« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Barack Obama’s basic filibuster mistake.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 7th, 2013 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

And it’s a mistake that has little if anything to do with the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director (although having House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell somewhat surprisingly announce that he was opposing cloture on the eventual vote is not going to help Barack Obama any). It’s also a mistake that has less than you think to do with the question of drone strikes on American citizens themselves, although the administration’s inexplicable unwillingness to simply lie if that’s what it would have taken to shut Senator Rand Paul up is almost… startling. I know that this sounds cynical – but then, I suspect that the real reason that Barack Obama didn’t concede the point is that he was and is fundamentally unwilling to give any Republican a non-reciprocated win at this point. Paul wanted the point conceded that badly? – Then NO! Rand Paul doesn’t get it conceded.

So there.

And there’s the basic mistake; because in Barack Obama’s haste to deny Rand Paul one win yesterday the President gave the conservative movement another, larger one: a half a day of articulate, substantive, and satisfying morale-building. It’s pleasant to see the candidates that you worked so hard to elect – often while being actively opposed by the establishment GOP – demonstrate competence and flair at their craft in public. It’s pleasant to hear your beliefs and opinions get properly articulated in public. And it’s very pleasant to watch the Establishment itself back the grassroots’ play – and, make no mistake: Mitch McConnell (whatever else you might think of him) had a perfect chance to shut down the filibuster last night. McConnell instead backed Rand Paul’s play, stopped a point-of-order bobble before it cascaded into a filibuster-ender, and made dang sure that it was made clear that Republican Senators were lining up to support this thing.

In short: if you – like Barack Obama – are trying to discourage your enemies, then you don’t give them wins. Last night was a win that visibly invigorated right wing online activists all over the country. It was satisfying. I kept reading people going on about how nice it was to see their efforts have an effect on the debate – and, yes, it did. Imagine yesterday if the filibuster had been run by… well, I’ll avoid shaming by name the alternatives to Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz. On the other hand? Charlie Crist wouldn’t have been doing what Marco Rubio did. Not by a long shot – and it was worth it, right there.

So… why did Barack Obama remind us that we’ve actually had some darn good wins over the last two cycles? – Rhetorical question: he did it because he’s not actually all that good at either governing or political street brawling.

Moe Lane (crpsspost)

PS: Yes, I’m passing to one side the question that Senator Rand Paul asked. Largely because the President finally allowed it to be answered:

 

Now, was THAT so hard, Mr. President? Next time, Obama should just save us all some valuable time and just concede the point early.

PPS: By the way… regular attendees of the RedState Gathering would have recognized a LOT of the people joining the filibuster yesterday. Something to keep in mind.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • clowngirl

    Well put Moe!

  • lineholder

    Is Trey Gowdy in Graham’s district?

    I like Gowdy. And the folks in Upstate SC would be glad to see Graham face a serious challenge.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Bravo, Moe. You nailed this one perfectly. I’m speechless, because you said it all.

  • whitetop

    It is obvious McCain still doesn’t understand why he lost his bid for the WH. It is nice to see an elected servant of the people actually representing the people. What a concept; maybe it will catch on. The ability of the establishment republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory has become irksome.

  • JX12

    So why doesn’t RedState just require a member login for vote-up like you now do for vote-down? Outsiders are still able to vote-up stupid comments in the same way they used to be able to vote-down sensible ones.

    I for one would prefer to narrow the voting pool down to people who at least have a couple of brain cells to rub together.

  • kmtierney

    Yeah, this was really something easy Obama could’ve fixed. Say they don’t have the authority, then do it anyway when the situation arises. Anyone want to actually think anyone was going to go crazy in opposing Obama if he actually managed to take out an AQ affiliated American citizen preparing the next 9/11?
    This embarassment was raw hubris.

  • evilbloggerlady
  • davesinsanantonio

    And, it was an opportunity they didn’t let go to waste!

  • davesinsanantonio

    Obummer didn’t shut down the White House tours because of sequestration. He just used that as an excuse to keep those “uninvited intruders” out of his home. He thinks he owns the place and doesn’t want mere citizens to see it. He is good at campaigning, but not very good at understanding what America is all about. His attitude should be that he is a guest in the People’s House and should be respectful of what it represents, But, his arrogance and his anger at America keep him from having any common sense.

  • servant1951

    Good article. This episode is a clear evidence of narcissism. Both Obama and Holder have positive evidence of nearly all identifiers for this personality disorder. Holder displayed the evidence even to the very wording of his final response letter to Paul, where he found it necessary, in order to protect his grandiose beliefs about his own infallibility, to attempt to ridicule Paul as being less than sincere, or immature in his request for assurance to a simple question of concern for millions of citizens.

  • celador2

    Brennan was confirmed and that is a set back for national security. He was a probable security leaker to enahnce Obama as tough on terror and he was deep in Benghazi 9/11. He is a Obama ‘bot now and not independent as Dir CIA must be.

    We saw leadership from our constitutional guys on the floor for sure but we saw disrespect and treachery by McCain and his gang. They chowed down with Obama and whispered secrets about nominee Dir CIA John Brennan while the constitution burned on the floor. No problem with Brennan 9/11 anymore, gentlemen?

    They did not have to speak but could have been present on the floor as Seantors still concerned about Brennan’s fitness for CIA. Instead they threw a hissy and dismissed the floor action over domestic drone use. The Mac gang had reasons to join opposition to Brennan, though on other objections they have raised. Benghazi and lack of rescue were prominent objections to confirmation earlier.

    Did Obama over dinner whisper some secrets that made Brennan acceptable to Mac and gang? I thought he had a cloud over him as a probable leaker and his role in 9/11 is murky as he edited talking points that blamed the al q murders on a demo for weeks. Brennan goes to CIA thanks to McCain and Graham.
    In the end Paul ended his filibuster having received a drones on US soil on Americans response from Holder that was NO. But Brennan was confirmed as Director CIA.

    Mitch McConnell voted NO as did Paul and three Democrats and a few Republicans.

    We have seen how the Senate is different with bold challengers much like Newt in 1990s. Its not run by the McCain gangs but they still had the power to push Brennan over the finish line.

    Good people do make a difference. We need more constitutional cons 2014. Levin, Harkin, Rockefellar are retiring and there are three possible pick up seats.
    .

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Well stated Moe!

  • paxcat

    So, why did Rubio vote for Brennan following his support of Rand’s filibuster?

  • clowngirl

    Some Senators ( Ted Cruz, Mike Lee) were pretty clearly moved by principle and supported the filibuster early on before it was (probably) clear it was popular. I think most of us probably warm up to them and respect them the most)

    But it sounds like (if I understand this article correctly) McConnell quietly facilitated early on —

    And even if he – and some of the others – only spoke because of the urgings from twitter (or because they’d been won over by what Rand had been saying and the stand he was taking or a combination of both) I still don’t mind that because, well, they are SUPPOSED to listen to us and too many don’t.

    And personalky, I don’t think I want to get into the habit of criticizing people for doing the right thing for (what I imagine are) imperfect motives. However, he got there – he made the right choice and I appreciate that. At least a little.

  • robertr

    There are quite a few examples of people in history that were vital to one side and later switched sides to backstab their former partners/friends. Benedict Arnold is the most famous American who turned traitor. I’m not saying McCain is another Benedict Arnold but he’s as close as any. When your entire presidential campaign is based on having been a ‘maverick’, a cute catchy term to describe someone who backstabbed the Republicans every chance he had since he’s been in office that doesn’t say much for him being loyal to the party. McCain has always looked out for what was/is in his best interest. He needs to go. Arizona needs to send him packing and should have done so this last election.

  • PaladinLostHour

    I think it’s more disappointing than humbling, Moe – we’re living in a society where most of our fellow citizens don’t even have basic rhetorical skills. All this dude had to do was include a quote or two (assuming they exist) supporting his argument, and frame it as a polite question. That would’ve passed moderation *and* been more effective in making a point.

  • PaladinLostHour

    I think backstab is a bit much, but I agree with your general point.

    There’s a great CD* by Glenn Phillips (former lead singer of Toad the Wet Sprocket) called “Winter Pays for Summer”. In McCain’s case, it’s the reverse – the admirable sacrifice he made as a young man, for pure principle, has sustained his fecklessness into his dotage. Frankly, he needs to be spanked by McConnell publicly for the HuffPo interview, and Rand Paul would be thoroughly within his rights to point out that this petulant, erratic pattern of behavior on McCain’s part probably had a lot to do with America denying him the Presidency.

    *Well worth a listen if you have some time – Phillips is a bit of a hippie, but he writes a helluva tune.

  • PaladinLostHour

    Forget ‘would love to see it’.

    How do we make this happen? Is there some tax or election regulation that prevents Redstate for becoming a hub to coordinate and organize support for alternatives to RINOs?

    Not a rhetorical question – I honestly don’t know. Eric? Moe?

  • PaladinLostHour

    THAT’s the constitutional amendment we need. It’d fix a lot of issues very fast.

    And sure, the amendment limiting Presidents to two terms was a finger in the eye to Roosevelt, no doubt about it. But the bottom line is it passed the states; people understood the wisdom of it, whatever the motives for it’s initiation

  • clowngirl

    Oh on the subject of what the GOP is going today. In Colorado, Senate Republicans are expected to filibuster in defense of the 2nd amendment!

  • lineholder

    My understanding about Graham’s seat is that there are few challengers. Joe Wilson maybe. Someone upthread mentioned state Senator Bright.

    Best way to win this is to get Upstate SC folks involved. They’ll need money from somewhere. DeMint might know more on this front than RS personnel.

  • edintexas

    I would agree if you had limited your comment to a point that no Conservative should use ad hominem attack. Period. By raising McCain’s POW experience, you appear to be subscribing to the idea that one great act of valor and principle obviates any criticism, substantive or otherwise, in the future. His service is immaterial, to me, in the issue of ad hominem attacks. Well, maybe they are valid against some Presidents, like Armageddonwhackjob, President of Iran.

    As to whether McCain is a traitor, no – he is far from fitting the legal description of the criminal statute. Whether he is a traitor to the Republican Party, or other members of that party, might be another issue.

  • edintexas

    And if the likes of Paul, Cruz and Lee maintain their principles, and work as guided by those principles, you would want them gone after an arbitrarily determined period of time? Perhaps to be replaced by less principled people. Not to mention who are you, or anyone else (including myself), to deny voters in the states/Congressional districts their choice of elected representation. Currently any state is capable of enacting term limits for their Senators and Representatives, if the voters in that state so desire. If you wanted to make a real difference, work for repeal of the 17th Amendment to make Senators directly answerable to their states.