Thursday, March 7, 2013

Mr. Crazy Eyes Goes to Washington

So, I am sure everyone has heard by now that Rand Paul pulled the old filibuster trick today to prevent a vote for the confirmation of Brennan as new CIA director. And the reason for doing so was...something something. I'm still not sure. I mean, the content of what Senator Paul was yakking on about, I'm on board with. That is, trying to get the Obama administration to clarify their stance on whacking U.S. citizens with drones, while sitting at a cafe. That last part, I still don't get. I can't even remember the last time I sat outside a cafe. Europe has cafes. This is America...we have sports bars.

So maybe he meant killing citizens with drone strikes at B-Dubs or something. But anyway, my point is, I don't see what this has to do with Brennan as CIA director. And why now? There were way better times to do a filibuster during this latest round of Obama nominations. But the equine Kerry gets a pass and Hagel gets no haggle. Now when Brennan is up for CIA director, who is pretty much a non-controversial pick as far as I can tell, Rand Paul is like...nope, we have to stop this (or slow it down...nobody believes the Republicans can stop anything now). So I am wondering why now?

I mean, if the argument is that Brennan said that drone strikes are cool and should be totally legal whenever they what? He's a career spook. Of course he wants the ability to whack people left and right and all of that stuff. It's like a game to those guys. They have no soul. Seriously, I once tried to apply to the CIA, and the first question in the interview was "Do you have a soul?". And I said "Yes.". So the second question they asked was "Do you want us to take care of that for you?"

Scary bunch, I tell ya.

Basically, I have really mixed feelings about this filibuster that happened. And when I say mixed feelings, I don't mean like regular old mixed nuts where 90% are stupid peanuts and the other nuts kind of thrown in as an afterthought. I mean like, the premium kind where peanuts were only invited because people expect them to be there, but the cooler nuts mostly run the show. So, I am like a can of premium mixed nuts with not a lot of peanuts in it.

Ok, forget that analogy because it stinks. Basically, I look at this and I see a bunch of angles here. I see Rand Paul, who I already consider crazy because of that whole apple and tree thing with his dad. Rand Paul is like the son of the Master who will one day take over the cult and become the new master. Kind of like in North Korea. Which leads to first angle...was Rand Paul just doing this to get some C-SPAN time and also make headlines? I mean, Ron Paul!!!!!11111eleventy can be changed to Rand Paul!!!!!11111eleventy by changing only 3 letters.

But then Rand Paul hasn't exactly been lukewarm about civil liberties and the Constitution's kind of his thing. Say what you like about the guy (and I suspect he is as looney tunes as his old man), he is definitely a champion of the Constitution.

But then he waits until now to do something like this? I mean, how many opportunities in the last year alone did he have to filibuster stuff? But then, I have a warm place in my heart for filibusters...because that keeps Congress from being able to pass anything, and as I think I've explained before, Congress passing things is pretty much what screws everything up.

On the other hand, what Rand seemed to be asking for was pretty much nothing that would serve any concrete purpose...more like a stern letter from the Senate to Obama saying "we want you to promise with cherries on top to not conduct drone strikes on citizens at B-Dubs".

Then again, people are now talking about it like "yeah...what exactly does the Obama administration mean when they say drone striking citizens is legal?" It's a good discussion to have. One that should be brought to a rather quick conclusion involving justice Anthony Scalia, a large gavel, and Obama's noggin. In a just world anyway.

I mean, seriously, are we actually at the point where whether or not the government assassinating Americans, in America is a "discussion"? And was Rand Paul just expressing the normal Washington faux outrage? I mean, I would be yelling if it were me on the Senate floor.

Anyway, I don't know how to take this filibuster thing. Just can't trust those politicians.

And as an aside, one of the most famous filibusterers was Cato the Younger in ancient Rome. He used the technique against Julius Caesar a few times. And I was thinking...Obama is kind of like Caesar. An incompetent version with an even larger ego that is. So if Rand Paul would start filibustering more to kind of work against Obama trying to get anything passed, he would be like Cato the Younger. Except, we would call him Crazy the Younger.

Making Ron Paul Crazy the Elder of course.


  1. Is anyone else noticing that the nocturnal Keln is somewhat different from the daytime Keln? :)

    Perhaps a little more snarky? Keln has gone over to the dark side.

    1. As my sister (I am assuming "Sister" is my actual sister) pointed out, I get a little punchy when I am tired, and I am usually pretty tired when writing lately.

  2. There is no dark side of the Keln...

  3. Keln is really weird when he's up late at night, but that is not really pertinent here. Um, so first off, Rand Paul and Ron Paul actually have widely differing opinions on many points. Second, just to clarify this for ya, Keln, Rand Paul (hearafter, Paul) filibustered with the bipartisan support from about 5 (I think) other senators because Brennan would not take a stance on the drone issue. This bothered those senators as it should bother all Americans, really. As a Kentuckian (and I realize this is the point when most people will probably roll their eyes and stop taking me seriously), I am proud of our junior senator for holding to his convictions even when it means looking a bit - let's face it - ridiculous. I don't think Paul is a very good politician, as you implied. I mean, most people think filibustering is usually silly, and his face-time on CSPAN hasn't exactly improved his rating here in our state. I think he's taking advantage of his position as long as he can and genuinely trying to bring about change. If he's still holding office in another decade, I'll be jaded, but for now I am naive enough to think he actually believes what he says and is trying to change the political system. Thanks for your time. (BTW, I actually didn't vote for Paul, but I wish I had.)

    1. Thanks for dropping in Sis. Well, you could probably chuck about 90% of what I wrote above as just an attempt at humor and silliness. The remaining 10% is just my skepticism concerning any politician, especially those who say they are for limiting government. I want to believe the guy, really I do, but it is difficult.

      I do take umbrage with Graham and McCain attacking Paul over it though. They sounded like sour old men yelling at Rand to get off their lawn. While Rand Paul was doing his thing, those two old codgers were dining at the White House. That old guard has got to go.

  4. I'm kinda surprised you don't like rPaul, Keln. He's crazy, but he's principled and he's not a lawyer. I think you should email him and get his views on bacon and bluegrass music. You may just be kindred spirits.

    1. Well, I don't know that he's crazy really. I just know his old man is, so it's sort of guilt by association. Fair? No. Safe? Yes.