Who speaks now for the GOP?
On March 6, Sen. Rand Paul rose on the Senate floor to declare a filibuster and pledge he would not sit down until either he could speak no longer or got an answer to his question about Barack Obama's war powers.
Does the president, Paul demanded to know, in the absence of an imminent threat, have the right to order U.S. citizens killed by drone strike on U.S. soil?
By the time he sat down, 13 hours later, Paul had advanced to the front rank of candidates for 2016 and established himself as a foreign policy leader whose views must be consulted equally with those of John McCain.
How did he pull this off?
First, Attorney General Eric Holder arrogantly refused to rule out the possibility that President Obama could order execution by drone-strike of U.S. citizens, even here in the United States.
When Rand demanded to know what Holder was talking about, all across America people tuned in.
Here was a deadly serious issue: Had we, in our determination to prosecute the war on terror ferociously, begun to sacrifice our constitutional rights?
Whom do we have a right to kill?, Americans are asking. What are the borders of the battlefield upon which we may designate an individual an enemy and kill him without warning?
Has America become part of that battlefield?, Paul asked.
After hours of speaking, Paul had attracted a vast audience on C-SPAN and Twitter. Soon, colleagues who do not share all of his views — Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas — came down to the floor to speak for Rand and give him time to rest.
To see these new Republicans standing by Rand Paul presented the image of a band of brothers standing up for principle. Rarely has this Republican Party looked better.
What made Rand's presentation so appealing was that he began it alone, inviting the mockery of the media. It was done with simplicity and dignity, without histrionics or demagoguery. It was evident that a genuine principle of Rand's philosophy was at stake. And Rand has a bumpkin quality that fairly drips honesty and sincerity.
Agree or disagree, it is hard not to like the guy.
But the play would have been incomplete without the foils.
The next morning, John McCain declared himself disgusted with Sen. Paul and pronounced his filibuster “ridiculous.” Sen. Lindsey Graham lectured the senators who stood by Paul that he did not recall them being exercised about drone strikes when George W. Bush was president.
Paul's victory was conceded when a letter arrived from Holder conceding that he and the president now agreed with Sen. Paul.
What Paul achieved in a half day of speaking from the Senate floor is astonishing. There is a new tent pole in the GOP that stands as tall as any of the rest.
McCain and Graham are routinely trotted out by Big Media to speak for the party, but can they any longer claim to do so?
Henceforth, be the issue sending weapons to Syrian insurgents or launching a war on Iran, the media will have to consult Paul, who can credibly claim to speak for a large segment of the GOP.
The hegemony of the neocons and the lockstep conformity of a vast slice of the GOP that cost Reagan's party its primacy during the Bush wars seem to be coming to an end.
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Time capsule salutes 250 years for Fort Pitt Block House
- Staten scores 21 to lead West Virginia to upset of No. 17 Connecticut
- Builder finds calling as chaplain at Westmoreland jail
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- Henry: Day of shopping planned at Connellsville library
- Alle-Kiski Valley high school notebook: Track and field club coming to Leechburg
- Islamic State recruits, exploits children for many roles in Iraq, Syria
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- Horse racing industry banks on Wolf
- Pitt notebook: Chryst keeps Panthers motivated amid adversity