Archived Story

Is Rand Paul the GOP’s salvation or its doom?

Published 9:49am Friday, March 15, 2013

A national political star is born. Kentucky’s’ Republican Sen. Rand Paul became the political Justin Bieber of libertarians everywhere and a role model for GOPers who want to grab media attention by staging a dramatic “talking filibuster.”

And, suddenly, Republicans who had steadfastly resisted the idea of bringing back talking filibusters were falling all over themselves to get involved and praise it.

Paul’s 12 hours and 52 minute televised Senate talk-fest designed to extract promises from the Obama administration on the use of drones in the U.S. ended only when his bladder demanded it.

By the time it ended, Paul had successfully seized the torch from his libertarian favorite dad, Ron Paul — and led some to declare him a front-runner for 2016 and the GOP’s new face. His rock star status also sparked a strong warning by a top Republican establishment pundit.

Paul’s filibuster resonated and attracted attention and praise on Twitter and Facebook and appealed to younger Americans. The filibuster in recent years has become the political coward’s way out, where politicians simply vote to stop a bill.

Just as lobbyists hide behind politicians, Republicans hid behind the voting filibuster while breaking historical filibustering records. It led, centrist blogger Robert Levine notes, to a “tyranny of the conservative minority” controlling the legislative process.

Paul had the guts to stand up and do it the old-fashioned “Mr. Smith Comes to Washington” way. And when Republicans saw it captured the public’s imagination suddenly some of them wanted to stand up (for now), too.

Arizona Sen. John McCain blasted Paul’s insinuations about how the American government might use drones (he called Paul and a few others far-righters “wacko birds”) and insisted he, not Paul, represented Reaganism.

Yet, Paul seemed to be speaking passionately about true beliefs. He wasn’t talking like a Fox & Friends host, or a tiresome Donald Trump, or vomiting up some conservative blogger’s demonizing blog post.

Paul seemed like Ron Paul. 2.0 — a younger version of the libertarian hero who could lift Paulism out of niche politics and take it to a higher level. In fact, his arguments warning about the need for clearly stated limits on drone assassinations could be similar to arguments Democrats would make…. if George W. Bush and not Barack Obama had been President.

Democrats later scrambled to explain why they had not joined Paul in expressing reservations about drone use in the United States. Yahoo’s Columnist Walter Shapiro wrote: “With Obama in the White House, it is now the Republicans who are the unexpected guardians of civil liberties and the Democrats who play the 9/11 card.”

And so you had Paul seizing the news cycle, Paul roping in new and old media, and Paul getting the ultimate Republican blessing: Rush Limbaugh, calling him a hero. A Contract From America poll found Paul the conservative GOP Presidential pick for 2016. Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard’s influential Bill Kristol wrote a column warning his party about Paul:

“Paul’s political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican Party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés?”

In 2016, Kristol warned, “you can’t beat something with nothing.”

Kristol has it right: Paul appeals to the conservative choir and some younger voters, but reporters would have a field day digging up his past statements on other issues, airing his appearances on far right-talk shows — and Paul would do nothing to help the Republican Party win the powerful emerging demographic groups it lost in 2012. But, hey, who cares? Everyone loves a good, emotional show.


Joe Gandelman is a veteran journalist and is Editor-in-Chief of The Moderate Voice, an Internet hub for independents, centrists and moderates. He can be reached at

The Tribune believes it is possible for people with a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner and will remove comments that, in our opinion, foster incivility. We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this website, you agree not to post any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of others to enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Any user who feels that a contribution to this website is a violation of these terms of use is encouraged to email, or click the "report comment" link that is on all comments. We reserve the right to remove messages that violate these terms of use and we will make every effort to do so — within a reasonable time frame — if we determine that removal is necessary.

  • deist

    I do compliment Sen. Paul on his , old fashioned, use of the filibuster. However the filibuster is missused so much today. One Senator can hold up any legislation by simply stating they want to filibuster, but without actually speaking. This needs to be changed. However, Mr Paul is a dangerous man. He advocates getting rid of the 14th amendment, bringing this country to a time of no civil rights. As a Democrat , I hope the GOP picks Mr. Paul, as it will be another massive win for the next Dem. candidate for President.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    I have the utmost respect for the Republican Senator, Rand Paul. The filibuster is an ancient political tactic dating back to Roman times. My compliments to the gentleman from Kentucky, Senator Rand Paul for resurrecting it. Shades of the great Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. As to be expected, the Republican Party comes in a close second. Senator Byrd filibustered for 14 hours and 13 minutes in 1964. Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster was for 12 hours and 52 minutes. As strange as it may seem, I place Rand Paul on the same pedestal as Bob Byrd. Two distinguished senator’s, one from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the other from the State of West Virginia.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    Rand Paul an honest politician? NO, just honest. We need more like him.

    (Report comment)

Editor's Picks