Rand Paul Filibuster Seems to Have Killed 24% of Support for Drone Attacks on Americans

[Lucille]

So much for the filibuster accomplishing nothing.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/25/rand-paul-filibuster-seemed-to-have-kill


Slate's Dave Weigel notices an interesting shift in public opinion on drone attacks--one that it's hard to think of any explanation for other than Rand Paul's drone-filibuster and its resultant publicity:


A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.

Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asksbasically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.


The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.

[sailingaway]

I'm not sure that is what did it, I think people were plenty bothered and that is why Rand's filibuster got support.

However, the 'me too' folks who do team sports identified it as an acceptably conservative position, potentially, from that and from the follow up conservative media coverage. I definitely think he did a good thing in focusing attention on it and creating a spearpoint of opposition.

[MRK]

Drudgebomb!

"http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_o f_u_s_citizens.html

RANDSLIDE: 50-Point Swing Against Drone Killings After Filibuster"

Update: Great work everyone! It's up on drudge :)

http://www.use.com/images/s_3/926fd30a96a5a7590fa3.jpg

[Lucille]

Drudgebomb!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_o f_u_s_citizens.html

RANDSLIDE: 50-Point Swing in Drone Approval After Filibuster"

Done, thanks! That one's a much better headline to send too.

[Galileo Galilei]

Poll shows huge support for Rand Paul’s filibuster stance on drone attacks

A new Gallup poll shows a huge majority of Americans — 79 percent — supported Paul’s position that drone strikes should not be used on American soil against Americans suspected of terrorism. Just 13 percent say it would be okay.

Americans also don’t support drone strikes against any suspected terrorist on American soil (25 percent support, 66 percent oppose) or against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism abroad (41 percent support, 52 percent support).

MORE:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/25/poll-shows-huge-support-for-rand-pauls-filibuster-stance-on-drone-attacks/

[itshappening]

IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME

[MRK]

Drudgebomb!

RANDSLIDE: 50-Point Swing Against Drone Killings of Americans After Filibuster

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_o f_u_s_citizens.html

[talkingpointes]

Since when does public opinion matter 78% are against the wars .................................................. .................................

[talkingpointes]

I can't get over this. Do people control this country on the top, or can we change things politically without them cheating. No one ever answers this.

[MRK]

I can't get over this. Do people control this country on the top, or can we change things politically without them cheating. No one ever answers this.

They don't always necessarily cheat, they're just vastly better at influencing the electorate through media, education and other institutions. And sometimes, they do just cheat by manipulating numbers of votes when they can get away with it and sometimes even when they can't.

[FSP-Rebel]

Drudged. This will be a great issue to campaign on while running for prez. He'll actually be able to say he's the only one running that offered to limit the scope of power or the office he's seeking and clearly it's looking hot.

[Libertea Party]

There is a very powerful and important lesson here for those of us who snipe about Rand Paul not "going far enough". He didn't talk about drones abroad at all and it still had a huge impact on that question. He didn't need to and the polls prove it.

Incrementalism works and maybe some of us can "help and get behind the cart and push" instead of standing there and just complaining about how it's moving.

Wow!

[sailingaway]

I can't get over this. Do people control this country on the top, or can we change things politically without them cheating. No one ever answers this.

The thing is, that is what Rand really did. The people hated drones and NDAA but with Ron not there speaking about it, no one did, and Congressmen can't filibuster. Rand's filibuster made media have to pay attention to it as an issue, because they couldn't pretend any more that no one cared with the twitter storm etc. Now they are saying people 'suddenly care' but they need an excuse for not covering it, and the Dems need a better excuse for not joining Rand in it.

There is a huge divide between what the political class cares about -- or pretends people care about -- and what the people care about. In the campaign, Perry and Gingrich and Romney were forever stealing Ron's lines and saying them -- afterwards -- in their own speeches (but usually with teeth omitted). It is like Ron was a one person focus group for their positions.

Rand's drone filibuster served that purpose as well.

[Christian Liberty]

Since when does public opinion matter 78% are against the wars .................................................. .................................

Doesn't that depend on which war? While I'm opposed to both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've seen people who opposed the war in Iraq but supporrted the one in Afghanistan. There also could theoretically be somebody who thinks Iraq was a good idea but Afghanistan wasn't, although probably not many. And then there's potential new wars, like Iran and Syria... And then there are old wars, such as WWII, who almost everyone thinks is a good ide (I sort of don't, I've stated my position before, but the vast majority do.)

"War" is a somewhat generic term.


The thing is, that is what Rand really did. The people hated drones and NDAA but with Ron not there speaking about it, no one did, and Congressmen can't filibuster. Rand's filibuster made media have to pay attention to it as an issue, because they couldn't pretend any more that no one cared with the twitter storm etc. Now they are saying people 'suddenly care' but they need an excuse for not covering it, and the Dems need a better excuse for not joining Rand in it.

There is a huge divide between what the political class cares about -- or pretends people care about -- and what the people care about. In the campaign, Perry and Gingrich and Romney were forever stealing Ron's lines and saying them -- afterwards -- in their own speeches (but usually with teeth omitted). It is like Ron was a one person focus group for their positions.

Rand's drone filibuster served that purpose as well.

Rand certainly has a role to play, and he's doing a great job right now. He may not be perfect but I am absolutely glad that he's fighting for us while few others will. Rand Paul is truly "Fighting for our freedoms", our army is not.

[sailingaway]

Doesn't that depend on which war? While I'm opposed to both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've seen people who opposed the war in Iraq but supporrted the one in Afghanistan. There also could theoretically be somebody who thinks Iraq was a good idea but Afghanistan wasn't, although probably not many. And then there's potential new wars, like Iran and Syria... And then there are old wars, such as WWII, who almost everyone thinks is a good ide (I sort of don't, I've stated my position before, but the vast majority do.)

"War" is a somewhat generic term.



Rand certainly has a role to play, and he's doing a great job right now. He may not be perfect but I am absolutely glad that he's fighting for us while few others will. Rand Paul is truly "Fighting for our freedoms", our army is not.

I wasn't speaking to perfection, but I agree with the OP that those who can't even give him credit for this being truly significant aren't very credible.

[Christian Liberty]

Look, I'll even give Dennis Kucinich credit when he earns it, like when he talks about Iraq. And Rand is miles, MILES ahead of Kucinich. (Who in turn is miles ahead of Obama/Romney.)

I'm still willing to hold Rand's feet to the fire when he deserves it, but in this particular case, he deserves praise.

[itshappening]

Drudge posted it with the exact wording for the bomb. Nice.

[Christian Liberty]

Wouldn't a possible terrorist be more dangerous on US soil than off of it? Supporting it only against terrorists out of the country makes little to no sense. I, of course, oppose the "War on Terror" entirely..

[anaconda]

The 65% number Doherty refers to with this link is question # 14:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_020412.html

[anaconda]

So much for the filibuster accomplishing nothing.



And it is so encouraging that one person can make a difference.

[SilentBull]

And it is so encouraging that one person can make a difference.

Yup. The world is full of followers. One person can change a lot by being a leader.

[MRK]

Its up on drudge now! Great work everyone. He even used the Randslide moniker :)

[itshappening]

Drudgebomb!

"http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_o f_u_s_citizens.html

RANDSLIDE: 50-Point Swing Against Drone Killings After Filibuster"

He posted your exact headline. Congrats. You should win something.

[Lucille]

And it is so encouraging that one person can make a difference.

It really is!


Its up on drudge now! Great work everyone. He even used the Randslide moniker :)

Thanks to you! Top story of the middle column on Drudge! Your RANDSLIDE headline's great.


He posted your exact headline. Congrats. You should win something.

Everyone, rep that man!

[jtstellar]

what about people here that said it wouldn't have accomplished much or agreed with authors that expressed this sentiment? gonna man up and hold yourself accountable? that's why you guys aren't taken seriously. on one of 100 issues you naysayers happen to be right, or far more likely--just haven't been proven wrong yet, you always yell the loudest, and you'll be missing from 99 other occasions where you look like an effing idiot

[enhanced_deficit]

Rand Paul brought the issue to forefront of many people's conscious (or is it conscience) as a leader should, people tend to gravitate towards the right opinion in the end once they are sufficiently informed. Perhaps our media is failing to keep people fully dormant/ignorant no matter what the goverment does.
At time of Iraq invasion, 70% people thought it was a good decision and today about same percentage sees that as a very costly blunder in our history.