When Rand Paul filibustered about drones two years ago, Ross Kaminsky declared, “Rand Paul created a political earthquake.”
If that’s the case then Paul’s filibuster against extending the Patriot Act registered barely a tremor by comparison. You could say his filibuster was a bust.
Now I couldn’t stand with Rand then and I won’t now. However, I did give him full marks for political theater at the time. I can’t say the same this time around.
Aside from the substance of Paul’s position, the problem with doing a second filibuster is that the novelty has worn off. Ted Cruz did his filibuster six months later.
Let me put it this way. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington didn’t have a sequel for a reason. A filibuster is a one shot, Hail Mary pass. You can’t go to it again and again.
Rand Paul is a textbook example of style over substance and sizzle but no steak. This time around there was no sizzle and when there’s no sizzle you have an empty frying pan.
If Rand Paul wants his presidential bid to be taken seriously he’s going to have to stop relying on gimmicks.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.