I said in the last post that Rand Paul's filibuster reflected not the view of anti-drone progressives (that the drone war is bad globally), but a much narrower view limited to right-wingers' concerns (drones are bad only when they're used against American citizens on American soil). In fact, if you trust the numbers in a Fox News poll released earlier this week -- and it's been my sense over the years that Fox polls are surprisingly trustworthy -- then Paul's limited view of the problem with drones reflects what the nation as a whole thinks:
Overall, 74 percent of voters approve of using drones to kill a suspected terrorist overseas. That includes majorities of Republicans (80 percent), independents (71 percent) and Democrats (69 percent)....So Paul expressed only the views that get plurality or majority support in this poll. He aligned himself with public opinion. He did not align himself with progressives who are angry about the drone war in general.
The level of approval drops from 74 percent to 60 percent, however, if the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen.
Even when it comes to drone use on U.S. soil, a 56-percent majority of voters approves of such strikes on a suspected foreign terrorist.
Voters, however, disapprove of drone attacks when they are aimed at a U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist on U.S. soil. In those circumstances, by a 50-45 percent margin, voters say no.
In each follow-up scenario, Republicans and men are slightly more approving than Democrats and women....
The poll finds that 32 percent of voters think that yes, the president should be able to authorize the use of deadly force domestically against an American terrorist. Still, about twice that many -- 63 percent -- disagree and want checks on the president.
(And yes, I realize that Democrats never bestir themselves to do talking filibusters even on issues that have majority or plurality support.)
Paul and Ted Cruz have introduced anti-drone legislation. Here's the key sentence of their bill:
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States.Wake me when they introduce legislation concerning the overseas drone war. Wake me if one of them even votes to restrain it.
6 comments:
What I'm enjoying, is the latest rift in the Republican Party.
Yesterday, McCain (R - Dementia) and Graham (R - Closet), "The Booby Twins," put on quite a show blasting Rand Paul.
As for Cruz, the only thing he's liable to introduce, and support, is whatever gets him face-time on FUX Noise, and other Conservative outlets.
That boy's his parties new "Show Pony." (And he and Rand, grandstanding, and taking their share of the limelight, are what's really pissing off "The Booby Twins").
I suggest calling Cruz, 'Senator Refalca,' for the way he dances and prances about, calling attention to himself.
And the plus side of him is, sure, he's full of bullsh*t, but at least you don't have to clean up his horsesh*t!
And we can call Rand Paul, 'Horse Feathers,' since he has good ideas the way a horse has feathers.
On the other hand, Republicans now have two ways of attacking Obama on use of force, both of which rally the base. Paul and Cruz see drones and demand we stop Obama before he kills Real Amurrican Patriots for their guns. Then Obama allows bin Laden's son-in-law to be tried in America and Mike Rogers attacks him for nor being bellicose enough. Obama can't win.
Steve,
We know he can't win.
They attack him and say he's a rust-remover!
And then, a few minutes later, they attack him for being a dessert topping.
Remember, he's the worst, most brutal Dictator in the history of the world, AND a gutless pussy; an elite law professor, AND so stupid that he doesn't know what to say without a teleprompter.
At least when we attacked W, it was for REAL stuff he and his mis-administration did.
And we were logically consistant about it. 'Stupid AND evil,' is easy to pull off. A 'Brutal Dictator and a gutless pussy,' isn't possible.
If Conservatives ever had logical consistency, they no longer have it.
Logical consistency for Conservatives is about as useful as an appendix is for the rest of us.
And I mean the one inside the body, not the one at the end of a book - THAT's quite useful. For those of us who can read, anyway.
"The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States."
Can they use a flame thrower? How about a crossbow?
This is so pathetically stupid.
I do not understand the concern over Drones when local police SWAT teams make Seal Team 6 look like the Boy Scouts. Local PD SWAT teams kill Americans who are not convicted of any crime but are suspected of, usually, a heinous crime. No trial. No conviction. Just "good police work". Why doesn't Rand Paul suck on that for a while?
Guys
You are simply asking the wrong questions their objective isn't to be objective it's to be emotional.... standard 101 marketing and advertising i.e. Cleans whiter than white! WTF
Fun goes better with Coke Cola! really?
It all about association not reality.
that's Republican 101
They are polarised behind an emotive absolute
Liberals want to CHANGE THINGS
they can't even organize them selves .... How can you organize the unknown i.e. what applied 40 years back is irrelevant today.
Post a Comment