Sen. Rand Paul, A week post Filibuster, Editorials, right, left and center, overall applauding, speculating from the New York Times to Anchorage – what unites us?

In a world of the 24/7 news cycle, generally what happened yesterday is old news – or perhaps, if “interesting enough” at least a 2 day event – there is the rare exception indeed when one man, one event, can hold the attention span of the American Public for nearly a week. That man, Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY), has done so with his 13 hour Filibuster and the toxic response of Republican Leadership, specifically John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who both dismissed and attacked Paul. It was to their discredit, as Paul had certainly struck a nerve regarding civil liberties that spanned parties’ lines, had the attention of the world, and was, for all intents and purposes, genuine. It was not the usual rhetoric one finds droning on in the hallowed halls of Congress – pun intended.

For many, it was the first time in a lifetime one saw members of both parties standing united on an issue, and using the protocol of the Senate to make a stand. For others, they will not be able to miss the event, as the news cycle is continuing to either support or dismiss the Senator and his actions. There are also those, on both sides who see 2016 and Paul Rand as a potential candidate – from Libertarian Conservatives as a hopeful and from the left – the seeds are being sown now, preemptively.

In a piece from the New York Times, editorial columnist Ross Douthat opines “But where Huntsman and Paul the elder mostly failed, Rand Paul has been enjoying remarkable success. The Kentucky senator’s recent ascent to prominence, which achieved escape velocity with last week’s 13-hour filibuster delaying the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead the C.I.A., hasn’t just made the younger Paul one of the most talked-about politicians in Washington today. It has offered the first real sign that the Republican Party might someday escape the shadow of the Iraq war and enter the post-post-9/11 era.”

The editorial focuses on the specifics of the filibuster and its overall content, including a glimpse away from civil liberties and into foreign policy. The articles closes:

“Paul, by contrast, has actually challenged that consensus in a substantive and constructive way. And far from being excommunicated for it, he’s been rewarded with greater prominence and increased conservative support.

For those with ears, let them hear.”

This editorial was picked up today by a variety of newspapers, including the Rutland Herald.

A Dallas Morning News Op-ed suggests that McCain, Graham, and their ilk, get out of the way of the younger, more civil liberty minded Paul, noting that they are content to get along, rather than to do the job for which they were sent. The piece is biting in its criticism of the two senior Senators, and gracious to Sen. Paul.

The Anchorage Daily News picked up the Senator’s rebuttal to those on the right, first published days before, “Our Rights are Precious” (That’s why I filibustered)

From AntiWar Blogs to the Richmond Register There is positive chatter regarding Paul’s defense of liberty.

Then one begins to see the telltale signs of a threat to the status quo and any possible political aspirations that the Senator may have (yet has not so much as mentioned): From the very nature of his parentage (specifically his father, Ron Paul), to the Filibuster itself one finds such articles as the examiners: Rand Paul’s Filibuster will Hurt Him Against Hillary in 2016 it is apparent that the man who would do the job he was elected to do – it seen as a threat.

What, in reality, is at issue, is the fact that the Senator from Kentucky brought attention to the process of government, he stood his ground, and in an old-fashioned, yet so new to so many who had no idea that watching C-Span might not be akin to watching paint dry – became vested in the message of protecting civil liberties. In the following days, those who are from the right and the left of politics, seemed to agree on two points: one, that those who may argue consistently, found this one man agreeable, and two, the old guard, as it is referred to in so many pieces, were rankled, weather it was due to being upstaged, or more to the point, Paul shook up the building and brought attention to that august body – perhaps more will be tuning in.

In speaking of a run in 2016, it is not unusual for many a straw to be grasped upon this early in the game (although in reality, the game began in January of this year), as the old guard drags out Jeb Bush, and one see’s the signs that some of the players from 2008 and 2012 are on short and long-lists as potentials. One might suspect that, given the response Paul has received, both at home and abroad, either the man himself or his equivalent (should one be found) would upend the entire field – on both sides of the aisle. The American public has had it with those who would divide, and are yearning for someone who, not only campaigns on uniting, but has actually done something to prove that he has that ability. To boot, Paul never wavered from his core beliefs this past week, and should he stay in that frame (with no indication he would not), then he would be a sane choice for the American People. He also communicated clearly, without pause for 13 hours, something that has been lacking in the “Shining City on the Hill” – That is what united us. Of course, at this point, one has no clue as to who the major players in Washington will chose to either win or lose the Presidency in 2016. That said, someone who has the ability to drive a news cycle, and communicate clearly across party ideology – is indeed someone one might want to keep an eye on.

Suggest reading the entire article by Ross Douthat in the Times, noted above for perspective.

Senator Rand Paul – Historic Defense of Civil Liberties – Spans Party Lines – Lessons in Civics - #Standwithrand Still Trending on Twitter

The Man one might want to Stand With - Senator Rand Paul - image Reuters via Breitbart

It goes without saying, that far too many American’s have had no education as to basic civics, especially how our government and the separation of powers brilliantly installed in the U.S. Constitution provide the people with a safety net against that government. Today, most people in this country, otherwise known as “low information voters”, have a concept of the body politic that is more “entertainment”, by which, a politician becomes a “rock-star”, rather than a servant of the people. It also goes without saying that those who do serve, from the Congress, to the Senate to the Office of the President, deserve the nations respect; for these Offices, and the intent to serve, are not undertaken lightly. The people and those that serve may have differing opinions; however, the entire body politic in these United States is one that is built on laws and oversight. In 1939, a feature film, ”Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, became one of the most enduring films of our time. The Oscar winning film is described in brief: “A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn't back down.” (Watch Trailer with links to film at www.imdb.com. It is the story of the filibuster and how that tool is used to bring attention of a situation viewed as untenable to the general population, and to hopefully, change a wrong to a right.

This was a fictional piece, yet, it is doubtful that many who are over the age of 50 have not seen the film at some point in their lives. It was a rare occurrence indeed, when on March 6, 2013, the nation was treated to the “real deal”. Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY), stood on the floor of the Senate and spoke for almost 14 hours. As one watching C-Span, desperately trying to stay awake to watch this event continue, the film from 1939 came to mind. Obviously, Paul is not naive when it comes to the ways of the world, nor the U.S. Constitution which he swore to uphold, and to watch as the hours wore on, his ability to maintain a clear, concise message, and stand firm in his convictions, was truly inspiring.

In brief, the Administration (White House and its various agencies) has considered the use of drones (a weapon) against individuals whom they feel might be a threat to the nation. These individuals would be U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The law of the land allows all U.S. citizens due process, and obviously, if one were thought to be an enemy of the State (with no clear indication of what the criteria would be for such a finding), the U.S. government would have the ability to blow them to smithereens, whether they were in their swimming pool, a coffee house, the grocery store, etc. These weapons are used in the theatre of war, to protect our armed forces, and there has been the consequence of unavoidable civilian deaths. In the theatre of war, it is an unfortunate expectation. However, it should not be an expectation at all in the confines of the boundaries of the United Sates of America. Rand Paul was asking the Administration (Attorney General, Eric Holder) if they felt the President had the authority to use drones as describe on American Citizens. The answers were vague in the extreme, thus Senator Paul took to the floor and spoke for thirteen hours.

At first, the Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid attempted to limit the ability of Senator Paul to speak – He failed. Rand Paul did not do this alone for 13 hours. In the process of the filibuster, one might not yield the floor (keep the discussion alive) and entertain a question from a college (another Senator). At the early hours, it was Sr. Ted Cruz of Texas, who stood to give Senator Paul a respite from standing and speaking, with authority on the subject at hand. Senator Mike Lee entered and, as a Constitutional Authority, joined in supporting Paul’s filibuster. Democrat Senator, Ron Wuyden of Oregon, joined in support. (Mediate.com) There was a dinner at the White House, with the majority of the Republican Senators’ in attendance, several of those who attended the dinner, apparently felt compelled to join Paul on the Floor, including the senior senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. Senator Dick Durbin came to the floor to agree on principle with Senator Paul, but compared the use of drones on Ben Ladin, to the potential to use drones on American Citizens, he also suggested that this type of debate take place within Committee, instead of a forum that allowed the public to watch the proceedings.

What took place as a rare event, as this body, the Senate, does little in the way of protecting the interests of the American people. It is not for lack of trying, however, these Senators, regardless of party affiliation are often found blocked by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who holds the power to bring a bill (law) to the floor for a vote – or not. He is the main reason that the U.S. has had no budget since 2009, using “continuing resolutions” instead to keep from confining the Federal government to do what ordinary households must do – stick to a budget. This government is run, and operates, of course, with monies supplied by the very same ordinary households.

To watch part or all of these proceedings, C-Span has the entire video – which is embedded below. What the Senator was requesting was simple. A statement from the Administration noting yes, or no, regarding whether they (the Administration) believed the President has the authority to use drones to kill American Citizens within the boundaries of the United States – a simple Yes or No response would have ended the filibuster in hour 1.

It was not forthcoming.

Thus the almost 13 hour (12 hours and 54 minute) debate on the Senate Floor.

This is the type of occurrence that truly makes one feel that this is truly the best nation on earth in which to reside.

The twitter hashtag #standwithrand maintains the top trending topic on Twitter (as of 6:22 am est) (Twitter.com) When “Code Pink” #standswithrand, the issue is crossing ideological lines, and is one in which the entire nation should be vested (as is the world.)

The entire filibuster, video via Cspan.org.