Yesterday, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham struck back at Rand Paul’s Wednesday filibuster with bitter attacks on his stand on drone attacks. McCain mocked Paul’s day in the spotlight as “a stunt aimed at firing up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.” Graham was so mad about it that he changed his mind and voted to confirm John Brennan as director of the C.I.A. just in order to send a statement about his support of the drone program that Paul had attacked.
Both McCain and Graham were correct to point out that the filibuster was fought on what is basically a non-issue. As I wrote on Wednesday, while Paul was conducting his filibuster, the Kentucky senator’s real beef is not with the imagined threat of the government ordering a drone strike on a U.S. citizen sitting in a café on U.S. soil. Rather, it is with the war the United States is fighting against Islamist terrorists who continue to pose a deadly threat to the homeland as well as to our friends and interests abroad. Paul’s goal is to withdraw from this conflict and to pretend that it is not one that is being forced upon us by our enemies. That is a dangerous position that deserved the censure of the two GOP amigos.
But it should also be understood that while McCain and Graham were right on the policy, they were dead wrong on the politics. It’s no use pretending that Paul is merely appealing to the margins of the political spectrum as his far more extreme and less politically adroit father Ron did during his presidential campaigns. That Paul’s filibuster was conducted on behalf of a bogus issue doesn’t change the fact that it was an act of political genius that captured the imagination of many Americans who might not ordinarily think much of the senator. Dismissing his achievement only made Paul’s critics look hopelessly out of touch.
The question is not whether the grass roots of the Republican Party were inspired by his stand. They were. How could they not want to cheer a man who took a courageous stand in that manner while so many of their party’s leaders have lacked the guts or the skill to confront the president on many big issues? The question is what those who understand that Paul is wrong on the issue and that he is poised to drag the party down a path that will lead it to abandon its traditional support for a strong America will do about it. If they don’t think of something, it will be the end of the Republican Party’s long-held consensus on foreign policy.
The lesson of the filibuster is that people want to follow a person who leads publicly and courageously. Irrespective of the wisdom of his stand, that is just what Paul did. The willingness of so many other conservative senators—including those like Marco Rubio who don’t agree with Paul’s approach to foreign policy—to flock to the Senate floor while he spoke and offer him support shows they understood what McCain and Graham haven’t figured out. For the pair to manifest disrespect for Paul’s achievement is political stupidity of the highest order. It also makes their gentlemanly decision to forgo a filibuster on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be secretary of defense look all the more pusillanimous.
Yet the irony here is that while Republicans are excited by Paul’s stand, any decision to change the direction of the party’s take on foreign policy would contradict their desire to improve their electability after their defeat last November.
As much as Paul’s stand inspired Republicans and even generated respect from Democrats, they need to remember that most Americans support the drone policy. They may be sick of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they don’t share Paul’s disinterest in fighting the “perpetual war” against Islamists because they know the threat is real. They also know that the idea that the only legitimate fighting is being conducted on battlefields between soldiers is hopelessly outmoded.
Obama won re-election in part by bragging about killing Osama bin Laden and chiding Mitt Romney for his disinterest in the hunt for the arch terrorist. Moreover, if Republicans are foolish enough to follow Paul down the road toward embracing a form of isolationism, they will be branded as the weak party on defense and concede foreign policy as an issue to the Democrats for a generation.
Those who wish to save the GOP from this fate can’t let Paul speak for the party on these issues. But if they are to do it they will have to show at least as much guts as he did this week and avoid sounding, as McCain and Graham did yesterday, like cranky old men telling the kids to get off their lawn.
I disagree. Once in a while, it would be nice to see policy trump politics. Rand's grandstanding is not courageous when it is motivated by the wish to take American policy in a disastrous direction while seeking to gain prominence for a 2016 campaign (and not incidentally, lead a sizable chunk of potential GOP voters into the dead end of mindless isolationism). n nRand's smokescreen question — can Obama zap a guy sitting in a cafe in Dearborne — was correctly denounced by Graham as ridiculous and quickly dismissed by Holder and the WH. His real goal — to delegitimize the overseas drone campaign — puts him on the same page with every nutty leftist. It is the left that gains the most from his "raising the question." Just read the deluge of anti-war commentary he has already stimulated. n nThank God for McCain and Graham.
If anything has "delegitimized" US use of armed drones, it is Obama's promiscuous use of them –which has made him look more like some sleazy gang-banger doing drive-bys than Commander-in-Chief (with a similar vulgar indifference to the innocents killed in the process). And it is the use of the convenient ambiguity of a "war on terror" that has enabled the governing class to invent potentially irrevocable extra-Constitutional expansions of the power of the State in the name of national defense. If Paul has crossed the line, it is in order to challenge these excesses, and because so many in power are so willing to draw the line anywhere they please. And your idea of a reasoned response is grandpappy McCain, yelling at the whippersnapper to get off his lawn? We live in a madhouse.
The rants lately by Tobin ,Boot et.al. against Rand Paul are way off the mark. It is sad that several writers at Commentary feel compelled to denigrate Senator Rand and extoll the virtures of RINO republicans.
If the question posed by Rand Paul was so ridiculous, it could have been summarily answered as "no," which would have mooted the whole filibuster. It wasn't, and that was the point. n n n
Very well said!
Exactly!
Where in Rand’s Filbuster did he speak of Isolationism? or his disdain for the Drone program? I watched ALL of it and the answer is, he didn’t. He did speak of a need to restructure the AUMF, which is sorely out of date,Why go all RINO now Commentary?
Bob
McCain and Graham, the Senators from Stupid.
the thing is anyone watching Rand Paul would think he is in support of the current overseas drone program … your attempt to paint the son with the fathers ideas is not working …
Rand was 100% correct on this issue, and Tobin doesnu2019t understand what happened on Wednesday night if he thinks Rand did this to get the US out of the war. (Which Rand also supports, but that is an entirely different issue -ENTIRELY!) r nr nI am no “impressionable libertarian kid in [a] college dorm.u201d I am a lawyer with Conservative and Libertarian views (much like the Founders of this great nation) that is very concerned with the US government violating Constitutional rights in the name of fighting terror.r nThe Constitutional APPLIES ABSOLUTLEY to ANY U.S. Citizen – PERIOD, and what Dr. Paul wanted was a definitive statement of legality of killing U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil, which Eric Holder blatantly denied in his letter to him. (Did Tobin even read that letter?)r nr nI am so sick of Tobin, Mccain, Graham, and others like them saying the Constitution doesnu2019t apply somehow if the President (whether Bush or Obama) declares them some sort of extra-Constitutional name that denies them their Constitutional Rights. r nr nDr. Paul doesnu2019t have to use hypotheticals to show examples of what this type of thinking leads to. Jose Padilla (A despicable man) was unconstitutionally held under arrest without due process for years. Like it or not, the US government violated the Constitution by denying him a lawyer and a right to a speedy trial. He was a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil and he had rights guaranteed him in the Bill of Rights – PERIOD! r nr nJust as Tobin, Mccain, Graham, and others like them were dead wrong when they supported indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens without trial, they are dead wrong that the government shouldnu2019t have to explicitly acknowledge they DO NOT have the Constitutional power to kill Americans on American Soil without due process (i.e., A TRIAL) r nr nTobin, Mccain, Graham call it u201csillyu201d to even bring the subject up as Dr. Paul has, but people who are actually educated in Constitutional matters (that is, anyone who studies the subject, not just lawyers) knows that we arenu2019t talking hypotheticals anymore, the “War on Terror” has already been used to illegally deny American citizens their Constitutional rights, and we donu2019t “trust” the government to follow common sense regarding future actions, we want definitive statements when asked by Congress what the Executive thinks their powers are! r nr nI lost a lot of respect for Jonathan Tobin today, he has no clue what went on Wednesday night! It had a little to do with politics, but mostly it was about principle (Something these guys just donu2019t seem to understand).
Figures that Tobin worries not wit about a murderous US Administration but when it comes to fighting against Israel’s enemies, Tobin will support sending all US Forces available. Get over it and stop the bogus WoT hype! The US is already doing too much damage in the MidEast.
Whatever Paul's "hidden" agenda regarding Islamism or whatever, what resonated with people paying attention was that this filibuster was about sounding an alarm on the abuses of power. Those abuses are real, and they trump any "national emergencies." Commentary is a great site and resource, but it is also looking out from the bubble of its primary interests.
McCain has always been a gung-ho, gonzo militarist. Not sure I find his view of federal power more reasonable than Rand Paul's.
To suggest that Paul wants to withdraw from a war forced upon us is pretty weak beer. The first few months in Afghanistan accomplished everything we needed to. Had we not outsourced the Tora Bora exercise we would have killed Bin Laden in 2002 and could have left Afghanistan with a simple warning: we will be back if we have to and we won't be too worried about killing a few extra people if they end up in the way. n nThe way I read Paul's position is that we need to be a lot more discriminating in where and how we deploy our military resources. Libya, for instance, doesn't meet the minimum national interest criteria. McCain and Graham are the worst of the GOP in both political atmospherics and policy questions. Knee jerks, both, who are more concerned with their press than they should be. Time for both to be put out to pasture rather than be left inside to posture.
What has-beens like McCain are Graham are unable to is that Rand Paul’s Filibuster was way beyond “drones.” n nIt was about the whether the Senate has the right to participate in the Political Discourse as a co-equal Branch of the Government versus having an Imperial Presidency (regardless of Party) n nTobin also missed the point as well. n
The point being, who…precisely…was the intended audience that McCain and Graham thought they would sway with their invective? n nIf it was not a bevy of Obama supporters, they missed their mark. n nThe message that was coming through was about a lawless Presidency that forced the purchase of goods and services, refused for over 1400 days to submit a budget to the American people, took on religious tenets and ham-fisted away rights to adhering to those tenets, has been at war with the Constitution, attacked states trying to protect their borders…and now wants unfettered rights to drop a missile in the lap of someone who, if they did not have American citizenship would be treated as a workplace violence matter or police offense, apparently without giving a whit about "collateral damage". n nThe sneering assault by McCain and Graham missed the opportunity to drive home the point that fear and loathing of a reckless, unlawful, and brutish forcing of leftism down the throats of the American people gives rise to legitimate dissent and resistance. n nInstead, the feckless and hapless Republicans formed a circular firing squad, yet again, and ruined the moment. n nGiving aid and comfort, aiding and abetting the continuing assault on freedom by creating an "infighting" meme, instead of staying on message. n nThe drone issue breathed life into the resistance, because "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" were not sparking. I don't like Rand Paul's daddy. And, he's not my cup of tea. But McCain and Graham, once again, snatched the moment and fumbled it. n nMcCain and his Mordor/Inner Earth tin ear and pleather tongue are now infamous. Graham should know better. He doesn't. And…therein lies the nub of it. The Republicans are their own worst enemy. Again. n nAnd we suffer for it. n n
"Dismissing his achievement only made Paul’s critics look hopelessly out of touch." n nIt didn't make them look "out of touch," it made them look like hopelessly compromised, self-interested political prostitutes only interested in rent-seeking and sucking up to those who line their pockets and preserve the status quo. n nGranted, the phrase "hopelessly out of touch" is a lot shorter.
Tobin! I feel bad for the journalist of the 21st centuryr nthe citizenary doesnt really need your lame interpretation of what we can see live on the net or cable!r nI watched the last three hours of the Rand Stand and he absolutely said mannnnyyyyy times that drones are needed to fight abroad. His beef was the Admin played politics with a simple question and lost!r nThis Admin are snakes decetful political heinas
Wrong !!! Rand Paul was taking a stand against this President's shredding of the Constitution