Mitch McConnell to stand with Rand Paul on NSA bill

[NACBA]

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell will stand with his home-state colleague Sen. Rand Paul and oppose the National Security Agency reform bill up for a vote on Tuesday evening.
Though McConnell and Paul will both vote against the legislation, they will do so for different reasons. Paul, a likely 2016 contender, believes the NSA legislation that ends bulk data collection does not go far enough particularly because it does not end the Patriot Act.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html#ixzz3JLhr40vV

[Grenadine]

I'm glad he was re-elected. Rand has a good ally in him.

[Valli6]

McConnell, on the other hand, “strongly opposes” the legislation because he believes it goes too far and would hinder the intelligence community.
That's not really standing with Rand.

[Grenadine]

That's not really standing with Rand.Of course it is. This bill needs to be defeated at all cost.

[twomp]

Watch in awe as Republicans and Democrats come together on this bill, extend the Patriot Act and collectively fk the American people again.

[acptulsa]

Of course it is. This bill needs to be defeated at all cost.

Even at the cost of reinstalling to a position of power for six more years someone who thinks the only thing wrong with this bill is it isn't totalitarian enough.

Great moments in short-term thinking...

[jkr]

Watch in awe as Republicans and Democrats come together on this bill, extend the Patriot Act and collectively fk the American people again.
BUT we get a choice!
azz
or
mouf
??

[Brett85]

Mike Lee speaking in favor of it now. So far Lee, Cruz, and Heller are the only Republicans to sign onto the bill.

[twomp]

Mike Lee speaking in favor of it now. So far Lee, Cruz, and Heller are the only Republicans to sign onto the bill.

I've been witnessing Mike Lee's slow descent into the dark side. Power corrupts.

[Brett85]

I've been witnessing Mike Lee's slow descent into the dark side. Power corrupts.

I don't think so. Rubio is speaking out against the bill now. There are reasons to vote for the bill when you consider that someone like Rubio is opposed to it. I'm not sure how I would vote on it.

[Brett85]

The vote was 58 in favor and 42 against. It failed to pass because 60 votes are required to begin debate and also to pass anything. I think every Democrat voted for it and every Republican voted against it except for Lee, Cruz, and Heller.

[Rudeman]

I've been witnessing Mike Lee's slow descent into the dark side. Power corrupts.

Eh this is one of those bills that I really wouldn't fault someone for being on either side. On one side opposing it makes sense because it extends something very bad (Patriot Act) on the other side it does provide some improvements. I guess it comes down to whether the good outweighs the bad or if you think the bad will happen anyways so might as well get some good if you can.

[anaconda]

This is like saying that Democrats who voted against the budget because it was too small "stand with" the Republicans who voted against it because it was too big.

[economics102]

Ron Paul always speaks about good compromises versus bad compromises. If you think the current 30% tax rate is too high and the other side wants to raise it to 50%, agreeing to only raise it to 40% is not a reasonable compromise, because you already feel 30% was too much of a compromise.

Once upon a time, a decade ago, we had no PATRIOT Act and no mass surveillance apparatus. So agreeing to a slightly reigned-in mass surveillance apparatus and re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act is not a compromise, it's a capitulation.

That's why Rand is right to oppose this. We have to be willing to draw the line at some point and say "I would sooner lose the fight than concede it before it's begun."

[Vanguard101]

The bill curbs parts of the Spying State, but ti does not go far enough while also making extensions to the PA. Voting in favor of it because it curbs some power is fine. It's a stupid bill. It's not like Rand is doing much here tbh

[jmdrake]

This is like saying that Democrats who voted against the budget because it was too small "stand with" the Republicans who voted against it because it was too big.

^This


Ron Paul always speaks about good compromises versus bad compromises. If you think the current 30% tax rate is too high and the other side wants to raise it to 50%, agreeing to only raise it to 40% is not a reasonable compromise, because you already feel 30% was too much of a compromise.

Once upon a time, a decade ago, we had no PATRIOT Act and no mass surveillance apparatus. So agreeing to a slightly reigned-in mass surveillance apparatus and re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act is not a compromise, it's a capitulation.

That's why Rand is right to oppose this. We have to be willing to draw the line at some point and say "I would sooner lose the fight than concede it before it's begun."

And if/when the Patriot Act gets extended anyway next year with the GOP in charge and reigning in the NSA becomes impossible will you still feel the same way? Really I'm not sure at all about this. But I bet you that Mitch McConnell will vote for "clean" version of Patriot Act renewal.

[Brett85]

^This



And if/when the Patriot Act gets extended anyway next year with the GOP in charge and reigning in the NSA becomes impossible will you still feel the same way? Really I'm not sure at all about this. But I bet you that Mitch McConnell will vote for "clean" version of Patriot Act renewal.

I agree with you. I think the Patriot Act will just end up being extended easily anyway without any NSA reforms. The vote last night wasn't any kind of a victory for liberty, as some are claiming.

[RonPaulMall]

I don't think so. Rubio is speaking out against the bill now. There are reasons to vote for the bill when you consider that someone like Rubio is opposed to it. I'm not sure how I would vote on it.

The extension provision makes it impossible to support. So long as this bill failed, we can have a huge, high profile fight over the extension next year. We might lose that war, but at least it will happen. If this thing had passed, we wouldn't even get our shot.

[Brett85]

The extension provision makes it impossible to support. So long as this bill failed, we can have a huge, high profile fight over the extension next year. We might lose that war, but at least it will happen. If this thing had passed, we wouldn't even get our shot.

We'll have a chance to draw attention to the issue, but there's no realistic chance of actually stopping it. It will pass easily, because every Republican will vote for it except four or five, and half of the Democrats in the Senate will vote for it. It will pass easily in the house as well, especially since the Republicans have a near record number of seats in the house, and only about 30 or so Republicans are opposed to the Patriot Act. So what's going to happen is that the Patriot Act will end up being extended without any reforms at all, and if this bill had passed the Patriot Act would've been extended with reforms. So I think there's an argument for a libertarian voting for this bill. I think I would've at least voted to begin debate on the bill to have an opportunity to offer amendments to it, because that's all this vote was. It wasn't a vote on final passage or a vote to cut off debate. It was just a vote on whether or not to debate the bill and bring it up for a vote.