Look over there! What Rand Paul’s filibuster accomplished

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/07/the-morning-plum-what-rand-pauls-filibuster-accomplished/

What Rand Paul’s filibuster accomplished

Posted by Greg Sargent on March 7, 2013 at 9:21 am


Rand Paul finally ended his 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan, Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, at 12:40 a.m. this morning. Whatever you think of the specifics of Paul’s speech, his filibuster was a good thing — it sparked public discussion about Obama’s drone policies and the weak legal rationale for targeted killing the administration has publicly released.

But Paul’s filibuster did more than that. It also perfectly showcased — in an unexpected way — the problems that have rendered the Senate so dysfunctional.

Even as Paul’s filibuster consumed all of our attention because of its uniqueness — no one mounts “talking filibusters” anymore — another filibuster that took place yesterday was treated by the political world as routine, as business as usual, as an entirely normal episode in the day-to-day running of the government. I’m talking about the GOP filibuster of Caitlin Halligan, Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Paul’s filibuster was born out of concern about an actual issue — objections to Obama’s approach to drone warfare that are shared on both sides of the aisle. By waging his talking filibuster, Paul gave us a chance to hear his objections and judge their validity. By contrast, the GOP filibuster of Halligan was part of a concerted, party-wide GOP strategy to do everything possible to render government dysfunctional when it comes to even routine business, for purely partisan reasons. The reason Republicans offered for their filibuster — that Halligan once participated in a lawsuit against the gun industry — had nothing to do with any substantive objections to her qualifications for the bench.

Unlike Paul, Republicans didn’t carry out their filibuster of Halligan on the Senate floor, in full view of the public. They didn’t have to. Republicans continue to require Dems to clear a 60 vote threshold for Obama’s nominations to keep the courts and government agencies functioning, day in and day out, with complete procedural ease — paying no price in the press, which treats this as perfectly routine. As David Firestone notes, Paul’s filibuster ended, but the real filibustering will continue.

more...

[Arkana]

1. Ironically, Paul's filibuster may have helped us.

Now, whenever a Republican Senator pitches a fit and threatens to filibuster, the question will be "Are you going to filibuster like a wuss or are you going to do it the way Rand Paul did it--a REAL filibuster?"

[rhett o rick]

2. Sen Reid said he had this taken care of. nm

[KoKo]

3. k&R..

[Initech]

4. Rand Paul: worst Senator ever!!!!!!

[fadedrose]

5. McCain & Graham are jealous of the attention that Paul is gertting

They couldn't wait to get on the floor and disagree with him.

Debate is what has been missing in the Senate. I am so tired of listening to classical music for hours on end, and that's why I miss it when something finally happens. Too much waiting and when something comes on, it wasn't worth the wait.

Rand Paul was fun to listen to, although a lot of it was sort of a madeup issue. I don't think Obama was planning to send drones into American bedrooms, with or without the constitution.