These GOP Senators Went to Dinner with Obama Instead of Supporting Rand Paul

Rand Paul excited conservatives, libertarians, and even some liberals with his filibuster performance on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday. It was some 13 hours of a discussion on Obama’s desire to use drones to kill Americans here at home. Unfortunately, there were seven Republicans Senators that decided it was a better idea to eat dinner with the odious Obama instead of assisting Rand Paul. Worse, two Republicans actually denounced Paul’s efforts. All these Senators need to be gotten rid of.

Rand Paul used the debate about the nomination of John Brennan as his “in” to begin his filibuster. Obama offered the nomination of Brennan as his next CIA chief and Paul used his turn to speak about Brennan as a launching pad to force Obama and the CIA to agree not to kill Americans with domestic drone strikes without trail, warrant, or arrest.

The excitement from rank and file GOPers hungry for some kind of victory was tremendous. Unfortunately, two foolish GOP Senators actually denounced Rand Paul for his successful and exciting effort.

The bobbsey twins, John McCain (Ariz) and his lapdog Lindsay Graham (So. Car.) actually attacked Paul for his filibuster. John McLame, for instance, called Paul “ridiculous.”

As Rusty Weiss notes, “What’s actually entering the ‘realm of the ridiculous’ Mr. McCain, is that you have been entrenched in the old school GOP so long that you are completely unable to identify a staunch defense of the very documents that you and the President of the United States have sworn to uphold … if it bit you in the ass.”

These two tin-earned idiots should have just kept their mouths shut instead of acting to belittle the one bright GOP effort we’ve seen in 10 years. These fools are not making any useful contribution with this pointless attack. They are, however, helping the left divide the GOP.

But, McLame and loonie Lindsey weren’t the only ones that damaged the cause that night. Seven more so-called Republicans decided that having a nice dinner with the odious Obama was a better idea than assisting Rand Paul with his effort to highlight Obama’s criminal intent.

These GOP Senators decided to give Obama succor instead of helping the American people:

  • Lindsey Graham SC
  • Bob Corker TN
  • Kelly Ayotte NH
  • John McCain AZ
  • Richard Burr NC
  • Saxby Chambliss GA
  • Dan Coates IN
  • Mike Johanns NE
  • Pat Toomey PA
  • Tom Coburn OK
  • Ron Johnson WI
  • John Hoeven ND

Now, some of the above need to be targeted for elimination not via a drone strike–thank you Mr. Obama–but through a primary defeat. The exceptions are Sen. Ron Johnson, Saxby Chambliss, and Pat Toomey, left the dinner and went back to the Senate to lend Paul moral support. They deserve partial credit for that, for sure.

Just when the GP finally had at least one issue they could all rally around, these seven apostates decide to give aid to the enemy. Nice move.

CNN's Navarrette Plays Race Card
CNN Mocks Rand Paul’s Filibuster, No Wonder CNN is Losing Credibility
  • jim_m

    McCain has a screw loose. He stands up against torture but won’t stand up for the right of Americans not to be executed without due process.

    • Thank you for your service, John, and we hope you start enjoying your long overdue retirement from public life very soon.

  • We should help them all spend more time with their families.

  • LiberalNightmare

    It might be time for some of the old dogs to sit down and shut-up.

    • We definitely need either term limits or a mandatory retirement age. Pelosi’s well over a hundred, by the looks of her, and Reid’s not much younger… they’re long past the point where their thinking has fossilized.

  • stan25

    Aren’t McLame and Grahamesty up for re-election in the next cycle? If so, it is time to turn them out to pasture, along with Carl Levin, who just announced that he is retiring (good riddance btw)

  • Vagabond661

    GOP used to be the Grand Old Party. They have become the Grand Old Pantywaists (I cleaned it up for Wizbang)

  • jim_m

    Ron Wyden stood up with Rand Paul. Do these idiots really think that the future of the GOP lies to the left of Wyden? I can understand Ayotte, Toomey and Johnson coming from blue states caving toward the left but the rest of these useful idiots should be run out of office at the earliest opportunity.

    As For McCain, he can always be counted on to side against any GOP figure that attracts notice. No one can be allowed to outshine him. McCain long ago lost interest in advancing anything but his own interests. He doesn’t care about the country other than as an accessory to his fame.

  • herddog505

    With GOP leaders like them, who needs democrats?

    F*ck ’em all.

    And what did they stand up FOR? For the President of the United States to have the power to, at will, kill American citizens.

    Is this a damned joke? It’s the greatest two-fer ever: not only do these clowns give cover to Barry, they stand up NOT for freedom and liberty, but for tinpot, jackboot thug dictator powers.

    It’s no wonder the GOP is getting creamed.

  • puhiawa

    Obama has a way of rounding up scum and traitors, doesn’t he?

  • Wild_Willie

    Totally embarrassing for McCain and Graham. They vividly demonstrated how out of touch they are with the party as a whole. Time for them to go. ww

  • ackwired

    We can’t tolerate any Republicans trying to think for themselves, can we?

    • jim_m

      That would seem to be McCain’s attitude, yes. No one is allowed to deviate from the wishy washy beltway tradition of deferring to the most senior, if likely the most incompetent, politician.

      • ackwired

        I disagree with both Sen. McCain and Mr. Huston.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. Instead of helping We, the Sovereign American People, these rotten RINOs gave Zero succor ….

    In Shakespeare’s day and at his Globe Theater, there were no female actors. Men played the men and girlyboys the female roles.

    In today’s local, state and feral gummints, there are no Republicans.

    Only male(ish) “Democrats” playing Democrats and girlyboy Dems, the RINOs.

  • Jack Zimms

    With McCain spending so much time sucking up to the media
    and Democrats, I surprise he finds time to backstab his fellow Republicans.

    Isn’t it McCain that so often gets the media megaphone? In
    his younger days, he was considered a maverick. Perhaps he the biggest wacko of them all.

  • Jack Zimms

    One more thing there is a big difference using drones to
    kill an enemy combatants who happens to be Americans that is overseas where we
    have no legal jurisdiction and killing an American on American soil where we
    have all the jurisdiction in the world. And the question was about someone who wasn’t an imminent threat. So the lamebrains excusing the Administration for not answering using that example is B.S.Of course an imminent threat would again be different but that wasn’t the question. Similar to someone who is threatening the police with a gun doesn’t require a court order for the police to shoot. However, they don’t have a right to shoot someone without imminent threat.

    • JWH

      kill an enemy combatants who happens to be Americans that is overseas where wehave no legal jurisdiction and killing an American on American soil where we have all the jurisdiction in the world

      Bullocks. There’s a little thing called “extradition” and “cooperating with local law enforcement.” I don’t care if an American is on Pennsylvania Avenue or in Holland. His own government shouldn’t assassinate him unless he’s actively participating in hostilities against the United States and either a) he’s in a war zone or b) reasonable efforts have been made to bring him in for trial.

      • Bullshit. Make war on the United States get dead.

        • JWH

          unless he’s actively participating in hostilities against the United States and either

          • Write complete sentences much?

          • JWH

            Just highlighting a phrase from my original comment, Rodney. Your criticism was addressed in that original comment.

          • Lawfare (against hostiles outside our jurisdiction) is a game by and of fools.

          • JWH

            OK, seriously, Rodney, I already made it pretty clear that I agree somebody who’s engaged in active hostilities against the US pretty much deserves a hellfire dropped on him. But since you keep vociferously arguing that you agree with me, I’ll have to deploy my ultimate counter-argument:

          • TSDW

  • Jack Zimms

    If he is an enemy combatant then he is hostile toward the U.S. You don’t wait for an enemy to actively fire at you before you kill him. If you can kill him prior all the better. The same goes if he is running away from a battle instead of surrendering. Good opportunity to kill himher. We will not get an “extradition” and “cooperation from local law enforcement” in many places. What a fantasy.Even
    some of our allies won’t extradite in certain cases unless we guarantee we won’t
    seek the death penalty and that is for crimes that were committed in the U.S. Bring him in for trial? The U.S. Courts don’t have jurisdiction over the entire world. If I kill someone in China, the China government can try me for murder but the U.S. couldn’t.

    • Brucehenry

      I’m pretty sure that the bin Laden son-in-law they arrested has never been to the US, yet here he is, in an American court.

      • jim_m

        Yes, but if he conspired to commit a crime here and the crime was actually committed here then US courts have jurisdiction over the conspiracy regardless of where he was.

        But the whole thing begs the question: If we can murder unknown people with a drone attack simply because they met with someone we think is a terrorist, then why do we bother trying anyone deemed a terrorist in a court?

        obama and Holder claim that they can render the full due process rights in their secret meetings where they determine that they can kill someone. Why then should they need a court?

        It’s just another example of arbitrary and capricious selective enforcement of the law. The law applies to who they say it does and when they say it does. If they don’t want it to apply then it doesn’t. We may vote still, but it is all but a dictatorship the way the dems are running things.

        • Brucehenry

          Well, I’m definitely troubled by many of the implications of this whole drone thing. But here’s a what-if for you:

          What if weaponized drones had existed in 1992? Think Bush the Greater would have used one on the Ruby Ridge dude? I bet he would have, what say you?

          Relevant book from a couple years back:

          • jim_m

            No. I don’t think you could have reached that point without having normalized the military use first. But I would definitely believe that Reno would have used them for both Waco and Elian Gonzalez (obviously not for killing in the latter instance but for surveillance).

            If you are willing to go the unprecedented distance of using tanks against civilian targets you would definitely have fired missiles from drones.

        • JWH

          Anwar al-Awlaki’s passing did not bother me, considering he was deeply involved in al-Qaida to the point of making propaganda videos for them. That, and (theoretically at least) he had the option to avail himself of American legal protections by negotiating a surrender.

          I tend to draw my lines that theaters of war and/or active engagement in hostilities. If you’re, say, in the middle of a country we’re invading and supporting the enemy, cutting propaganda videos and assisting in logistics is pretty much the same thing as wielding a weapon and blowing up shit. It’s an act of war.

          Where things get uncomfortable is that the further you get from a war zone, the less justifiable it is to assassinate somebody via drone. In Yemen, for example, we’re far from a “war” zone like Afganistan might be … but there’s a patina of “war” cover considering the local al-Qaida franchise involved itself in insurgency against the Yemeni government.

          Which is why I favor using things like extradition treaties and contacts with other nations’ law enforcement as a first resort for retrieving such US citizens. Due process is more likely to be observed and so forth.

          The root problem here is the 2001 AUMF. Whatever Congress intended with it, the document was so elastic that it’s more or less Gulf of Tonkin II, and it doesn’t take much more than an ambitious president to stretch it far beyond whatever Congress intended with it.

  • Speaking of Brennan:

    Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

  • Par4Course

    McCain and Graham should get out of the Senate now. They chose to ignore President Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment (in Reagan’s words from his book An American Life): “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that [primary] campaign and have ever since.”

  • Par4Course

    McCain and Graham should get out of the Senate now. They chose to ignore President Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment (in Reagan’s words from his book An American Life): “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that [primary] campaign and have ever since.”