Rand Paul's PR Sham

[ProSense]

Rand Paul's PR Sham

by astronautagogo

you'd have to have lived under a rock this week to have not heard all about Rand Paul's epic filibuster and his campaign to protect you from Obama dispatching drones to blow you up while having a frappachino at your neighborhood Starbucks.
His PR stunt was such a success that folks like Jon Stewart & John Cusack bought into it's narrative. The problem is, it was fabricated, hyperbolic horse shit. Rand launched a faux populist campaign based on something that never existed. Yesterday PolitiFact found Rand's statement that "The president is advocating a drone strike program in America." to be completely FALSE.
READ FOR YOURSELVES: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/07/rand-paul/sen-rand-paul-says-obama-advocating-drone-strike-p/

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/08/1192484/-Rand-Paul-s-PR-Sham

The President is advocating a drone strike program in America. All we have to compare it with is the drone strike program overseas.

https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/309465276863365120

Paul acknowledged that US drone strikes have proven effective in places like Pakistan and Yemen, including a strike on US-born radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, whom Paul branded a traitor.

But "if you're going to kill non-combatants, people eating dinner, in America, there have to be some rules," he added.

http://www.alternet.org/progressive-wire/senators-filibuster-cia-pick-ends-after-12-hrs

Set up by a blatant and despicable lie and hypocrisy, Paul's theatrics were worse than Benghazigate. This was more like his Turkey straw man, except that people allowed him to get away with it.

Holder responded appropriately in his first letter. This entire episode was a fundraising stunt: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022475057

Rand Paul: "If the President is not going to kill them, why won't he say he's not going to kill"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470090

Rand Paul supports "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion" of an "imminent danger"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022472789


Video: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/#50829264

Rachel Maddow Annihilates the Paranoid Delusions of Rand Paul
http://www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-annihilates-paranoid-delusions-rand-paul.html

[Tx4obama]

1. Here's another one ...

Of Course Rand Paul’s Filibuster Was A Publicity Stunt. That Was Kind Of The Point.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/of-course-rand-pauls-filibuster-was-a-publicity-stunt-that-was-kind-of-the-point/

[BlueCaliDem]

2. The Pauls, these shameless fundraising fanatics

are no different than Dennis Kucinich. It's all about the Benjamins with them. To hell with the country and her people as long as they get theirs. I can't believe there are far too many on DU who support these jokes.

[LittleBlue]

3. Woah, wait a second

I clicked on the link, and the bill is titled "The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012"

So he supports surveillance when there is a suspicion of "imminent danger to life", not killing.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation into the Senate that protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy...

2. Includes the following exceptions:

2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"

This is Swift Boat level truthiness.

[ProSense]

4. Woah,

"This is Swift Boat level truthiness. "

...nice bullshit deflection.

In this Act--
(1) the term `drone' means any powered, aerial vehicle that--
(A) does not carry a human operator;
(B) uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(C) can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(D) can be expendable or recoverable; and
(E) can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload; and

"swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life"

...doesn't mean taking pictures.

[LittleBlue]

5. Could you link that?

Not challenging you about if it's there, I believe you but want something to link. Because it invalidates his whole reason for speaking.

[ProSense]

6. Here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3287/text

[LittleBlue]

7. Currently posting on my facebook

There are a lot of Paul/libertarian supporters in the Northwest. Thanks!

[Thor_MN]

8. Why won't the president declare that he won't wear white shoes after Labor day?

We DESERVE answer!!!1!!!1!!

[Mkap]

9. it worked

i know that yahoo and fox news has been dick riding Rand in the last 24 hours since the filibuster so i guess it worked

[dtom67]

10. yes, it was for political gain....

But he did it becaus the President is vulnerable on this. Many of you will not agree, but drones are a terrible idea. They are not effective, either. Perhaps, instead of holding those "terrorists" in guantonamo, we should have droned them. Of course, most of them weren't guilty of anything, but you'd never know because they would be dead, along with any innocent bystanders nearby. The other repubs railed at that idiot Rand because they are salivating at the idea of a gop pres with drone capability and wanted him to shut up so as not to blow it for the next repub president.
Rand is a piece of crap, but just remember what you say now, if there ends up being a repub in the white house later.

This is an issue of civil liberty not partisanship.

I hope....

[skepticscott]

11. Or maybe some of us had more worthwhile things to do

than breathlessly follow every moment of yet another dreary and useless tale of political grandstanding.

It really is amazing how dismissive people who spend every minute trolling the blogoverse with CNN on constantly in the background can be of people who don't.

[KharmaTrain]

12. The Latest Effort To Separate Teabaggers From Their Cash...

...and Paulbot Jr. doesn't deny it. No sooner does he pull this stunt then he's hitting hate radio and floating his 2016 candidacy. It's all for the love of those with deep pockets who will surely be hit with a Paulbot "moneybomb" any day soon; grifting on the suckers his old man milked for the past decade.

That said...yes, Paulbot Jr. is the wrong messenger for not only the drone issue but teabaggers in general. The issue, like many, have been blown out of proportion as any President who unleashes a weaponized drone on an American citizen inside the U.S. would face a backlash unseen in American political history.

Like it or not, drones be a part of our future. The weapon that is a "game changer" on the battlefield as any country, large or small, can and will fight with these and other automated weapons system. From a law enforcement perspective any tool that takes a life out of harm's way is one to be embraced and within a short period of time I expect many PDs will have their own survellience drones as their eyes in the skies. There will need to be laws and protocols defining when a drone is for "peaceful" as opposed to "offensive" uses and how and where they can be operated without a massive intrusion into civil rights and privacy. I see this as a debate that will take years to play out as technology once again surpasses laws. Paulbot Jr. has done a good thing by bringing this issue to the front...but his cockamanie CTs and faux pacifism is all a stunt to get attention and make him the latest flavor of the month for a fractured and desperate rushpublican party...

[ProSense]

14. StandwithRand, love NRSC. n/t

[SidDithers]

13. DURec...

Wonder how many pretend "liberals" donated to him after his little stunt.

Sid

[Comrade_McKenzie]

15. K&R for everyone not duped by the snake oil salesman. nt

[ProSense]

20. No doubt preparing for his Presidential bid. n/t

[patrice]

23. Yep, it's going to be Paul & Kucinich

The Green Party is lost . . . AGAIN!

[spanone]

16. k&r...

[woo me with science]

17. Where are the Democrats?

The two corporate parties take turns enacting the indefensible.

We were enraged during Bushco, but Republicans defended every outrage they enacted. Now it's the Republicans' turn to be outraged and Democrats' turn to circle the wagons around Obamaco, and ensure the expansion of the same predatory corporate/authoritarian agenda.

Democrats should have led this filibuster, en masse.
The fact that they did not tells us all we need to know.

It reveals the depth of the corporate corruption that has taken root, and the fact that what was once the party of democratic values, principles, and laws has now been purchased and subverted by corporate authoritarian power and money.

Rand Paul is a dirty, disgusting Republican, or Libertarian, or whatever. Yeah, we get it.

That's not a good enough answer for why DEMOCRATS won't stand up against this authoritarian shit. Not only is it not a good enough answer, it is craven, shameless distraction and appeal to blind loyalty. Look over there! Remember how much you hate Republicans and Libertarians! Remember....You are on the Blue Team. Cheer for your Blue Team!

What does the Blue Team stand for now, if they are silent on even this?

When it is no longer possible to defend what they are doing, but instead we see the rhetoric of blind loyalty and distraction, we have a serious, serious problem.

We have a serious problem.

[ProSense]

18. You mean the ones who weren't being duped by Paul? n/t

[ProSense]

19. "Rand Paul is a dirty, disgusting Republican, or Libertarian, or whatever. Yeah, we get it."

No, you don't get it. There were a lot of people fanning the flames by making the same bullshit claim that Obama wants to kill Americans.

[patrice]

21. The whole thing is an excuse for his protection of un-regulated assault weapons markets in poor

countries around the world.

Rand Paul was pushing a Grover Norquist style oath on the Senate to prevent U.N. treaties that would regulate assault weapons sales in troubled nations.

S.2205 The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022193033

[patrice]

22. If Rand Paul isn't trying to start another war in places, oh, like LIBYA, why doesn't he say he's

not a war monger.