I've often said concerning Rand Paul that I don't mind having him in the Senate because he's a vote for smaller government and spending reductions, although I wouldn't want hiim as president because his libertarian tendencies would be too dangerous to national security. When I say that, though, I sometimes forget the power a single senators has to impose delays and "holds" on legislation. It's not necessarily true that one senator out of 100 can't do that much damage to national security. Let him get on a personal mission, and he can do a lot.
And while it may only be a matter of a few days, Paul may have given ISIS, Al Qaeda and others a short window to run wild with the U.S. has no choice but to halt the type of surveillance activity that has almost certainly prevented countless terrorist attacks after 9/11. That may be cause for celebration if you've beyond belief in limited government and gone straight to paranoia. But for those of us who remember the intelligence snags that the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act were designed to correct - so we wouldn't have another 9/11 - this is anything but good news:
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican 2016 presidential candidate adamantly opposed to reauthorising the surveillance, is threatening to use his parliamentary prerogative to delay votes on the Freedom Act or an extension of the original USA Patriot Act.
That could force the counterterrorism provisions to lapse until Wednesday, and possibly later.
Mr Brennan expressed exasperation over the politicisation of important programs which he insisted "have not been abused" by US authorities.
"Unfortunately I think there is a little too much political grandstanding and crusading for ideological causes that have really fuelled the debate on this issue," he said.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has been blasted for opposing the painstakingly crafted compromise reform legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House, without having a viable plan that would keep crucial provisions from expiring.
The terrorists' job is to kill us. The government's job is to protect us. When the latter doesn't do its job very well, we need to deal with that. But preventing them from being able to do it in the first place is just paranoid nonsense
Are there reforms needed to the surveillance activity? I'm sure there are, which is why the House worked as hard as it did on the new version. But Rand Paul won't accept any type of surveillance at all because he is ultimately his father's son, and he thinks that even the most limited activity means citizens are "sacrificing freedom for security."
For all the useful positions Rand Paul takes, I think it's this sort of thing that was really his personal mission when he ran for the Senate, and it will be every bit his mission if he ever becomes president. I realize a lot of you think he's right, especially now with Obama in the White House and the idea lingering that NSA surveillance activity is just another version of the feds' looking to harass and control your life as they do via the IRS. There's nothing I can do to persuade those folks and I'm not even going to try.
But for those of us who still think the federal government has to play an important role in preventing terrorist attacks before they happen, Rand Paul's actions here are little more than the grandstanding performance of a guy who's finally arrived at his big moment in the spotlight and is going to milk it for all he can.
Here's how it is: The terrorists' job is to kill us. The government's job is to protect us. When the latter doesn't do its job very well, we need to deal with that. But preventing them from being able to do it in the first place is just paranoid nonsense. Those of you who have graduated from wanting limited government to wanting to take your stockpile of guns and Spaghetii-Os to hide out in Montana, I hope you're having fun this week. The rest of us would like the federal government to resume some semblance of seriousness about one of its primary responsibilities.
I've often said concerning Rand Paul that I don't mind having him in the Senate because he's a vote for smaller government and spending reductions, although I wouldn't want hiim as president because his libertarian tendencies would be too dangerous to national security. When I say that, though, I sometimes forget the power a single senators has to impose delays and "holds" on legislation. It's not necessarily true that one senator out of 100 can't do that much damage to national security. Let him get on a personal mission, and he can do a lot.
