due process is getting more attention now than without the filibuster.

        5. He’ll get that regardless of whether he backs down. Even in the unlikely event of the administration backing down, he’ll get it from the Democratic side.

          If he’s able to take this to days, he’ll get himself a platform that his dad never got.

        6. The GOP establishment is fine with him doing this. He voted no on the Hagel cloture (but yes on nomination) partly to get GOP establishment approval and time on the floor.

          Would the establishment have a different opinion with a GOP Prez? Of course; so would the Dem establishment, naturally.

    2. If he backs down he’s gonna have massive egg on his face.

      I don’t know about that; he’s been saying for hours that he doesn’t think he can do anything to stop this except stand there and talk until he can’t talk anymore.

    3. Backs down? You mean vote for Brennan?

  13. If, by “egg on his face” you mean “expose the president as the petulant foot-stamping egocentric child he is” okay.

  14. Rubio now speaking as well.

    1. Rubio isn’t part of the filibuster. He just asked Paul a question.

      I was about to say game over for Brennan if the neocons’ golden boy actually was part of the filibuster.

      1. I know. Just like Lee, Cruz, and Wyden. And, right this moment, Saxby Chambliss. They’re all giving him breaks from talking.

  15. Don’t mock those who are watching, Rubio.

  16. Did Wyden just throw in the towel? I was distracted, but it sounded like he said he would vote for Brennan.

    1. He was rather rambling and I sort of tuned out, but I believe he said he was voting for him regardless. He was merely supporting Rand’s point regarding drones, not his lack of support for the nominee.

      1. It’s not even that Rand doesn’t support the nominee, he’s said all along he’s upset with the broader point of due process being ignored.

    2. He said at the outset he was going to vote for Brennan, and that he had already voted him out of committee.

    3. There are separate issues here.

      RP is trying to hold up Brennan’s vote as leverage against the admin to get info about the drone legality. I don’t think he has anything against Brennan himself.

      1. Yes, but Wyden is, depending on how you view him (and his track record on nominations), either being a good party loyalists, or deferring to the general principle of a President getting to pick his advisors and not filibustering.

        He at least acknowledges it as an issue, but Sen. Wyden has been in politics long enough to realize that you don’t win by insisting that all your allies have the purest of motives and methods only.

        1. I would generally agree that the prez should be able to choose his own men, but the administration has not respected Congress’ traditional role in policy making, so Congress should return the favor.

          1. Holder actually busted out an “Article II” response when Grassley asked if Congress could pass a law forbidding domestic drone use.

      2. It’ll be interesting to see what happens if/when a cloture vote is held, both from Wyden and co. and from various Republican senators.

        Anyone willing to offer odds about Lindsey Graham being pro-cloture?

        1. Graham, McCain, and many others will certainly vote for cloture. RP has no chance if it comes to a vote.

        2. Pretty sure Graham never met a civil liberties infringement he didn’t love.

          1. Only nice thing I can possibly say about him is that he’s fairly pro-immigration (but not open borders), and I do consider immigration restrictions civil liberties infringements.

  17. It’s cute to see the squirming in the left wing blogs on this. About a 50/50 split between saying Go Rand! and claiming he’s desperate for attention and a decent haircut.

    1. Holy shit, I’m amazed at the number of Dems who are choosing this moment to complain about Reid allowing filibusters. Just when I thought they couldn’t get any more craven.

      1. IIRC, Wyden made a deal with Feinstein– get me the OLC memos and I’ll support Brennan. Most of the rest don’t care.

      Everything in moderation.
      1341 Fans
      32 seconds ago ( 4:41 PM)
      These guys would have no problem sending the army in to shut down some group they dont like (or has everyone forgotten that little incident in Texas involving the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms some years back?), but suddenly when technology allows your defence to become something slightly scarier than a guy in a SWAT suit, everyone’s freaked out.

      Get. A. Grip.

      If indeed there are plans to use things here, it’s a last resort. That point’s been made over and over, and to suddenly claim something about “civil liberties”, in light of the cavalier way the GOP treats such things in the first place when it so suits them politically, is disingenuous… at the very best.

      1. What the hell? The guy uses Waco as evidence that the government can be trusted not to abuse this power? And claims that civil libertarians supported the government’s actions at Waco?

      2. Huh? Which president was it who sent the ATF to Waco again? What party was that?

        1. The investigation started during the Bush administration, actually.

          But yes, Clinton was the one who, er, ended it.

    3. Calling Jack Bauer:

      murphthesurf3 59 minutes ago ( 3:43 PM)
      6884 FansFollow
      It is 3 AM in the White House and the FBI has just finished presenting a briefing that has made it clear that a shipment of weapons grade nuclear material (6 to 8 Kilograms) has been smuggled into the U.S. and has been located in a warehouse on the edge of a major metropolitan area, San Francisco. Best intelligence is that the weapon has not been assembled but that the necessary elements are present. Intelligence has also identified the rooms in the warehouse where the bomb will be assembled.

      A frontal assault by federal agents, special forces and local SWAT teams is viewed as very risky since heavy resistance to the assault is expected providing those inside the warehouse with the time to assemble and set off the weapon.

      Instead, the best tactical suggestion is to hit the warehouse at the precise point where the bomb assembly will take place with a drone carrying high explosives. At the same time two other drones will target the rest of the complex.

      Of the two dozen persons who are believed to be present, five are known U.S. citizens who have been suspected of ties to known terrorist organizations.

      1. Based on the best information available the weapon yield will likely be in the 15 to 25 Kiloton range – loss of life would be very significant- both immediately and in the long range. The warehouse is less than 2 kilometers from a large housing development. The explosion would destroy any structure within 10 kilometers. Radioactive fallout would be serious, and might make the area stretching tens of kilometres downwind, uninhabitable for weeks or even years. There would be a number of deaths from radiation sickness, for which there is really no effective medical treatment. The total amount of radioactivity might be comparable with the Chernobyl disaster, more or less depending on many circumstances.

        So……what would Sen. Rand have the President do?
        This is the world in which we live.

      Miss Muffett
      Don’t worry about money – it will go away.
      1773 Fans

      29 seconds ago ( 4:46 PM)
      If Rand is so concerned about civil liberties, where was he fillibustering the renewal of the warentless wiretap? Instead he choses to use a hypothetical scenario to show us how “concerned” he is?
      Oh, please! Spare us….

  18. Oh he’s quoting Greenwald!

  19. He just mentioned Glenn Greenwald.

    1. He was on about Greenwald extensively toward the beginning.

  20. Play Rand’s filibuster along with this:


    1. Jimmy Stewart was just protesting against the government stealing some money. Rand is protesting against the govt killing Americans without trial.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.