The truth about Senator Paul and Senate Resolution 85. Lawrence O'Donnell owes retraction.

[BamaFanNKy]

The truth about Senator Paul and Senate Resoultion 85. Lawrence O'Donnell owes a retraction to Senator Paul. http://t.co/Yp3YAvF

[jct74]

Awesome. Great job FreeMan. I am going to send your blog post to NewsBusters and BigJournalism.com, I am sure they will run this.

You might want to include a link to the video in your blog post. Here is the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42330991

(and maybe fix the spelling of "resolution" in the title too).

[BamaFanNKy]

Awesome. Great job FreeMan. I am going to send your blog post to NewsBusters and BigJournalism.com, I am sure they will run this.

You might want to include a link to the video in your blog post. Here is the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42330991

(and maybe fix the spelling of "resolution" in the title too).
Thanks for the proof read.

[sailingaway]

Yeah. Check your spelling. This is going to be spread around A LOT.

[Cleaner44]

Lawrence O'Donnell - "You have the right to your own opinions but you don't have the right to your own facts"

[Brett85]

This should also shut up all the people here who were bashing Rand over this resolution without even knowing the details.

[sailingaway]

This should also shut up all the people here who were bashing Rand over this resolution without even knowing the details.

I was concerned about it. Not that he would have let it go through on purpose, but that his people may have told him he didn't have to worry about a nonbinding resolution, and that he bought it. I'm glad to know it was as shady a process as it seemed to be when I looked at the Congressional Record.

[jct74]

Sent to NewsBusters:


Dear NewsBusters staff:

On yesterday's edition of The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Mr. O'Donnell attacked Senator Rand Paul for hypocrisy on the issue of Libya, claiming that Senator Paul had previously voted FOR a resolution expressing support for the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42330991

Mr. O'Donnell is wrong though, Senator Paul did NOT vote for Senate Resolution 85. A blogger in Kentucky has provided the following account from a Paul staffer:

"There wasn't a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution--which is non-binding-- was in and out before he made it back to the floor."

http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/03/truth-about-senator-paul-and-senate.html

Please expose Mr. O'Donnell for his false statements about Senator Paul. Thank you.

Will send to BigJournalism next. EDIT: Done.

[sailingaway]

Sent to NewsBusters:



Will send to BigJournalism next.

I'll see if there is something relevant I can post it on at TPM and the Atlantic.

[sailingaway]

Posted this at TPM (every so often they work my comments into a story, so I figured it was worth a try. Greenwald might also be interested.)


Part of the opposition (though not all) is about procedure. There was no Congressional authority, not even the Senate and House 'authority for military action' Bush got for Iraq.

ODonnell said the non binding resolution the Senate alone passed meant the Senate had 'voted' for military action. However, only the title of the nonbinding resolution was read on the floor, it was not voted on by the Senators but passed, unread, 'without objection' by unanimous consent, and by the time Rand Paul, in particular even got back to the floor so he could have objected, it was admitted into the record already.

That doesn't give any sort of 'legitimacy', in fact it makes the whole thing seem that much more INTENTIONALLY crammed through. http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/03/truth-about-senator-paul-and-senate.html

[sailingaway]

OK, I posted it at the Atlantic as well.

[Brett85]

I was concerned about it. Not that he would have let it go through on purpose, but that his people may have told him he didn't have to worry about a nonbinding resolution, and that he bought it. I'm glad to know it was as shady a process as it seemed to be when I looked at the Congressional Record.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about you. There were people here who were claiming that Rand actually voted for a no fly zone over Libya, which was absolutely false from the beginning.

[tsai3904]

The non binding resolution S. Res. 85 was passed without any debate and all it took was a FULL 40 seconds:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSessionPart243/start/15224/stop/15261

[Cleaner44]

unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

[BamaFanNKy]

I got a supporter of Rand Paul's saying 'Silence is consent.' Mentioning he didn't say anything that day about it. I don't agree but, it's a point that can be made.

[BamaFanNKy]

Also, I can't access twitter. It's good to tweet stories and get them retweeted.

[jct74]

uninformed MSNBC-watching liberals are commenting on Rand's Libya video that he is a hypocrite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q

[BamaFanNKy]

uninformed MSNBC-watching liberals are commenting on Rand's Libya video that he is a hypocrite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q

Yeah. they are making this a talking point.

[sailingaway]

Yeah. they are making this a talking point.

I don't watch Maddow but I understand she made the same illegitimate point about the resolution on her show. It seems to be the MSDNC 'meme'.

[Icymudpuppy]

What'd they do, wait for him to take a potty break?

[JoshLowry]

Making a front page post. Thanks Matt.

[ababba]

The most interesting thing about these attacks is that even if they were true, they would prove Rand was a hypocrite. But Rand already proved Obama was a hypocrite on this issue. So best case scenario for O'Donnell is that Rand is as bad as Obama. But then why would you attack Rand and not Obama?

[BamaFanNKy]

Liberal friend of mine who reads my blog, "What the hell do you care about some douchebag who is on 'Big Love.'" Even liberals are telling me they like Rand's stand.

[jct74]

I sent this to NewsBusters throught the contact form on their website and about 2 hours ago I got a message in my inbox saying the message could not be delivered. I'll try again by contacting the editors through their individual email addresses.

I also sent it to BigJournalism.com and they assigned me a case number, but the case number got closed a few hours ago and I see no story. Maybe if a few other people contact them they will do a story on it. You can send them a story tip here:
http://www.breitbart.com/contact.php

[sailingaway]

I wonder if drudge would like it?

In any event, I just sent him sort of a blend of our two versions, w/ the Freeman link

[jct74]

I don't watch Maddow but I understand she made the same illegitimate point about the resolution on her show. It seems to be the MSDNC 'meme'.

she mentioned Rand? I watched a few clips from last nights show and I didn't hear anything.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

[sailingaway]

she mentioned Rand? I watched a few clips from last nights show and I didn't hear anything.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

I didn't watch it, but from what I read she just made a big deal about the senate 'unanimous vote' and said that was why most Senators were being pretty quiet and the main fuss was coming from the House. But people were mentioning what she said in comments about Rand.

I think it was earlier this week.

[Johnnymac]

Hear hear!

[Inkblots]

Rushing resolutions to support an illegal war through in under a minute, waiting until none of the people who might object are on the floor? There's so much evil in the world... :(

[madfoot]

I saw that, and it seemed pretty damning. He really got into it. Then I saw the rebuttal and, well, SMFH. MSNBC: literally the liberal Fox.

[Reason]

mediainquiries@msnbc.com

[sailingaway]

BamaFan, don't know if you've noticed, but you've gone way up in google search.

[georgiaboy]

Great job of netroots journalism, BamaFan!

[georgiaboy]

BTW, BamaFan, a blog post with "March Madness" in the title, re-cast to reflect recent political craziness, might be especially attention-grabbing for your readers. :)

[sailingaway]

This is still coming up as a common attack against Rand. Mostly I've seen it as an accusation of hypocrisy for his opposition to Obama's bombing Libya without Congressional action, however, it is now being used as a generic insult. We won't be able to stop that, but if we get the truth out enough, people will know how to respond.

h xxp://onevoiceamongmany.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/31/6382682-rand-paul-mocks-newt-gingrich-he-has-more-war-positions-than-he-has-wives-?threadId=3092767&commentId=52930696

see the comments for an example of what I mean by this being used as a generic slur on Rand.

[BamaFanNKy]

BTW, BamaFan, a blog post with "March Madness" in the title, re-cast to reflect recent political craziness, might be especially attention-grabbing for your readers. :)

Actually, most my readers are Paul people or Kentucky political junkies. Also, mainly male. Thus I put one decent looking chick in each rundown. I know my peeps. Also, throw a ton of music on there.

[georgiaboy]

Actually, most my readers are Paul people or Kentucky political junkies. Also, mainly male. Thus I put one decent looking chick in each rundown. I know my peeps. Also, throw a ton of music on there.

I'm sure you've got'em figgured out - just guessing there's a Big Blue fan or two in there as well, and they've gotta big weekend coming up.

[BamaFanNKy]

I'm sure you've got'em figgured out - just guessing there's a Big Blue fan or two in there as well, and they've gotta big weekend coming up.

The way I actually go up in readers is when people link the articles to stuff like Daily Paul, Tweeting and other message boards.

[sailingaway]

The way I actually go up in readers is when people link the articles to stuff like Daily Paul, Tweeting and other message boards.

I think Georgiaboy is suggesting that if 'march madness' is the title, the people who are googling march madness might see your site.

[BamaFanNKy]

I think Georgiaboy is suggesting that if 'march madness' is the title, the people who are googling march madness might see your site.

I've tried stuff like that. Never works.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Well, I've been trying to point this out on Huffington Post, particularly in a post by Congressman Kucinich where some of the users attacked both Dennis and Rand. The main thing I use is the CSPAN video link.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSessionPart243/start/15224/stop/15261

[sailingaway]

Well, I've been trying to point this out on Huffington Post, particularly in a post by Congressman Kucinich where some of the users attacked both Dennis and Rand. The main thing I use is the CSPAN video link.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSessionPart243/start/15224/stop/15261

Yeah, that 's pretty telling if you watch it. Schumer even seems to be rushing. And he never mentions a no fly zone.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

We need to get a few brave DUers to post this since its popped up over there. I was surprised that a KOStard came to Rand's defense because of Schumer's antics, pointing out the video.

[jct74]

John Ensign spoke out about Senate Resolution 85 on the Senate floor a few days ago. He basically said the same thing that Rand's office has been saying about how the resolution was passed, and that the resolution does not authorize military action in any way. From 3:50 to 6:15.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ5H6U4upY0

Here is the text of his comments:


While Secretary Clinton has continued to refer to S. Res. 85 as a Senate endorsement of the President’s establishment of a no-fly zone, I’d like to point out to the American people that this talking point is very misleading.

Senate Resolution 85 received the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office; it was ‘hotlined’ and there was no debate allowed on this issue and no legislative language provided to consider. There was no vote.

S. Res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a “possible” course of action for the U.N. Security Council’s consideration. It did not instruct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation.

Using the hotline process for S. Res. 85 as a congressional endorsement for the President’s policy is simply not an adequate use of Congress’ role in authorizing military action.

The Administration unilaterally developed, planned and executed its no-fly zone policy. President Obama consulted the UN, NATO and Arab League, but did not consult what is mandated under our laws and Constitution. There was no Congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force.

So what is S.Res. 85? It is a disrespectful checking of the box by this Administration for congressional approval of its unilateral military decision.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263712/more-senate-resolution-authorizing-libya-war-andrew-c-mccarthy


The "hotline" procedure Ensign refers to is when they call the senators' offices to see if anyone objects to unanimous consent. If a senator isn't in the office to object, the senator agrees to the approval by default. If none of the senators object, the measure is adopted. More information here:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/tina-korbe-senate-rules-reform-should-stop-chambers-secret-spending

[jct74]

There is more information on the unanimous consent procedure here:
http://www.conservative.org/secret-spending/3357/

Also, here is a speech Jim DeMint gave in May 2010 about the unanimous consent procedure and all the kinds of tricks that are played with it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B751mhY-QE


and here is more of DeMint talking about it on CNN:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KNp4F9ttvY


Just some background information to consider. Looks like they do a lot of sneaky stuff with the unanimous consent procedure.

[BamaFanNKy]

Nice find.

It is funny how Big Love Larry is giving the White House talking point on this issue.

[sailingaway]

John Ensign spoke out about Senate Resolution 85 on the Senate floor a few days ago. He basically said the same thing that Rand's office has been saying about how the resolution was passed, and that the resolution does not authorize military action in any way. From 3:50 to 6:15.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ5H6U4upY0

Here is the text of his comments:



http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263712/more-senate-resolution-authorizing-libya-war-andrew-c-mccarthy


The "hotline" procedure Ensign refers to is when they call the senators' offices to see if anyone objects to unanimous consent. If a senator isn't in the office to object, the senator agrees to the approval by default. If none of the senators object, the measure is adopted. More information here:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/tina-korbe-senate-rules-reform-should-stop-chambers-secret-spending

Yeah, but that's bureaucrat speak for 'I don't want to risk looking like an idiot for not knowing what was in it, so I won't raise what a blatant cram through and abuse of process it was.' This needs to be taken head on. "Can you believe Shumer DID this? Do you know what unanimous consent is SUPPOSED to be for? Did you know they tried to extend the Patriot Act for 3 years the same way and it is only lucky for us Rand Paul figured it out and blocked it so it will finally go through a full debate for the first time since 2001? They calll this representative government and proper procedure for WAR? And the President's administration actually condones this?

[speciallyblend]

not anymore ,according to odonnel now rand paul and his staff lies and owes him an apology for march 1st!!

[sailingaway]

not anymore ,according to odonnel now rand paul and his staff lies and owes him an apology for march 1st!!

ODonnell picked the wrong lie to stick with.

[ronaldo23]

Have Maddow and Schultz been calling a Rand a liar about his objection as well? Or is this solely an O'Donnell memo?