There is plenty to disagree with Rand Paul about. But this filibuster is not. Thank you, sir. http://twitter.com/lessig/status/309415470879100928
I feel the same way about his efforts on Internet rights.
However when Rand Paul talks I listen and consider carefully what he has to say. I don't always, or even usually, agree with him - but I respect him and his principles. I can't say the same for many other current Republican leaders.
it's refreshing seeing someone defend a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it
He knows how critical the "internet generation" was to his father's success. You only had to look at how Ron Paul's supporters cleverly involved themselves in the mechanics of the primary process to know that this was a group that punched above its weight. Given that Rand is clearly positioning himself for 2016 every decision he makes is not necessarily altruistic.
I don't care what his motivations are he's still got my vote by a long shot. And that sentiment gets stronger with every mention Rand gets in the media.
See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204296/-Rand-Paul-...
(article is biased liberally; I'm more of a moderate but it's where I saw the information.)
I'm happy that he actually used the spoken filibuster instead of hiding behind rules-based filibusters (which have been the cause of some of the worst obstruction in our country's history), but I no longer hold the belief (as I did right after his filibuster) that it was some sort of principled stand.