Apr
02
2014
10

The answer to Marco Rubio’s and Rand Paul’s problem is simple.

The problem is simple: both men are Senators in states where you cannot run for two federal positions at the same time.  The answer is equally simple: neither should run for President in 2016. Rand Paul should stay in the Senate and be an awesomely cranky Senate Majority Leader*; and Marco Rubio should run for governor of Florida in 2018 and get ready for 2024.

There. Problems solved.  That should have cost each Senator five thousand dollars apiece in consulting fees, but apparently those jobs are all locked up already.

Moe Lane

*Seriously, there’s all sorts of things that you can do to a federal bureaucracy from the top.

Feb
02
2014
2

Maureen Dowd: Yeah, OK, Rand Paul is onto something here with regard to Bill Clinton.

This is an interesting Maureen Dowd piece: there’s a good bit less teeth-gritting going on than I expected.

Senator Claire McCaskill told Andrea Mitchell that she found [Senator Rand] Paul’s comments [about Bill Clinton] “infuriating,” and that he was just “grasping,” trying to show he could be tough in a bid to win the presidential nomination.

But back when McCaskill, now on Team Clinton, was trying to crush Team Clinton and get Barack Obama elected, she said this about Bill: “He’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

Paul brought that up with me, suggesting that if McCaskill were being honest and not partisan, she would still be worried about having her daughter around Bill and that maybe there’s a double standard for the famous.

(more…)

Jun
17
2013
41

TNR… trying to make the case for Rand Paul in 2016.

Wait.  This stuff is bad?

OK, I don’t normally fisk, but I gotta do this one. From The New Republic’s rather alarmed profiling of Senator Rand Paul:

In the Senate, Paul gained a reputation as an eccentric. Staffers often saw him wandering alone into the cafeteria, buying his own coffee, getting his own lunch—which, they noted, was not very senatorial.

That’s a damning indictment of the Senate, frankly.

Nor was his reputation for reading every page of every bill.

So’s that. (more…)

Mar
11
2013
8

QotD, I Wish To Associate Myself With The Remarks… edition.

…of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia:

I support killing bad guys with drones overseas. Hell, I’m okay with killing bad guys in the United States with drones if they are about to cause imminent harm. But the administration’s standard was far too nebulous. It is opposed by a majority of Americans. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and others who are okay with drone attacks on bad guys supported Rand Paul because Paul found the sliver of ground on which they could all be opposed to an Obama Administration policy.

- My colleague Erick Erickson, over at RedState.  As most of you know, I self-identify as ‘neoconservative:’ and my major problem with Barack Obama’s foreign policy is that he’s trying to do what he thinks George W Bush would do under the same circumstances, only he’s not very competent even at that.  But I loved watching that filibuster.  It was utterly guilt-free; I’m aware of Rand Paul’s likely defense stances, but he managed to keep the debate framed in terms that I could accept without quibbling.  And then he made the administration give way on a point.

That last point is important: because the last time I checked neither, say, John McCain and/or Lindsey Graham (who I don’t actually particularly dislike) have done as well lately.

Moe Lane

PS: I think that the time has come for Senator McCain to announce that this will be his last term in office.

Mar
08
2013
2

QotD, Nobody In The White House Knows How To Play This Game edition.

(H/T: @allahpundit) I can’t believe that a senior administration official would TELL Yahoo News this:

“Sen. Paul’s 13 hours on the Senate floor won’t have any practical effect on our policy and how we’re going after terrorists on a day-to-day basis,” a senior administration official told Yahoo News on condition of anonymity.

Or, rather, I can; I just can’t believe my luck.  Look – and I’m going to break out the coveted ‘dumbass’ on this one, because it qualifies – look, dumbass: the administration’s biggest short-term problem with regard to drone policies isn’t Senator Paul; it’s the progressives who agree with himParticularly the ones who think that they’re actually libertarians.  They’re all sitting around right now kind of gritting their teeth about that, particularly since we evil knuckle-dragging conservatives and Republicans (including a larger than expected number of Dread Neocons*) are showing that we’ll happily sign off on giving the President a good kicking on general principles.  We’re not going to make giant puppets any time soon, and we reserve the right to (as I think Jonah Goldberg put it once) every so often pick up an especially egregious bad actor nation and smack it against the wall – but not dropping a drone on a bunch of full-contact Occupiers while they’re at a barbecue?  Yeah, sure, we’re down with that.  Especially if the White House can’t even commit to something that basic. (more…)

Mar
08
2013
18

Speaking *as* a neocon hawk who enjoyed Rand Paul’s filibuster…

…I agree with Allahpundit’s reaction to John McCain’s / Lindsey Graham’s reaction to said filibuster:

You would think Maverick might at least seize the opportunity to note that the guy who beat him five years ago did so in part by campaigning on a lie, but that would mean giving an inch of ground to the isolationists on his own side. So instead he sides with O even though everyone from Reince Priebus to Fox News to the Ron Paul fan base to Jon Stewart is patting Paul on the back, and inexplicably he insists on being nasty about it just in case anyone who enjoyed Paul’s performance hasn’t been completely alienated by McCain yet. Question for my fellow hawks: Is this really the hill to die on vis-a-vis paleocon/libertarian foreign policy? Arguing in favor of a president’s power to fire missiles at an enemy combatant on U.S. soil even if he’s a U.S. citizen and isn’t engaged in terrorism at the time when the FBI could just as easily go in and grab him? If that’s a “wacko bird” position, then a lot of people who agree with it will be left wondering whether the entire mainstream rap on libertarians and paleocons as being “fringe” and “extreme” is a lie. Maverick and Graham need to learn to pick their battles.

(more…)

Mar
07
2013
14

Barack Obama’s basic filibuster mistake.

And it’s a mistake that has little if anything to do with the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director (although having House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell somewhat surprisingly announce that he was opposing cloture on the eventual vote is not going to help Barack Obama any).  It’s also a mistake that has less than you think to do with the question of drone strikes on American citizens themselves, although the administration’s inexplicable unwillingness to simply lie if that’s what it would have taken to shut Senator Rand Paul up is almost… startling. I know that this sounds cynical – but then, I suspect that the real reason that Barack Obama didn’t concede the point is that he was and is fundamentally unwilling to give any Republican a non-reciprocated win at this point.  Paul wanted the point conceded that badly? – Then NO!  Rand Paul doesn’t get it conceded.

So there. (more…)

Feb
12
2013
6

Well, the two SOTU responses helped redeem the night.

Not much need for analysis on this one, but generally: Marco Rubio’s speech was solid, well thought-out, and aside from that water bobble thing (which he smartly made fun of himself, afterward) on-key.  Rubio is good at this sort of thing, which is one major reason why the grassroots went with him early in 2010.  As for Rand Paul… I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that the man is a sarcastic so-and-so.  Which was, in its way, a great response to Barack Obama’s opinions, which are far too often quite profoundly silly.

I’m sure that people are going to try to mock the Rubio water thing, but I wouldn’t sweat it too much.  God knows that it’s not like Obama’s rhetorical gifts are going to overshadow it, based on THIS SotU address.  That was… boring.  Horribly, horribly boring.  Even by Obama standards.

Feb
23
2012
2

Update on the US government’s 2011 attack on Gibson Guitars.

To refresh your memory: the government decided that the Gibson Guitar company was in violation of Indian law (which, thanks to something called the Lacey Act, meant that they had the right to butt in), so they went and raided Gibson’s factory and confiscated a half-million dollars’ worth of raw materials.  Happened back in August 2011, and guess what?  The feds still haven’t pressed charges!

But have the feds returned the stuff that they took?  Doesn’t look that way; also, don’t be absurd. (more…)

Jan
24
2012
6

#rsrh One last point on the TSA/Rand Paul thing.

With regard to yesterday’s TSA/Rand Paul flap, Ric Locke notes something important here:

Senators are not “anybody else”, they’re Congresscritters. Congresscritters are important, and have that privilege in the Constitution, because they’re Congresscritters. The Framers put the requirement in because they knew history, particularly the events surrounding the English Revolution and Restoration. There’s a long history of rulers getting a free hand by preventing Parliament from meeting, and although there’s no way for Law to stand in the way of that in a practical sense, with that provision as Law of the Land Teh Protector at least can’t argue that the tactic is legal.

There are certain things that I take a hard, will not cross, I don’t care if you like it or not, line on: birthright citizenship, money in politics, “shall issue” rather than “may issue” firearm licensing, and getting in the way of Congressmen going to and fro work.  In each case it’s all based on purely selfish motives:

  • I do not want Congress to be able to declare that somebody born in this country isn’t a citizen after all, because a Congress that can do that can later decide that I don’t qualify, either.  Preventing even the chance of that happening to me is worth any number of Mexican-American anchor babies, frankly.
  • I do not want Congress to be able to define who can and cannot spend money to promote a political cause, because they have already used that power to try to shut me up.  I decline to be shut up, and I want as many opportunities to talk as possible.  If that means Super-PACs and corporate funding of elections, fine by me.
  • I do not want anybody deciding for me what the Second Amendment means or does not mean.  The existing track record of people with political power who also do not like guns stinks.
  • And I do not want there to be a precedent that a sober, peacefully progressing federal legislator on his way back to Washington can be stopped, impeded, harassed, discommoded, or hindered in any way, shape or form.  As Ric notes, there’s a long historical record of how that precedent, once set, can be used for scurrilous ends.

(more…)

Written by in: Politics | Tags: ,
Jan
23
2012
16

Update on the Rand Paul/TSA thing.

The Daily Caller reports that Senator Rand Paul told them that:

  • He was put in a cubicle and told not to leave for two hours:
  • That for an hour and a half he was told that he would have to submit to a pat-down;
  • That eventually Senator Paul was told that he would not have to submit to a pat-down, and was in fact cleared to fly without one;
  • And that he does not believe that the incident was politically motivated.

(more…)

Written by in: Politics | Tags: ,
Jan
23
2012
11

Federal security forces ‘detain’ prominent opposition legislator…

…on his way to a mass anti-administration rally. 

The Daily Caller reports: the short version is, the TSA in Nashville detained Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) after their body scanner went on the fritz and the Senator refused to submit to a full-body pat-down. Senator Paul was scheduled to speak to March for Life this morning as part of their anniversary rally against Roe v. Wade: it’s now an open question whether he’s going to be able to, now.  As somebody noted to me privately: if this was any other Senator you could reasonably expect grandstanding, but Senator Paul is precisely the sort of person who will stubbornly force the TSA to embarrass itself by detaining a Senator on a matter of personal liberty.  Particularly since Senator Paul’s ongoing opposition to full-body pat-downs is quite well known.

In other words: this is what civil disobedience looks like.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: By the way?  As ABC News is actually pointing out, Senators have the following Constitutionally enumerated right: “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;”(Article I, Section 6).  Senate’s in session today; so let’s see, once and for all, whether Harry Reid’s a true Senator, or just this administration’s lap dog…

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com