Rand Paul reverses position, supports drone killings of American citizens on American soil

[Douglas Carpenter]

?1361369761
Yeah, that is a hell of a title, isn't it? But it's apparently true. Rand Paul, fresh off standing ovations at CPAC where they were busting a gut with pride over his brave, brave anti-drone stance, has entirely reversed his position:

So in the span of a little over a month, Rand Paul has gone from being so outraged over the mere possibility of using drones to kill American citizens on American soil that he's willing to launch an old-school filibuster to a new position far more extreme than anyone else discussing the topic, an assertion that drones can be used to kill American citizens on American soil if you catch them in the act of a suspected crime. You just can't use the drones to look for the crime, though. I don't know what Constitution Rand Paul has been reading, but I'm fairly certain he's been licking toads while reading it.

Of course, what this really means is that Rand Paul's entire famous filibuster was, in the end, bullshit. It was a lie. He didn't filibuster because he was outraged that the Obama administration might send unmanned drones to target and kill American citizens, he just outright endorsed that practice. So why did he filibuster? As a mere political gimmick, a fundraising tool, a chance to bluster about "freedom" to the base on an issue that neither he nor that base really had shred one of concern about to begin with? How many in that base are now feeling suckered, right now, with their "Stand with Rand" stickers and their idol's supposedly deep-held belief in not sending drones out to kill random Americans who a government agent has determined probably deserved it?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204296/-Rand-Paul-reverses-position-supports-drone-killings-of-American-citizens-on-American-soil

[tularetom]

1. Their "base" doesn't give a rats ass about drones

It's just something else for them to use to beat Obama about the head and shoulders.

It's all "Obama is using drones to kill American citizens, he hates America, outrage, outrage, blah, blah" until a incident occurs and he doesn't use them.

Then it all changes to "Obama should have used drones on the American citizens that planted those bombs, he hates America, sputter sputter".

And the fools will lap it up as usual. And nobody will even notice the inconsistence.

[Fumesucker]

2. No one could have predicted this n/t

[Jamaal510]

3. The one issue where Rand was semi-correct on...

tossed out the window.