15 votes

RandSlide vs CruzControl Filibuster Postmortem; the ONLY Relevant Metric: Did It Change the Conversation?

While obviously the MSM is going to spin it anyway it wants, despite that, as observed in the insanely overabundant public, pan-political opposition against the Syria War, they cannot spin, even as they might, a ubiquitous clear and present undeniable reality.

Filibuster is a stop/delay Senate procedural, but its most important function is publicity. So, when one speaks for even 6hrs+ straight without a bathroom break, anywhere, let alone in the Senate, it's 100% common-sensical to plausibly assume that the topic of the filibuster 'must be important' (doesn't always mean it is, but certainly gives the impression that it is) for public discourse, no?

Given such, y'all be the judge, as to whether Cruz's commendable 21hr filibuster actually did or did not change public perception of "ObamaCare" regardless of MSM spin.

If I had my druthers, I'd have repeatedly read the actual bill, and its most egregious liberty destructive portions, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, as to clearly make the case, from the legalese itself as evidence (Cruz is a lawyer after all, is he not? So why not use 21hrs to 'present your legal case, with evidence in hand?') WHY oBUSHmaScare is one the worst things to hit Americans since the faux-'Partriot' ActS.

So, please go to StartPage.com or any of your personal Non-NSA-Google search engine of choice, then type in the following in its 'search box:'

"Rand Paul Drone Bombing support before and after filibuster" / "Drone Bombing support before and after Rand Paul filibuster"

"Ted Cruz Obamacare support before and after filibuster" / "Obamacare support before and after Ted Cruz filibuster"

then, see what you get, from MSM to 'alt.media' news and blogs.

One most notable headline is from Katharine Graham's (now, Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos's. Who, by coinkydink, is hosting the CIA at his Cloud server-farm; and no, you really can't make this schit up) de facto house organ of the CIA, since its inception, and The Rockefellers' CFR mouthpiece: Washington Post, had to reluctantly state on the record, about Rand's filibuster; even his enemies HAD to concede a win, for Rand and liberty:

Poll shows huge support for Rand Paul’s filibuster stance on drone attacks

By Aaron Blake, Published: March 25 at 9:18 amE-mail the writer

When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) filibustered for nearly 13 hours two weeks ago, he had the American people on his side.

A new Gallup poll shows a huge majority of Americans -- 79 percent -- supported Paul's position that drone strikes should not be used on American soil against Americans suspected of terrorism. Just 13 percent say it would be okay.

Americans also don't support drone strikes against any suspected terrorist on American soil (25 percent support, 66 percent oppose) or against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism abroad (41 percent support, 52 percent support).

In fact, the only circumstance under which Americans support drone strikes is when they are used on foreign soil against non-U.S. citizens. Under that scenario, there is clear support, with 65 percent in favor and 28 percent opposed.

So did Cruz change the conversation?

Did Cruz's filibuster line up even his traditional enemies to #StandWithCruz as they did with #StandWithRand?

Remember how the White House was forced to hold a press conference to specifically answer Rand's question as to whether the admin deludes it has the 'right' to drone-assassinate an American citizen on American soil? And, how the propagandist douche Holder was FORCED to write a letter of reply, regardless of how legally murky his answer was? And how, EXCEPT for the most rabid of the rabid neoCons, many well-known politicos all lined up generally behind Rand, after the filibuster?

That, was the difference.

Which, between the two, is a true uniter of disparate political factions?

Answer that, then you have your choice of who is most fit to be the POTUS, come 2016, IMO.

** Granted, it is only the morning after. But, keep an eye out for change in the tone of the headlines, and any Gallup or any other Ruling Class-pliant push-polls (ALL polls are, in actuality, "Push-polls"), starting today to next few weeks, and see if they promote whether public perception has or has not changed, since Cruz's filibuster.




Comment viewing options

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

Your headline should say "RandStand" instead of "RandSlide" btw

:)

I am Ron Paul

McCain was upset and his feelings were hurt

Because Cruz called him the Nazi that he is. "Ihre Papiere, bitte!"

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Ja

wohl!

Deutschland uber alles!!

xD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

MSM is attacking Cruz's vote after speech with lies/ignorance

I think when MSM attacks someone with lies/ignorance... I think they earn some serious credibility.

I hope big news agencies are forced to apologize for the headlines floating around.

http://www.dailypaul.com/300386/cnn-headline-re-cruz-lazy-mi...

Of course

Rand won...obomba was forced to respond...and I promise you that he did not like having to do that.

The Cruz issue is a bit different because it is probably a little more along partisan lines. But I do expect that Cruz and the few GOP Senators that stood with him will be the big winners and those that stood with McShame will be big big losers.

among the conservative grassroots?

But I do expect that Cruz and the few GOP Senators that stood with him will be the big winners and those that stood with McShame will be big big losers.

ABSO-F'ng-lutely!

Well, hopefully, this anti-establishment sentiment WITHIN the GOP would become a tidal wave: if Cruz accomplished just that, and distinguished himself/Rand/Lee vs. the rest of politically expedient, spineless, unprincipled, RINO GOP pussies? I'd say it's mission accomplished! .D

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

The two are basically allies on most issues.

So I'm not sure I accept the "winner/loser" perspective is the one useful one to take,

Obama Care carries more gravity for the immediate future for the economic survival of the people.
It is a more divisive issue, so you are not as likely to get as much of a dramatic shift.

I wish Paul had spearheaded this. I think the arguments against it in GOP are disingenuous, as a vote for closure is a vote for Obama Care. It was necessary.

"Which, between the two, is a true uniter of disparate political factions?" This is the part of your post that perplexes me. If our objective is to "unite disparate political factions", then drones are the winning issue. But, a coalition built over domestic drone strikes is not one that will lead to coalitions over the socialization and impoverishment of this economy. It is tantamount to coming out against killing puppies.

If the most important thing is to fight the most critical, immediate battle, attempting to persuade as many as is necessary to prevail, the Obama Care is the most immediately necessary fight.

From a link to an interview

From a link to an interview of Mike Lee by Glenn Beck about what's next.

"Glenn (Beck) spoke to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) this morning on radio and was troubled by Sen. Paul’s insistence that Republicans are united in the fight to stop Obamacare, despite the fact that many in the GOP have come out against Sen. Cruz and others who are leading the charge to defund the Affordable Care Act". http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/25/sen-mike-lee-sounds-off-...

Rand is supporting McConnell's re-election bid which is another reason he is caught in the middle. I have been watching the sentiment on Free Republic as an indication of how part of the right is viewing both Paul and Cruz. Most support Paul with a few who distrust his libertarian streak. Cruz is more popular on that sight for his leadership on fighting amnesty and Obamacare. Paul seemed to hang back on both of those issues.

I like both candidates and want theme to stay on good terms for our own good. It was curious that during the Cruz filibuster like speech that Rand appeared very briefly and pressed Cruz for compromise. Cruz handled Paul's question very well and said the most complimentary and gracious things about Paul in return. I wish that Paul had come across as equally gracious. I will vote for either and, for now, hope they will be on the same ticket in either order.

Well just Pot, Drones and Peace don't get it for me.

We're either free or we are not. If Paul can't get his juices flowing over Obamacare, then he is the wrong dude.

Insofar as the thread is concerned,

my only point of concern, was already stated in the headline; the only metric that matters: Did it change the conversation?

Now obviously, seeing as how I'm the one stating it, it's just my opinion, however much or little I consider myself informed on geopolitical issues and human behavioral observations, or not.

What comes after the following statement by me, which you cited and emphasized as a point of departure for your question:

Which, between the two, is a true uniter of disparate political factions?

I'd submit, is the more important part of that question, which explains why I asked the above:

Answer that, then you have your choice of who is most fit to be the POTUS, come 2016, IMO.

That, makes a clear allusion to the extent ONLY to those who choose to participate in electoral politics (ie. 2016 general election where the POTUS is (s)elected), is that question even pertinent.

Which is why, your following statement wasn't the point I was making at all:

This is the part of your post that perplexes me. If our objective is to "unite disparate political factions", then drones are the winning issue. But, a coalition built over domestic drone strikes is not one that will lead to coalitions over the socialization and impoverishment of this economy. It is tantamount to coming out against killing puppies.

To clarify, I never said nor alluded (well, at least I didn't think I was) anything about "our objective." Or, what that said objective is.

To me personally, I only 'judge' general trajectory.

Suppose, IF 'we should all agree' on anything, or at least by among those who have professed respect for the freedom philosophy so espoused by Dr. Paul and others in the Liberty/Freedom/Patriot movement, R3VOLution-spheres from paleoconservatives, to O.G. militia, to Constitutional minarchist libertarians to ancaps/voluntaryists/agorists? I'd submit that 'it should be' that all should agree that anything more voluntary than coercive is better, across the board, and believes in or at least abide by as best one can by the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others...'/NAP (the Non Aggression Principle/Axiom: the non- of force).

Beyond that, I'm not sure if any other 'agreement' is really necessary or even can be achieved.

As you may have guessed from my avatar, I don't believe in the legitimacy of ANY state whatsoever.

That said, I'm not someone who does not recognize or appreciate the fact that human liberty and freedoms, is a constant, generational fight.

And, even the noble goal of individually being able to voluntarily associate with each other and to have human souls evolved to an epoch in which most if not all truly understand the fundamental concept of self-ownership, all these things take a long time to bear fruit, and in fact, may not even be feasible in my lifetime.

Thus, I've ALWAYS valued multiple paths and multi-pronged approach to get there; as NONE of us had a choice as to where we were born, or into what existent system that was present long before any of us would be born into, without our choice: by default and factually, we're already born into a system in which we all must face the paradox that even if you really wanted to leave the 'system,' you must first have to participate in it (ie. you're not gonna move into BitCoins or Gold without using Fed.Res.Notes, 1st, unless by barter, even then, you may want to consider how many State-mechanisms were involved that intervened into your life, from your home to where you traveled to meet that person TO barter), risking even if temporarily help 'upholding' and often even by 'consent,' 'legitimizing it,' however brief or prolonged.

Plus, as someone who values individual volition and initiative, people are ONLY gonna do what they like and what they love, or are driven to do, whether it's fixing their motorcycle engines, to painting canvas, or getting politically involved, or in what exact capacity they choose to get politically involved.

So, I see nothing wrong with people using current, existent mechanisms, including political ones, to change, despite the fact that I personally believe that given that paradigm, the best one can do or hope to accomplish is to slow down the PACE of tyranny, and not the tyranny itself, when the very mechanism you're fighting in, is at its core tyrannical.

The most optimum goal WITHIN the existent political paradigm and mechanism? Is at best to nudge-rudder it in a more human freedom-oriented trajectory, IMHO.

When I speak of POTUS (s)elections (hell elections in general), it's only directed at people who do believe in, or participate in electoral politics.

So assuming, COUNTER to what I personally believe, those who DO participate do so with the tacit understanding that a POTUS can change the Republic for the better; assuming the eVoting machines are fixed and working legitimately (um, right...), and assuming arguendo that Rand or Cruz maybe the GOP nominee, if not already aware, it should be obvious that republicans aren't the only ones voting in general elections for the POTUS.

Given that, for those aware of the reality of actual electoral politics, outside of the GOP, you do have to gauge how your GOP candidate will be received/perceived by NON-GOP voters, as well. No?

So, the reason why it's worth repeating that Rand has demonstrated to be a "uniter" of disparate political factions?

Well, he's done it before.

Now true: as you've also alluded to, you can only really coalesce in coalitions for things that even 'liberals' can agree with R3VOL and liberty-leaning GOP-coalitions on: Civil Liberties

But, a coalition built over domestic drone strikes is not one that will lead to coalitions over the socialization and impoverishment of this economy. It is tantamount to coming out against killing puppies.

Of course, factually speaking, yes, oBUSHmaScare does in fact violate particularly 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th Amendments, not to mention, is wholly UnConstitutional, based all its violations of the enumerated powers, PERIOD.

That said, I shouldn't have to state that politics is 100% perception; that's why MSM & the Ruling Class expend what seems to be 95% of their resources and efforts on mass brainwashing/PR-propaganda vs. the sheeple: so that they can 'police' themselves regurgitating and parroting PR-BullScheisse to each other, for socially engineered 'thought-policing' among the sheeple populace by themselves, 'for' themselves.

So simply put, yes: obviously even though oBUSHmaScare IS as UnConstitutional and Bill of Rights-violate as illegal DroneStrikes and POTUS-sanctioned assassinations vs Americans (let alone vs. foreigners), but the 'liberals' who did hop over the fence to '#StandWithRand,' unfortunately still DO NOT see oBUSHmaScare as UnConstitutional, nor from the looks of it: um, like never.

And from your following statement, I think you already know this:

But, a coalition built over domestic drone strikes is not one that will lead to coalitions over the socialization and impoverishment of this economy. It is tantamount to coming out against killing puppies.

Apropos of such political reality, perhaps the most pertinent question, coming form your stated positions, is to ask:

'Why wasn't Rand Paul the one who initiated this particular filibuster?'

If you can answer that, then you know why: prudently, Rand picks and chooses specific battles to champion. That's undeniably apparent, if you've observed him and his actions and various MSM PR-spin or honest publicity, since 2010.

Now, if you truly 'get' why Rand did not initiate this filibuster, you already know that even though in principle this is/SHOULD BE AS a big a Constitutional fight as Drone Strikes, but in practical terms it is not a pan-partisan unifying issue.

That said, if you were to ask me: 'AnCapMerc., do you 100% know for fact that, that's why Rand didn't do it?'

No.

But, as with all public figures, all one can do is to apply your own yrs of individually honed people reading skills and compare/contrast your observation of their past PUBLIC votes, speeches/statements, writings, and actions.

As such, the tenor and the relatively low vigor of Rand's characterization of his opposition to the oBUSHmaScare fight (NOT, oBUSHmaScare itself), I'd submit it's MORE plausible that he didn't initiate the filibuster, because:

1. Factually speaking, it's NOT a "filibuster," but a 'filibuster,' despite the fact that I 'get' that to casual political-observers: it'll still be perceived as a filibuster

Though, I'll admit that I actually hoped that Cruz would fall short of Rand's 13hr-ish record, as from now on you know we'll all constantly hear the neoCon fcuktards who do still view Cruz more favorably than Rand, remind us all: 'Who lasted longer? Who has 'bigger' bladder?' blah di bladi fcuk blah. Along with numerous ensuing predictable sophomoric mammalian reproduction organ inferences, etc.

2. It probably wouldn't do what it was meant to do: change the conversation, across the political spectrum

If the most important thing is to fight the most critical, immediate battle, attempting to persuade as many as is necessary to prevail, the Obama Care is the most immediately necessary fight.

I actually agree with your above statement that what IS the "important thing is to fight the most critical, immediate battle," IF it actually were, and, as per those who still believe in the political process: if it actually were politically feasible, or beneficial, as per Rand's 2016 ambitions.

And, for all those reasons cited above, while I agree with you, it SHOULD be, but it apparently isn't as PAN-PARTISAN-ly publicly pressing, as the opposition to the Syria War or Drone Strikes.

And frankly, even if you wanted to press that fight vs. oBUSHmaCare IS as important, if not more, you'd have to truly figure out a convincing case as to be able to convince the actual supporters of oBUSHmaCare, not just 'us' in the Liberty movement or the broader liberty-leaning GOP/conservative-movement and coalitions.

That, is just Political Reality 101.

You have to be able to convince your enemies, or if not, be able to OVERWHELMINGLY get your own politically-favorable faction to move in the direction you believe in wholeheartedly.

But, let's not forget, we ALL know this already: GOP and GWB-appointed John Roberts HELPED Dems get this through. Period.

So, in point of fact, all this, however noble the goal, is BS-political posturing.

But to me, you wanna know what the most "important thing" and "the most critical, immediate battle" is, or should be?

The pandemic of cop-thuggery/any and all enforcement arms of the tyranny.

There is no bigger clear and present danger than that, to the survival of Americans' freedoms and the Republic, because they are where the "rubber meets the road," and they're in the citizenry's face, EVERY SINGLE DAY, punching grandmas, murdering 107yr olds, tasering unarmed kids to death, running over someone intentionally, and punching holes in NYC bystanders, etc., etc., etc., etc.

So again, the question I posed at the on set of the thread:

Did It [Ted Cruz's 'filibuster'] Change the Conversation?

I'd submit no.

At least: not yet, even though the issue is made even more pressing as the oBUSHmaScare exchange kicks in, starting on Oct. 1st.

But, that is why I also caveat:

** Granted, it is only the morning after. But, keep an eye out for change in the tone of the headlines, and any Gallup or any other Ruling Class-pliant push-polls (ALL polls are, in actuality, "Push-polls"), starting today to next few weeks, and see if they promote whether public perception has or has not changed, since Cruz's filibuster.

So, I 'get' that the thread may have come across that way, but as you can see, the focus of my point wasn't to make it about "winner/loser" as you've cited:

So I'm not sure I accept the "winner/loser" perspective is the one useful one to take,

I really do try to cover all my bases and inquire and answer as clearly as I can, relevant to the issue at hand 'o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Then Cruz is the clear winner.

And you will see it in the polls.

Which begs the question, "Why did Rand choose to play such a tangential roll in this one?"

well, that

remains to be seen:

Then Cruz is the clear winner. And you will see it in the polls.

your above comment on the polls is a declarative statement about a plausible future, and perhaps even probable, but certainly, not a guaranteed one.

Plus, in what exact contest is he a "clear winner?" Cruz hasn't won the POTUS yet. I personally haven't seen any post-Cruz filibuster poll between 2016 GOP hopefuls, yet: unless there is one already, and I missed it.

[Edit; you are correct about one thing, though: 1 contest that Ted 100% indisputably 'beat' Rand in? Bladder storage capacity! LOL]

But if you were answering in reference to who was the "true uniter of disparate factions:"

Which, between the two, is a true uniter of disparate political factions?

Answer that, then you have your choice of who is most fit to be the POTUS, come 2016, IMO.

don't think Ted clearly won that, seeing as how you didn't see any bowel-'movement liberals' coming out suddenly against oBUSHmaScare, no?

The only certainty, even without a looking-glass, based on their predictable demonstrative past? NeoCons, whom, Rand has been playing rhetorical games with, will certainly given the option between Rand and Ted? They'll pick Ted over Rand, any day. But, that was even BEFORE his 21hr-filibusters. So none of that has changed.

Plus I thought you didn't see this as a "winner/loser"-thing? .0)

And, as I've reiterated, my core question in the thread was "did it change the conversation?" As in: was there a broad pan-political spectrum shift, to the point where Cruz nudge-shifted the views of his traditional enemies along with the zombified public, as Rand did on the drone filibuster? I'd submit: No. At least not likely, based on the 'liberals' past positions on social issues as you also articulated and joking stated touching their pet-socialist programs would be "tantamount to coming out against killing puppies"!!! lol.

That said, like I also caveat-ed, it's only the day after. So who knows, right? Only time will tell.

But, in context of your question and concern, indeed I wholeheartedly agree:

"Which begs the question, "Why did Rand choose to play such a tangential roll (sic) [role] in this one?"

Perhaps, Rand may not have thought this was the 'right' battle, in his 2016 trajectory.

Who knows?

Your question is something we'd only find out if you or anyone else or someone in the press were to ask him, and he answers, clearly, as to why or why not.

I haven't watched any news today, other than a few clips here and there: has anyone interviewed Rand about that?

Does the one posted about Rand interviewed by Blitzer contain that question?

Well, eitherway, I'll be checking on that clip and other news clips later; time will tell.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

contents

edited/minor edit.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul