-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I appreciate Aaron Goldstein’s unwillingness to Stand With Rand, and have a few brief responses to Aaron:
First, Aaron says “Ross Kaminsky and other conservatives.” I’m sure Aaron and most AmSpec readers know that I do know consider myself a conservative. I’m Objectivist/libertarian.
Second, regarding Sen. Paul’s quarrel being with Holder, I think the Brennan nomination was partly just a convenient vehicle for the senator, but Brennan was also a valid target of Paul after Brennan’s disingenuous and unsatisfying answers to a range of questions regarding drone use.
Third, and most importantly, too many people, including Aaron in this case, are focusing on the narrow issue of whether the president would use drones against unarmed Americans in America. I think this misses the larger point of Sen. Paul which was to get this administration to admit that there is any limit to the power of Barack Obama.
Was it not amazing how difficult that was?
Yes, this may be a prelude to a presidential bid, but that’s OK with me (not that I have any reason to believe I’d sooner support Sen. Paul than Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan.)
It woke up at least some number of Americans to what principled leadership looks like (regardless if whether you agree with the substance of the case he was making) and was in that sense a valuable contrast with our current president.
Regarding Awlaki, it’s true I was pleased to learn he was dead. However, while I didn’t write about it here, I have talked about it on my radio show a couple of times and said that I do not support the killing of Americans anywhere, other than while in active combat against the US, without some sort of legal process such as going through courts to either strip that person of citizenship or convicting him of treason.
Back to the presidential bid issue, and Rand Paul as a demagogue (as Aaron puts it), I don’t disagree with any of that. And I repeat I am not saying that I’m suddenly a backer of Sen. Paul’s for president, though I’m sure I’d rather see him than any Democrat and some Republicans.
So I understand and respect Aaron’s position. His facts are correct, but his interpretation of the facts is where we disagree. In short, between showing passion and principle, and getting the administration to admit that there is something they couldn’t do even if they felt like it, Paul’s filibuster was a valuable contribution to the political scene.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/08/almost-standing-with-aaron
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
RAM| 3.8.13 @ 10:42AM
I'm looking for a clear sign that Rand Paul is not reflexively isolationist and anti-US-involvement in all foreign policy situations.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.13 @ 12:05PM
Brennan was a scumbag. That being said, I am very wary of being to the Left side of Obama on National Security issues. If everyone wants to shout neo-con at that point, fine.
I support lower taxes, cutting NPR off completely, and the Grandma shooting rule on Federal spending. Some neo-con.
mzk| 3.10.13 @ 4:37AM
"Neo-conservative" is a straw man, like "Rand"'s specialized use of "altruism", because it means whatever you want it to. As far as I'm concerned, you can be both a tea partier and a neo-conservative. If it's good enough for Bill Whittle, it's good enough for me.
A neo-conservative is a man for whom, in Reagan's term, "the Democratic party left me".
Oldefarte| 3.8.13 @ 12:05PM
IMO Paul's activity was unimportant in that if the POTUS were to droneize a private citizen on US soil, Hopefully the political outcry would drive him from office. Nixon's just resulted in a burglary, and if Obama's resulted in murder, should his San Clementeish Marine One trip to Chicago naturally result? Possibly he'd even stan with teleprompter at the ready and declare I AM NOT A CROOK, and then Michelle and Momma robinson would take to drinking alcholic beverages and smoking cigarettes no doubt!!!!
mzk| 3.10.13 @ 4:40AM
Nixon was removed from office by the MSM after winning 49 states. Johnson was basically destroyed by the racist "anti-war" movement; a Republican like Nixon never had a chance.
None of this applies to Obama. That being said, it is still possible for as public outcry to work.
AllAmericanAmerican| 3.8.13 @ 12:23PM
What amazes me is that someone FINALLY stood up to der fuhrer and there are people on the American political Right who have issues with it.
THIS is why we lose.
Leftards NEVER have qualms with ANYTHING a fellow leftard ever does. Leftards will ALWAYS defend a fellow leftard no matter how immoral or unlawful that leftard's actions. Menendez banging underage 'hos? No problem---it's Foxnews' fault. Obama running guns to Mexican drug cartels? Uhhh, Bush did it.
Rand Paul stands up to Obama and his executive power grab and dangerous CIA nominee? He's a demogauge and a wacko.
You go, Righties!
Dumbf***s.
shawnkhall| 3.8.13 @ 7:27PM
And that's it exactly, AAA. For someone to be supported by the mainstream Right he has to be ideologically perfect in every way - or at least have no single principle to the left of center, even if it's perfectly aligned with the constitution or even the supposed GOP platform. While to be supported on the Left you simply have to be able to "blame Bush" or scream "Racism!"
William R| 3.8.13 @ 3:25PM
I doubt you even know what isolationism means.
shawnkhall| 3.8.13 @ 7:28PM
My problem with Aaron's response to Ross is that it's apparently not okay anymore to expect the President to answer questions even from Congress, much less the people. Doug Powers put's it perfectly over on MM, responding to Lindsey Graham's "This idea that we’re going to use a drone to attack an American citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous.” Doug Powers writes, "Well, in that case it should be an easy question to answer, shouldn’t it?"
Aaron fell into the same ideological hole - a flawed trust in a nation that has a history of bastardizing every native Indian tribe, slavery, locking up American citizen's because they were of certain ancestry; a nation currently run by a man who has no problem saying he DOESN'T know the facts of a situation, but is perfectly willing to inject himself into the conversation and take sides (on more than one occasion); a nation already imprisoning Americans and foreign nationals in an offshore prison while forbidding them due process and enabling torture; a nation willing to completely disregard it's own limits under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th amendments -- just in the last year -- couldn't *possibly* ever potentially exceed it's authority and kill American citizens without due process, right?
And of course, all Rand Paul was asking for was for the President to either acknowledge that he doesn't have the legal authority OR admit that he's a dictator. I would hope that ANY true representative of the people would do the same.
mzk| 3.10.13 @ 4:34AM
I guess my problem with such rules is the term "active combat". If we know someone has obtained important tactical information and is going to transmit it to the enemy, so that our troops are in immediate danger (or worse ,a WMD will be set off domestically) and we can't get to him on time, then of course the President (or anyone else) should be able to stop him By Any Means Necessary. That is active combat, not to mention treason. It doesn't require a unform or a gun.
So how can you ever say never?