Rand Paul

McCain: Are You a "Wacko Bird" Like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Ted Cruz?


courtesy Benjamin Lee's Twitter Feed

"Wacko Birds" is the new "Jerk Store." 

That is, it's the sort of comedic comeback that reflects far worse—and oh-so-sadly—on its creator than its intended target.

During a recent tirade, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) denounced Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) as "wacko birds."

Reports the Wash Post:

"They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,"McCain said. "But I also think that when, you know, it's always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone."

Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing "Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever."

McCain was bent out of shape by the recent filibuster called by Rand to demand clarification regarding President Barack Obama's use of kill lists and whatnot. Wacko Bird image via Twitter feed of Benjamin Lee.

Even as the senior senator from Arizona attacked his GOP colleagues, he did grant that, you know, they might be onto to something:

"We spent 13 hours talking about a scenario that won't happen and can't happen," McCain said. He subsequently told Fox News that he does think there should be "more congressional oversight" of the drone program, which should be brought under the Department of Defense — but argued that Paul's filibuster was merely a distraction.


Yeah, a helluva distraction. Certainly, it called more effective attention to a host of pressing issues that somehow didn't get enough time during various Senate confirmation hearings and back-and-forths with the White House. But shame on Rand Paul and his flock of people for upsetting John McCain's deeply held beliefs about decorum.

To their credit, the "wacko birds" are responding pretty sharply. Paul told the press, "I treat Sen. McCain with respect. I don't think I always get the same in return."

And Amash—watch this space for a major interview with him—took to the Twitter and reeled off:

Sen McCain called @SenRandPaul @SenTedCruz & me "wacko birds." Bravo, Senator. You got us. Did you come up with that at #DinnerWithBarack?

Is it just me or do McCain and his Boy Wonder sidekick Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) bear a growing resemblance to Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy from Sponge Bob Squarepants? Like the version of the GOP they represent, their best days are behind them. Which may well be good news for just about everybody else.

Here are 3 Takeaways from Rand Paul's #StandwithRand Filibuster about Drone Strikes.

Read more about Rand Paul, the filibuster, etc.

NEXT: Suicide Bombers Strike in Afghanistan During Hagel's Visit

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. The obvious followup to McCain is: distracted from what?

    And I think Amash answered it in his treat.

    Poor widdle McCain didnt get tv news coverage of his dinner. Bah.

    1. s/treat/tweet/

      More brain really doesnt want to type tweet.

      1. I think you mean ‘my brain.’ You’re having trouble spelling today, huh Rob?

        1. Ive been sick for the last 10 days, my brain isnt really functioning.

    2. And dammit, that dinner showed the seriousness of the people governing this fucking country!

      Serious. Top. Men.

    3. Don’t you know the new lazythink rhetoric, robc?

      Just because something is good doesn’t mean it can’t be a distraction. So when you can’t criticize something on the merits, but feel you need to criticize it, you call it a distraction.

  2. “They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”

    Why did he even need to say this? Did anyone honestly think Cruz, Amash and Paul were all elected via voter fraud?

    1. You expect him to pass on a bit of innuendo?

      1. Reminds of Yes, Minister where the anti-hero protagonist routinely caged his innuendo with “well I wouldn’t say…”.

        1. …”routinely caged his innuendo with “well I wouldn’t say…”.
          Of COURSE! You never hint; you merely claim you wouldn’t *think* of hinting. Done.

        2. I think you may be thinking of Francis Urquardt in the House of Cards Trilogy who would answer reporters’ questions with “you might very well think that but I couldn’t possibly comment/wouldn’t say that.”

    2. Straight from the TO playbook.

      “My quarterback is *not* gutless…”

  3. I’m picturing the scene from the Kubrick Spartacus where the escaped gladiators have captured a couple of Roman patricians and are forcing them to fight in the training pit.

    Man, McCain vs. Graham, Blood in the Sand, would be great.

  4. Fuck you John Schmuckain. And your little Mini-Me too.

  5. So sad. Anyone but a complete corrupt narcissistic asshole would have retired from politics after a losing presidential run. But not McCain.

    1. The Senate is for the most part a retirement home for corrupt narcissitic assholes.

    2. Let’s be fair John Quincy Adams had a good career after losing a Presidential race.

      McCain’s problem is he’s an ass.

      1. McCain’s problem is he spent a little too much time in a Vietnamese prison camp.

        IMHO, that boy has NEVER been quite right.

        1. All of the things that made him a heroic prisoner, being tough as hell, total egotist, completely conceded and self righteous and totally stubborn, made him a horrible politician.

          1. There’s a long and storied history of quality military men making horrible politicians. The problem is this: People like military personnel and after they retire military personnel don’t have that much to do and generally want to find a new profession. These two facts make it very likely that people in the army will end up looking at political positions. Nothing in the army actually makes you capable of being a politician though, so a good portion of them are destined to suck.

        2. McCain’s problem is he spent a little too much time in a Vietnamese prison camp.

          McCain’s real problem is he didn’t spend nearly enough time in a Vietnamese prison camp. As in, he should still be there.

  6. it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.

    Who could possibly be better positioned to make this observation?

    Well, Gangrinich, maybe.

  7. To the invisible boat mobile!

    1. E-Vil is afoot. E-VIL!

  8. Apparently McCain also believes the TSA has deserted in the face of the enemy.

  9. The Republican leadership is just pissed Paul upstaged them by having his filibuster when they were over being all bi partisan and playing footsie with Obama. To people like McCain, being bi partisan is like crack. How dare Paul take away the media coverage of that.

    1. Bi-partisanship: Together we will destroy the country!

      1. Compromise:

        Instead of a full cup, let’s just drink a half a cup of poison.

      2. They’re only bi-curious.

    2. I was a double major and one of them was political science. You want to see people who think of bipartisanship like crack heads chasing a fix, talk to a poli. sci. professor. Most of them honestly seem to think there’s something noble and good about the mere act of bipartisanship, regardless of what results from that bipartisanship.

      1. I’m pretty sure their ideal is a one-party state, and “bipartisanship” is a means to that end.

        1. Bipartisan is liberal speak for “shut the fuck up and do what I tell you”.

      2. Bipartisanship is two muggers waiting until AFTER they’ve lifted your wallet to fight over what’s in it.

    3. I took a look at the local rag for its next day coverage of the filibuster out of curiosity. There was a fawning half page AP article on the dinner party, and a tiny two short paragraphs consisting of 42 words on the filibuster on the bottom corner of that very page that never mentioned Rand, ‘a group of Republican senators’, nor did it make clear what the filibuster is about. I recognized the AP story as one floated as a short news alert from the day before. The local editors intentionally edited out those parts of the story to make it read as it did.

      Beyond parody.

      1. The media isn’t an organ of the state. No, not at all.

      2. I just checked the Chron:
        One 1K-word note by the token non-prog columnist, one 500-word column by someone totally unknown.
        Not one word in the news section. Not one.

      3. In my local paper, there was a story partway down the first page of the national/world section in the leftmost column. The big above the fold headline across the top of the first page of that section was about some state passing a stricter abortion law.

  10. Just hearing the term “bipartisan consensus” makes my ass hurt.

    1. You would think you could get a bipartisan consensus on more lube.

  11. Most of them honestly seem to think there’s something noble and good about the mere act of bipartisanship, regardless of what results from that bipartisanship.

    Intentions trump result.




  12. Sens. Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy, too funny, and too perfect!

  13. Pot…kettle. this is what happens when you spend more time with the media than with your constituents.

  14. McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”

    Didn’t McCain get the media megaphone when he was running for Prez? Isn’t he getting it now, by calling other senators wacko birds?

    Hmmm, he may be onto something.

  15. http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..magazines/

    It is legal to hunt humans!!!!

    1. I’ve been telling the boys at the lodge for years that we have been doing nothing wrong.

    2. If only we could hunt Feinstein. I don’t think she’d deserve the title of the most dangerous game, though.

      1. I hear that if you look her in the eyes you turn to stone.

        1. That is why Athena gave me a mirrored shield with which to locate her.

      2. No. She is skinny and not very cagey. Pelosi might be dangerous by virtue of sheer evil alone.

        1. Pelosi would be dangerous because if you puncture her, toxic levels of botox will immediately drown the surrounding area.

        2. Don’t let her bite you, either. The wound will become septic in minutes. Her mouth contains more toxic bacteria than Warty’s ejaculate.

      3. FTA: We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds.

        If only McCain would classify Feinstein as a wacko bird.

        1. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds.

          So we should follow up one stupid law with another?

      4. If only we could hunt Feinstein.

        WAR ON WIMMIN!

        Now Elizabeth Warren would be interesting. Given that she’s part-Indian, she’d be like Chato’s Land meets The Most Dangerous Game.

  16. “Wacko birds”. You lost the last election because people are fed up with your bullshit so they voted for the freedom supporters and real fiscal conservatives. A lot of republicans still haven’t learned from their mistakes.

    1. The man is nearing 80, and the writing is on the wall for RINOs and big-gov cretins, of which he’s both.

      We can’t blame Maverick for being upset that he’s being upstaged and dismissed by a new generation of libertarian-leaning Republicans who are more composed, better educated, and unwilling to do any of the dumb shit that he’s made a career out of doing.

      1. Damn kids – get out of my Senate.

    2. You lost the last election because people are fed up with your bullshit so they voted for the freedom supporters and real fiscal conservatives.

      Barack Obama and Liz Warren?

  17. Yo, fuck John McCain.

  18. Actually, I’m not sure if the Angry Birds satire is a smear against the alleged “Wacko Birds.” Note that Amash is a regular Wacko Bird, Cruz is the fast-moving “wacko bird” and Rand is the bomb thrower. Meanwhile McCain and his associates are the evil Pigs…Sounds sort of complimentary to the Tea Party to me…

    1. It takes a wacko bird to shatter a glass house, it takes a raging sociopath to bomb a vilage.

    2. Remember. What started all this off in the first place was the pigs stealing the birds’ eggs, presumably thinking they could get away with it.

      1. The birds knew the pigs were hungry and didn’t share when they were asked.

  19. OT: Archer season finally on netflix!

    1. Wait, I had something for this…

    2. Hey phrasing!

    3. Whatever my equivalent of sploosh is.

  20. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/st…..his-summer

    Maybe they eat pythons.

    1. Donny Cotten ? a day ago ?

      So Michelle Obama is moving to FL?

  21. http://freethoughtblogs.com/si…..tronizing/

    Mano Singham gets it.

    1. This seems patronizing. Of course Paul’s stands on many other issues are awful. The reasons why he is a darling of the Tea Party are hardly a secret. The fact that I supported his action in this one area does not mean that I have amnesia on everything else that he stands for or that I am going to support him should he run for president.

      And yet, he writes this paragraph, while providing no evidence of what Rand Paul is wrong about. Meanwhile, in a post about how patronizing it is that liberals have to point out how wrong they think Rand Paul is on other issues when praising him on the drone issue, he has to point out how wrong he thinks Rand Paul is while praising him on the drone issue.

      If anything, that post is incredibly hypocritical.

      1. He disagrees with him on other issues. I’m not expecting him to go into the details on those disagreements. Considering many of the responses from the left this week, I’m just happy that he sees the idiocy of letting those disagreements get in the way of standing with Paul on the issue at hand.

        1. I understand that it’s better than nothing, but look at this quote.

          But some commentators fretted that praising Paul for doing this somehow meant that we were making him into a ‘hero’ and thus providing support for his other policies. They were quick to tell us how awful his stands on other issues were. This seems patronizing. Of course Paul’s stands on many other issues are awful.

          “It’s patronizing that other commenters have to make sure we understand that they hate his positions on other issues, so I’m going to make sure you know that I hate his positions on other issues.” He does exactly what he is attacking other people for doing.

          1. Yeah, the less wimpy turn of phrase would have been, “This seems patronizing. Regardless of what you believe about his positions in general, Paul was absolutely right on this issue.”

            Or something to that effect.

          2. I disagree with a lot of Ron Wyden’s positions…

            Is that all that patronizing?

            1. To me at least, the annoying bit is how every leftist apparently feels it necessary to preface their agreement with RP by saying they disagree with him on other issues. Well no shit you disagree with him on other issues, you’re a leftist. You’d think they were talking about agreeing with Mussolini.

              It would be like you or I feeling it necessary to state that we disagree with Libby Warren on most things before quoting something he said approvingly.

              1. True, any statement deviating from political correctness requires excessive qualification from a progtard.

  22. A lot of these folks are mad that Rand Paul acted their progressive civil libertarian fantasies, but was inconsiderate enough to (a) criticize Obama and (b) be a Republican. It’s hard to jack off to the thought of a benevolent socialist Senator filibustering against the wicked Republicans while the mental picture in your head is a key figure in the Tea Party caucus. So they’re really pissed.

  23. I support the constitution and I have a very intense dislike for those who oppose it. I generally agree with Rand Paul on most subjects. I don’t know that much about Cruz or Amash.

    The Republicrat leadership of the GOP seems to me very much like the types of self-serving, double-talking blue-bloods of America’s big business corporate world: Technically, they are considered sorta-kinda free enterprise, but once you start paying attention you realize it’s all about “freedom for me, but not for thee.”

    I want people to remember that government is not the boss. It’s the help.

    1. By Republicrat leadership, I mean McCain, McConnell, Graham, Boehner, the Bush family (make-believe “ranchers” and all), and so forth. I look at the old-timers and all I see is the Ghost of Arlen Specter.

  24. God forbid John McCain or Lindsay Graham would let constitutional rights interrupt their dinner.

  25. Paul told the press, “I treat Sen. McCain with respect. I don’t think I always get the same in return.”

    As usual, Aesop has the answer.

  26. OK wow so this makes a lot of sense man.


  27. Unfortunately, “crazy” is something that Libertarianism really needs to rebut.

    That’s how opponents have been trying to paint it, and it’s working, by and large. I’m not sure how you beat a meme like that. One of the sites I frequently visit is for video games called NeoGaf, and libertarians are constantly the butt of jokes. Despite the demographics of the place being essentially the one libertarianism should appeal to. Instead they are all hard left for the most part.

    And it’s not just there. Almost every site I visit feels the same way

    1. Not sure why libertarianism would be expected to appeal to people who’ve had everything provided by someone else in return for following rules their entire lives. Young, inexperienced people are the perfect statists; the Nazis knew it, the Commies knew it, etc. The only freedom they are concerned about is freedom to fuck,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.