SEARCH

Entries in Rand Paul (36)

Saturday
Aug222015

Sen. Rand Paul Clear To Run For White House and Kentucky Senate Re-Election

Tom Pennington/Getty Images(FRANKFORT, Ky.) -- At a meeting of the central committee of the Republican Party of Kentucky, a vote passed that will pave the way for Sen. Rand Paul to continue his simultaneous run for both president and re-election in the Senate.

The committee voted to change their presidential nominating process from a primary held in May of 2016 to a caucus system that will be held in March 2016. Voting by secret ballot, the measure won 111-36. The vote will only go into effect if Sen. Paul makes good on a pledge to transfer $250,000 to the Republican Party of Kentucky by Sept. 18 to help cover the cost of the caucus.

Since at least February of this year, Sen. Rand Paul has been pushing the Republican Party of Kentucky to change to a caucus system to award their presidential delegates. Kentucky is one of the few states where someone can’t be on the ballot twice. Today’s vote could also be seen as a vote of confidence in Paul who has had a rough summer on the campaign trail.

Of his presidential chances, Sen. Paul offered a bleaker picture than he’s previously stated during a conference call with Republicans on Thursday. According to the Lexington-Herald Leader, he told Kentucky Republicans he had a “one in 10” chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination. He’s previously said he had a “one in five or one in six” chance.

Copyright © 2015, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Saturday
Jul202013

Rep. Peter King: Hillary Clinton Would ‘Destroy’ Rand Paul and Ted Cruz

United States Congress(NEW YORK) -- If you’re a 2016 GOP presidential hopeful, watch out for Rep. Peter King’s right hook.

While discussing his boxing skills with ABC News’ Rick Klein, King, R-N.Y., who has been talking up his potential presidential ambitions, took jabs at other possible 2016 contenders.

“I’m going to be feeling out the opponents the first few rounds, throwing jabs and jabs and, when they’re not looking, right cross and it’s all over,” King said.

He even offered some praise for the Democrat who would be the odds-on frontrunner, provided she decided to run.

King believes the Republicans don’t stand a chance if they put up the wrong candidate against Hillary Clinton.

“I think she’s very strong on foreign policy, and I think that if we nominate someone from our isolationist wing of the party, she’ll destroy them,” King said, putting Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz squarely in the isolationist category.

King also had criticism for another potential Republican 2016 hopeful, Sen. Marco Rubio, R- Fla., who King believed failed to deliver on providing aid to the Northeast in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

“I have a lot of regard for Sen. Rubio, but I have some hard feelings after what he did, voting against aid to New York,” King told ABC News. “[It] shows some narrowness which I’m not over yet.”

That said, King’s issues with the GOP are not only limited to the domestic front. The congressman also thinks Republicans need to participate in a “coherent” foreign policy dialogue and should focus on avoiding “name calling” and “pandering to people’s fears.”

“I like Paul [Ryan],” King said. “But as far as defense, Paul hasn’t really spoken out on defense.”

“So far … no one is out there talking about national defense,” he continued. “The economy’s important, immigration’s important but the fact is if we don’t survive as a nation, none of that matters.”

Without this kind of discussion, King believes Republicans will face an uphill battle, especially if the Democrats nominate Clinton. And he is not alone in thinking that.

On Friday, White House strategist David Axelrod said Clinton would be the most likely Democratic nominee in 2016.

“I think that Hillary Clinton probably will be the candidate,” Axelrod said Friday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Friday
Jun072013

Rand Paul Bill Would Curb NSA on Phone Records

United States Senate(WASHINGTON) -- Responding to the recent disclosure that the federal government has secretly obtained the phone records of millions of Americans, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation Friday to require agencies to obtain a warrant before searching such data.

The “Fourth Amendment Restoration Act,” which can be read in full here, is designed “to stop the National Security Agency from spying on citizens of the United States and for other purposes” and would require a warrant with probable cause before government investigators could proceed with a search.

In a statement the senator said the revelation “represents an outrageous abuse of power.”

On Wednesday the Guardian newspaper reported the Verizon company had shared daily records of all its customers’ phone calls with the US government between April and July, after a secret US court approved the program. But the Washington Post reports the classified records may go back to 2006 and involve other companies.

The Post followed with a new report Friday that several leading Internet companies had contributed to a separate program that allowed intelligence agencies to tap into “audio, video, photographs, e-mails and other documents” of their users.

President Obama dismissed what he called “hype” around the reports, and insisted, “nobody is listening to your telephone calls.

“They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism,” he said.

The president repeatedly stated that members of congress on relevant national security committees had been briefed on the programs. Senator Paul is a member of his chamber’s Homeland Security Committee but as of press time his office has not made clear whether he would have been privy to the Verizon measure.

The new bill is strikingly similar to a second piece of legislation introduced by Paul recently, aimed at protecting against what he deems to be unreasonable searches and seizures. Last month the Kentucky lawmaker submitted the “Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act,” which was broader compared with the narrow focus of phone records in Friday’s legislation. The former bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Sunday
May262013

Sen. Rand Paul: Drones, Scandals Threaten Obama’s ‘Moral Authority’

ABC(WASHINGTON) -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on ABC’s This Week that the recent controversies engulfing the White House over the IRS, reporter leak investigations, and Benghazi have threatened President Obama’s “moral authority to lead the nation,” while he continued to question the administration’s use of drone strikes against terrorist targets overseas.

“I think the constellation of these three scandals ongoing, really takes away from the president’s moral authority to lead the nation,” Paul said Sunday morning on This Week. “Nobody questions his legal authority, but I think he’s really losing the moral authority to lead this nation. And he really needs to put a stop to this. I don’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, nobody likes to see the opposite party punishing you for your political beliefs, using the power of government to do so.”

While he has called for a special counsel to investigate the IRS scandal, in which the IRS gave increased scrutiny to conservative groups applying for non-profit status, Paul would not say whether he believed any crimes were committed.

“I don’t think we know so far. The main woman from the IRS that’s involved has taken the Fifth Amendment. She’s no longer cooperating,” Paul said of Lois Lerner, the IRS official who refused to testify at a House committee hearing on Wednesday, and was put on leave from her position Thursday. “I think there needs to be a speedy resolution to this… If he goes beyond 30 days and if no one is fired over this? I really think it’s going to be trouble for him trying to lead in the next four years.”

And while Paul said he was “pleased with” the words of President Obama’s major national security speech last week, he continued to question the administration’s use of drone strikes and whether proper due process is occurring before military action against terrorist targets.

“I was pleased with his words, and I was pleased with the – that he did respond to this,” Paul said in reaction to President Obama’s speech Thursday at the National Defense University. “However, there still is a question in my mind of what he thinks due process is. You know, due process to most of us is a court of law, it’s a trial by a jury. And right now their process is him looking at some flashcards and a PowerPoint presentation on ‘Terror Tuesdays’ in the White House. For a lot of us, that’s not really due process.”

When asked whether a drone strike should have been used against Al Qaeda leader and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011, Paul reiterated his belief that the U.S. should attempt to try individuals for treason, with a judge reviewing evidence before military strikes.

“If you are conspiring to attack America and you are a traitor, I would try you for treason,” Paul said. “If you don’t come home for the trial, I would try you in absentia. And then the death penalty has been used repeatedly throughout our history for treason, but a judge looks at evidence. And that’s something that separates us from the rest of the world, is that we adjudicate things by taking it to an independent body who’s not politically motivated, or elected.”

Paul, who led a 13-hour Senate filibuster on the administration’s use of drone strikes in March, also questioned whether President Obama was truly protecting civil liberties by promising not to carry out certain actions such as detaining citizens indefinitely – while still retaining the power to do so under the law.

“It’s not good enough to us that he’s not using a power,” Paul said. “We want him to assert that he won’t, that he doesn’t have the power.”

Paul said he did not back closing the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, which President Obama called for again last week, but Paul said the prison has “become a symbol of something though, and I think things should change.”

“I think the people being held there are bad people,” Paul said. “What I would do though is I would accuse them, charge them, and try them in military commissions, or trials, or tribunals. And I think that would go a long way toward showing the world that we’re not going to hold them without charge forever.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Friday
May242013

Rand Paul Impresses Iowa Voters, Still Loses to Hillary Clinton

SAUL LOEB/AFP/GettyImages(DES MOINES, Iowa) -- Hillary Clinton sits at the top of the pack in a new poll of Iowa voters, but her closest competition is firebrand Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a new poll found.

Clinton would beat rising-star Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., handily, 48 to 37 percent, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today. But Paul trails her by only 4 points.

Paul, 50, traveled to Iowa earlier this month, stoking speculation that he is courting voters for a 2016 run. Incidentally, around the same time he pointedly jabbed Clinton saying that her involvement in the aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year made her unfit for “high office.”

Iowa voters have the distinction of being the first to weigh in on the presidential election every four years at the Iowa caucuses.  And the swing state’s 6 electoral votes are often key to reaching the 270 votes needed to win the presidency.

Quinnipiac pollsters believe that Paul’s swing-state travels might be working with voters.

“In general, Senator Paul appears to be the better GOP candidate at this point in Iowa,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said. “Part of the reason may be the publicity from his recent high-profile visit to the state, but more likely is that he begins with a solid base of support, the folks who voted for his father [former Texas Rep. Ron Paul] in the 2008 and 2012 caucuses.”

In a state where President Obama’s approval rating is upside down, Iowa voters are also hesitant to back his vice president Joe Biden, who has intimated an openness to another presidential run.

If the election were held today, Biden would lose to Paul 44 to 39 percent. And he trails Rubio by a single point, within the poll’s 2.6 percent margin of error.

Obama won Iowa independents last year by 14 points, but Biden is losing at the moment to both Paul and Rubio among independent voters.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Rand Paul Impresses Iowa Voters, Still Loses to Hillary Clinton

(DES MOINES, Iowa) -- Hillary Clinton sits at the top of the pack in a new poll of Iowa voters, but her closest competition is firebrand Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a new poll found.

Clinton would beat rising-star Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., handily, 48 to 37 percent, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today. But Paul trails her by only 4 points.

Paul, 50, traveled to Iowa earlier this month, stoking speculation that he is courting voters for a 2016 run. Incidentally, around the same time he pointedly jabbed Clinton saying that her involvement in the aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year made her unfit for “high office.”

Iowa voters have the distinction of being the first to weigh in on the presidential election every four years at the Iowa caucuses.  And the swing state’s 6 electoral votes are often key to reaching the 270 votes needed to win the presidency.

Quinnipiac pollsters believe that Paul’s swing-state travels might be working with voters.

“In general, Senator Paul appears to be the better GOP candidate at this point in Iowa,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said. “Part of the reason may be the publicity from his recent high-profile visit to the state, but more likely is that he begins with a solid base of support, the folks who voted for his father [former Texas Rep. Ron Paul] in the 2008 and 2012 caucuses.”

In a state where President Obama’s approval rating is upside down, Iowa voters are also hesitant to back his vice president Joe Biden, who has intimated an openness to another presidential run.

If the election were held today, Biden would lose to Paul 44 to 39 percent. And he trails Rubio by a single point, within the poll’s 2.6 percent margin of error.

Obama won Iowa independents last year by 14 points, but Biden is losing at the moment to both Paul and Rubio among independent voters.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Monday
Mar252013

Rand Paul Sounds Like Candidate for 2016

United States Senate(WASHINGTON) -- Kentucky Senator Rand Paul went about as far saying he was interested in running for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination without actually coming around and saying it.

Interviewed on Fox News on Sunday, Paul wouldn't commit to a firm "yes" about seeking the White House in four years but he did acknowledge talking to the Republican National Committee leaders about "things I think we need to do" in order to launch a viable campaign.

Like his father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Paul's values are steeped in libertarian beliefs that he suggested might be attractive to both conservatives and those on the left.

Paul won the annual straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier in March, an unofficial gauging of interest in potential Republican candidates, although he barely edged another GOP up-and-comer, Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

One of Paul's proposals, which is getting wider acceptance, is reducing the penalty for illegal drugs such as marijuana, although he stopped short of legalizing pot.

He told Fox News, "The last two presidents could conceivable have been put in jail for their drug use and I really think look what would have happened, it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city don't get lucky, they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake."

As for the debate over unmanned drones used against U.S. citizens, Paul said that his stand on the issue, which involved a marathon 13-hour filibuster, forced President Obama "to at least narrow what his power is and that was my goal."

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Friday
Mar222013

Tom Tancredo Disavows Rand Paul, Calls Him ‘Softer’ Than Obama on Immigration

(WASHINGTON) -- Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., regrets his previous endorsement of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., disavowing the former ally because he has “flip-flopped” on immigration.

“Rand Paul began his speech in Spanish and it went downhill from there,” Tancredo wrote in an op-ed titled “Why I No Longer Stand with Rand Paul” in the Christian Post. “His speech was filled with virtually every single discredited pro-amnesty cliché you could imagine.”

On Tuesday, Paul gave a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington calling for comprehensive immigration reform, including allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, work legally, and eventually become citizens. Paul, however, never used the word “citizenship” or “pathway to citizenship” in his address.

Tancredo said he even regretted the contribution he gave to Paul’s campaign. He actually praised Mitt Romney’s “self-deport” stance, saying there are not just two options available: legalization or deporting all 12 million undocumented immigrants.

“The problem is that not one congressman or major commentator has called for deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants,” Tancredo wrote. “Rather, we argue that strict enforcement of employer sanctions and allowing local police to cooperate in immigration enforcement will encourage most illegal to, in Mitt Romney’s words, ‘self-deport.’”

Tancredo, who has spent most of his career calling for stricter immigration enforcement, goes on to write that Paul is “softer” than President Barack Obama on immigration for his proposal.

“Both Obama and the Gang of 8 say that the illegal immigrants must pay a penalty for legal status, while Rand Paul told reporters after his speech he is not ‘not as big a stickler’ on these items, because the illegals would not be able to afford the fines,” Tancredo said.

Paul’s speech this week had a welcoming tone and he peppered his address with Spanish phrases as well as calling Hispanic voters “natural” Republicans, something the RNC also said this week in their “autopsy report,” which pledged to open up the party to more Hispanic voters and use more welcoming language. Tancredo doesn’t believe it.

“Rand Paul said that the only reason why the GOP is losing the Hispanic vote is because we have turned them off with ‘harsh rhetoric over immigration,’ Tancredo writes. “Paul doesn’t give a single example of what that ‘harsh rhetoric’ was. Presumably it could have included his pre-flip flop position on immigration.”

Tancredo goes on to call Paul a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and “just another politician” saying he doubts “the grassroots conservatives who elected Rand to Senate and whose support he expects if he runs for president in 2016 feel the same.”

“When I endorsed Rand Paul, I did not expect to agree with him on every issue,” Tancredo wrote. “I respect people with strongly held beliefs regardless of what they are. Most importantly, I felt that I could trust him to maintain his campaign promises. I was wrong. Oh how I long for a Republican leader who exhibits true courage and integrity. That’s the stuff leaders are made of.”

During his time in Congress, Tancredo tried to establish English as the official national language, as well as many other legislative efforts to try and restrict immigration. He left Congress in 2009 after making a failed bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, where he also focused on immigration.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Friday
Mar082013

Rand Paul's Near 13-Hour Filibuster Receives Mixed Reviews

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call(WASHINGTON) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised Sen. Rand Paul’s stamina and conviction after his nearly 13-hour filibuster, but some of Paul’s Republican colleagues were less than impressed with the Kentucky senator’s marathon effort.

Reid said it was refreshing to see the Senate floor used as it should be -- for debate.  

The Nevada Democrat said, “Rand Paul had a right to talk.  This can be a Senate where ideas are debated in full public view and obstruction happens in full public view as well, or it can be a Senate where a couple senators, obstruction from behind closed doors without ever coming to the Senate floor.”

Reid joked, “What I've learned from my experiences with talking filibusters is this: to succeed you need strong convictions but also a strong bladder.  It's obvious Sen. Paul has both."

Paul staged the filibuster in an effort to get clarification from the Obama administration regarding its policy of the potential use of drones to fight terrorism on U.S. soil.  He expressed concern about the president having the authority to order a drone strike against an American on U.S. soil.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain called Paul’s filibuster a “political stunt.”

“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms,” McCain said, borrowing quotes from a Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday that similarly blasted the Kentucky Republican’s filibuster.

McCain acknowledged there needs to be more debate, discussion and legislation about enemy combatants and drones, but said the imagery drawn up by Paul’s filibuster was a “stretch of the imagination,” that is not helpful to the overall conversation.

McCain said he thought it was a “disservice to a lot Americans” to make them think that they are somehow in danger from their government.  “They're not,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said the question Paul was asking was so ridiculous it didn’t even deserve an answer.  

The South Carolina Republican said, “This president is not going to use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a cafe anywhere in the United States, nor will future presidents, because if they do, they will have committed an act of murder.”

Graham stood on the Senate floor Thursday and held up an oversized poster to drive his point home.  The sign read: “Number of Americans Killed in the US: By al-Qaeda: 2,958, By Drones: 0.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he thought Paul’s filibuster was “heartfelt and important.”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Thursday
Mar072013

Rand Paul Ends Nearly 13-Hour Filibuster Against John Brennan

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call(WASHINGTON) -- At 12:39 a.m. Eastern time Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul ended his filibuster blocking John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA in protest of the Obama administration’s policy that allows the potential use of drones to fight terrorism on U.S. soil.

Paul yielded the floor just shy of 13 hours.  The late Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record for a filibuster.  The South Carolina Republican filibustered the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

The most recent talking filibuster came from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who spent some eight hours filibustering a tax bill in 2010.

As he yielded the floor, Paul told his Senate colleagues, “I would go for another 12 hours and try to break Strom Thurmond's record, but I have learned there are limits and I have to go take care of one of those right now.”

The Kentucky Republican expressed hope that the administration would address the issue of drones on Thursday and clarify that it won't target American citizens in the U.S.

The Capitol Hill drama began late Wednesday morning when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to push the chamber toward a final vote on Brennan's nomination, but was blocked when Paul took the Senate floor at 11:47 a.m. in a filibuster.  Brennan had received approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday in a 12-3 vote.

It was an unusual tactic in a Senate that no longer relies on traditional filibusters, in which a single senator ties up the Senate floor by speaking for hours on end.

The Kentucky Republican declared, “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Paul continued, “That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination.  It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”

The senator summed up his reason for the filibuster by saying, “I'm not asking any questions about the president's motives.  I don't question his motives.  I, frankly, don't think he will be killing people in restaurants tonight or in their house tonight.”

He continued, “But this is about the rule of law.  It isn't so much about him.  It isn't so much about John Brennan.  It's about having rules so that someday if we do have the misfortune of electing someone you do not trust, electing someone who might kill innocent people or who might kill people that they disagree with politically or they might kill people who they disagree with religiously or might kill people of another ethnic group, we're protected.”

Earlier in the day, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate panel that while the president has the legal authority to order a drone strike against an American on U.S. soil, under "extraordinary circumstances,” the government “has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States.”  Holder added, “It's hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would occur.”

During his filibuster, Paul was seen munching on a candy bar, sipping water and drinking some hot tea.

As the filibuster entered its 12th hour, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on the Senate floor and congratulated his fellow Kentuckian and said he'll oppose moving toward a vote on Brennan and that there should be more debate.  

It’s not clear if there will be enough votes to block Brennan if Democrats try to end the debate on Thursday.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Wednesday
Mar062013

Brennan Confirmation Delayed by Rare Talking Filibuster

Jamie Rhodes/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- With federal offices shut down due to snow and John Brennan poised to be confirmed as CIA Director, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, considered an outspoken libertarian, did plenty of speaking as he engaged in a traditional, and increasingly rare, talking filibuster on Wednesday.

In modern Washington, the threat of a filibuster has become enough to require an issue to get 60 votes of support instead of 51.

Paul didn’t have 40 votes to block Brennan's confirmation, but he wanted to make a point about the White House adviser who is seen as architect of the administration’s policy regarding unmanned drones used to kill suspected terrorists in foreign countries. A vote to make Brennan CIA Director could come as soon as Wednesday.

To Rand Paul, the Obama administration’s targeted killing program – the use of drones to bomb suspected terrorists in foreign lands – is an issue. His concern hit a new level on Monday when his office released a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder explaining that the administration feels it has the power, in an unlikely and hypothetical situation, to kill Americans on U.S. soil to avert an imminent terror attack.

"I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA," Paul declared at about 11:47 a.m. ET Wednesday. "I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country."

Paul said he doesn’t necessarily think President Obama will abuse the power to use domestic drones. However, he says, no president should have the power to kill Americans in the U.S. without a trial by jury.

Here is an excerpt from Paul's filibuster:

"When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, 'no.' The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, I haven’t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the president the — you know, they give him consideration, they say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. What I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government."

In recent years, a filibuster has been accepted as any time the minority party blocks something that could be passed by the majority. Senators agreed earlier this year to a series of rule changes that would cut down on the time it takes to move through these procedural roadblocks while preserving the minority’s right to object.

Paul is certainly in the minority on the issue of drones and targeted killing. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in February of 2012 found that 83 percent of Americans support the program. Paul believes that the program is so shrouded in secrecy that people don’t know enough about it. Drawing attention to that issue is a stated goal of his filibuster Wednesday.

This traditional form of filibuster, however, is doomed to fail. The human body can only go on so long. Paul promised to talk until he couldn't talk any more, but admitted, "Ultimately I will not win; there are not enough votes."

After more than three hours of talking, Paul was relieved by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. Lee, along with Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, gave Paul a break during the fourth hour of the largely symbolic debate.

The most recent talking filibuster came from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT, who spent some eight hours filibustering a tax bill in 2010.

The record for longest talking filibuster goes to former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond. Thurmond, who died in 2003, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

It is not clear if Paul’s filibuster will last that long. Fox News host Lou Dobbs tweeted just before 2 p.m. ET, that Paul would be joining him on his show, which starts at 7 p.m. ET.

Considering the bipartisan support for Brennan's nomination, there is little doubt that he will ultimately be confirmed.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

 







ABC News Radio