Skip to main content

View Diary: Rand Paul fundraises off filibuster with false claim of how it started (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  almost like he didn't mean any of it (6+ / 0-)

    and that it was a pure PR stunt.

    who'd have thunk it?

    •  Many of us were screaming this on Wedneday (11+ / 0-)

      But many kossacks were wooed. Now many should have egg on their faces, cuz the guy is NOt even against drones.

      "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

      by zizi on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 05:41:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amateur hour at the White House with Axelrod gone (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Moravan, Jeff Y

        This is Obama's fault. To allow Rand Paul (of all people) to outflank him was lazy and stupid.

        The administration should not have even dignified Rand Paul's letter/question with a response. It was then and remains now a ludicrous question: "will Obama promise not to kill Americans on Main Street?" If he sent asked "will Obama promise not to ban immunizations and vaccinations?" or "will Obama promise not to shut down every movie theater in the country" would they have had Holder respond too?

        I would have sent Paul's letter back with a sticky note attached reading "Are you serious? Grow up kid" written on it, which is the equivalent of the look Hillary gave him during his last bit of grandstanding:

        hillary vs rand paul

        That's how you respond to nonsense. He failed then because Hillary didn't even give him the time of day, which is exactly what the White House didn't do the minute they let Holder answer him.

        The question was bait and the Obama Administration took it. Five years I in, I don't know why they're still trying to negotiate with terrorists or reason crackpot Ayn Randian psuedo-libertarian Teabagger conspiracy theorists.

      •  i'm not either to tell you the truth (0+ / 0-)

        dones are tools. its how they are used that is at issue.

        and I have been here long enough to remember that a lot of people on DKOS had a problem with W NOT using them before 9/11 despite the urging of Richard Clarke and the outgoing Clinton people. it was one of the things about W that made it so clear he was ignoring terrorism before 9/11, and was intent on using it for other ends after.

        people here forget what a tight rope Obama is walking on national security. after all we have seen since he took office, is there any doubt that the GOP would have impeached him if we got hit again on his watch and it came out that he was not aggressively hitting terror targets (with drones or other means). and people like Rand Paul would have been leading the  charge. yes its an issue that should be discussed, but Obama, HRC, Rand Paul, and Bernie Sanders would all be doing the exact same thing if they were Commander in Chief.

        what is really telling now is that the GOP's desire to oppose anything Obama does has come so far that they are now trying to attack him for being too aggressive on Foreign Policy. that alone should be enough to tell us they don't mean a word of what they say. i don't know why we'd buy into their BS.

    •  THIS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Rand Paul is a phony.  His isolationism is extreme and is bullshit.  How dare he question Obama.

      Only Democrats should be allowed to be pro-peace.

    •  Some of us thunked it (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site