I guess it's time to throw msnbc under the bus

[ProSense]

29. Actually,

"Of course, party before country

You know, it sickens me when people do it, no matter what site. This reminds me of GOP and the bushies, never question dear leader.

This is bad for democracies, but please proceed. "

...it's common sense before kookiness.

What has changed with this publicity stunt? The administration answered a strawman question, and as Robinson put it:

<...>

Paul focused narrowly on the simple question of whether “the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

<...>

Hours after Paul finished his filibuster, Holder finally closed that door. “It has come to my attention,” he wrote Paul, “that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

So that’s settled. But the overwhelming majority of drone attacks target foreign nationals in foreign countries, and this is where the moral calculus gets harder.

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-rand-paul-makes-the-right-call-with-filibuster/2013/03/07/b66732fc-876a-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

Paul's focus was on a "bogeyman" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476964) premise by design. People got roped into this nonsense, and now "that’s settled."

Because of Paul's high-profile theatrics, that is what the majority of Americans now believe. The question of whether or not the President approves of targeting and killing Americans is now moot. Paul is "happy," which is what he said in response to the letter.

I don't have to agree with Maddow and Robinson on this bullshit filibuster. It served absolutely no purpose in terms of the actual drone policy. Republicans got what they want.

Rand Paul's PR Sham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740