2 votes

Washington Post: Rand Paul’s unpredictable streak (and why it matters)

Damn right, he's playing Chess; he proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt today!

And perhaps MSM is finally catching on...

Rand Paul’s unpredictable streak (and why it matters)

Posted by Sean Sullivan on March 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is not an easy politician to read. And that would make him a pretty dangerous candidate for opponents if he runs for president in 2016.

Consider Paul’s recent moves in the Senate:

* He was one of four Republicans to vote FOR Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as defense secretary after voting AGAINST the motion to invoke cloture on the very same nomination. Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley explained that while the senator agreed that there were questions about Hagel that needed to be answered, the president should be afforded some “leeway” when it comes to his nominees.

* Today Paul launched the Senate’s first talking filibuster since 2010, opposing John Brennan, the president’s nominee to be CIA director. “I will speak until I can no longer speak,” said Paul, who strongly opposes the nomination of Brennan and the Obama administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones. Brennan’s nomination has not stirred nearly as much controversy as Hagel’s did. The Senate Intelligence Committee cleared Brennan by a 12-3 margin on Tuesday, and all indications were that he was well on his path to being cleared by the full Senate.

So what do Paul’s moves suggest? For one thing, he marches to the beat of his own drum in the Republican Party. Now, that’s not wholly a new observation, considering the Paul’s libertarian brand of conservatism and the issues over which he has found himself at odds with members of his own party during his time in the Senate.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

unlawful detention of U.S. citizens

Is there any chance that Senator Paul will protest DOJ's long term imprisonment of me, a U.S. citizen, with no criminal charge, bail hearing, evidentiary hearing or claim I broke a law?

I sued DOJ and they claimed it is legal for them to incarcerate citizens without a criminal charge or published procedure even using the Prisoner Tracking System and the Joint Automated Booking System. In fact, DOJ filed in Federal Court in DDC 11-01032 “JABS is not limited to inclusion of records that are created incident to arrest for a ‘criminal charge’ (see document 16-1 p.10). I filed an objection with the FR citation, yet DOJ attorney David C. Rybicki came back and asserted “Nothing in that Federal Register Notice states, as Plaintiffs erroneously claim, that the JABS must be used only to process individuals arrested for criminal offenses.” (see document 31, p 3). Previously he filed that the Prisoner Tracking System requires only a judicial order not a criminal charge or criminal procedure. This conflicts with these DOJ Federal Register Privacy Act publications:


I have emails from Federal District Court clerks acknowledging that they have unpublished procedures for pro se litigants.