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:
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?'
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...
"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
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: