Huh. A Talking filibuster. That's Nice.

Okay. Let me get this out in the open: I think having a talking filibuster was awfully neat. It showed that a concerned senator could raise substantive issues and discuss tem at length, instead of just putting on a "hold" and, you know, kind of passive-aggressively stop all conversation. Civil liberties got discussed, and after all this time, that was kind of satisfying. It is reasonable to question how this country carries out the business of counter-terrorism with respect to human rights and our own Constitution.

That being said: the 13 hour feat accomplished last night was performed by one freshman senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, and if I am at best, skeptical regarding the care and responsibility afforded to any chief executive with respects to targeting America's enemies (in fact or alleged), I am also skeptical regarding the intent of one Rand Paul, because 1) He's already got presidential designs 2) This is very showy, and 3) Isn't it special for a Republican to attack a Democratic Administration effectively from the Left?

Meh. This is Rand Paul, who can go off on a rant about how government restricts the rights of consumers regarding toilets and lightbulbs, but doesn't care what restrictions are put in the way of a female-bodied person seeking a specific form of medical care. If he's talking a good game about civil liberties today, let's not forget that he hasn't been a fan of civil rights, and that during his long peroration, he mentioned with approval a very bad court case that allowed employers to exploit their workers. His notions regarding abuse of power are definitely aligned with his sense of how that power effects his own interests. *