I must admit, the way he was railing against the use of drones, and the non-denial denial by the Obama administration about whether they consider that they have the right to kill Americans on American soil without charge, trial or due process - well, it was something I wish I was hearing from a Democrat.

In short, I would have liked a filibuster against Brennan instigated by Democrats who care about our civil rights, civil liberties, transparency and due process.

But no.

It is a Democratic president pushing Brennan.

But I did just now turn on the TV and catch the tail end of a CNN interview with Rand Paul.

Life is very confusing when one finds oneself in (apparent) agreement with Rand Paul about anything.

The banks won't do business with them - even the ones that are established customers with other "legitimate" business.  So, no loans for start-up/expansion and no place to keep the daily receipts.  

Among other problems of a cash only business (meeting payroll, paying taxes, etc.), that makes those that are up and running attractive targets for theft/robbery.  

Here's an interesting interview of one of the major players here with the editor of the daily paper.

I seem to remember that when the republicans shut down the government during the Clinton administration, Clinton was able to get across to the American people that the republicans were at fault and the consequences of their behavior were dire.

And, soon thereafter, Gingrich was out of his speakership, and out of office entirely.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is pressing GOP centrists to accept a budget that would cut Medicare benefits for recipients who are now 56 years old.

The House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate argues the change is necessary to help him produce a budget next week that balances within 10 years.

He also says that the change must be made and that it is better to adopt it now than next year, when Republicans will face voters in the midterm elections.

The problem for Ryan is that many Republicans have said his budget would not touch Medicare benefits for anyone who is already 55 years old. Members may have trouble supporting a measure that goes back on that commitment.

people who eat oatmeal with their toes.

AND  

zombie-eyed granny-starver

Now, that shouldn't by any means confer intelligence upon Ryan by default. Rather, I take it to mean that among today's Beltway Republicans, he's the only 2-watt bulb still flickering in an otherwise failed string of Christmas lights.

Anyway, just because Politico posts something doesn't necessarily mean that it should be taken verbatim, either. And since Glenn Thrush never asked the president directly whether he does indeed regard Ryan as a "an intellectual force for the opposition," it naturally follows that Thrush has no way of knowing if in fact that's actually the case.

Rather, Pearce is merely reporting Thrush's opinion, and then offering his own comment about Obama's presumed consideration of Ryan (per Thrush) as though it were an established fact, when it is not. Time may well prove Pearce right, but really, that's the stuff of echo chambers.

Obama invited Ryan to lunch because the congressman is the chair of the House Committee on the Federal Budget, and as such, the president is obliged to converse with him directly in light of the need for at least a continuing resolution to avoid an otherwise pending government shutdown.

Neither is obviously going to convince one another of the righteousness of their own party's respective cause, but that shouldn't be the point. As senior public officials conferred by voters with the task of governance, they still have to talk to one another -- for the same reason that my boss is scheduled to have a late lunch with the governor and the Senate President tomorrow afternoon, so that they might discuss some rather significant differences of opinion regarding the proposed Hawaii state budget for FY 2014, which the State House passed late Tuesday night and sent over to the State Senate.

There will be numerous occasions this legislative session when we'd love to be able to draw a sharp line in the sand and not budge from the House's established position. But honestly, I think it's patently irresponsible to do so, if the alternative is seeing otherwise important and necessary legislation die an ugly death simply for the sake of assuaging someone's ego.

One has to govern, in any event, and whenever public officials start folding their arms publicly in front of themselves, posturing and drawing lines in the sand for the live videofeeds and the nightly news, the result is generally anything but good governance.

Americans are entitled to due process.
This is a very important constitutional issue in my opinion. It is something that I personally hold to be extremely important and extremely American. At least what I used to think of "American". Now, after 8 miserable years of Bush and 4 crappy years with Obama, I no longer know what "American" even means anymore.

We are on the cusp of a succession of governments, Bush's and Obama's, that feels that this constitutional guarantee is not absolute. In short, he can blow to smithereens whomever he and his merry band consider to be suspected of sympathies with the enemy du jour.

So, for Kevin - and you, if you need it - here's the real question: does the government have the right to kill you without due process of any kind?

If I'm an American with an explosive device strapped to my chest, standing in the town square and looking to kill, maim or otherwise injure people, I don't think anyone would argue that law enforcement confronted with that situation would be justified in the use of deadly force - if that was the only way to thwart my mission.

But if I'm an American the government only suspects has a plan to do that, I think I have a right to due process before some government star chamber decides I have to die.  Get a warrant.  Arrest me.  Read me my rights.  Let me get a lawyer to defend myself.  Let me be heard before a judge and/or a jury.  Let me be presumed to be innocent and make the government prove otherwise.

It strikes me as 10 kinds of alarming - and sad - that among the "loads of options" Drum mentions, one cannot find that increasingly antiquated process of warrants-arrests-grand juries-preliminary hearings-trials.  You know, the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing.

I mean, really...it's hard to take seriously someone - like Kevin Drum - who has allowed himself to be led around by the nose by these specious and distracting arguments to the point where he completely abandons the Constitution.

The only part of the debate that makes drones different than other means of killing the the risk of collateral damage they (sometimes) present.  The real debate is whether (and under what circumstances) the POTUS can order the killing of someone (including US citizens) because he/she suspects they are a terrorist, with no due process.