PDA

View Full Version : Rand Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act




Matt Collins
11-18-2014, 07:06 PM
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/876/493/patriot%20act.jpg




Sen. Rand Paul Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act

‘One step closer to restoring liberty’

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension and offered the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said. “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”







Here are the vitals:






U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 2nd Sessionas compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 2685 )


Vote Number:
282
Vote Date:
November 18, 2014, 07:26 PM


Required For Majority:
3/5
Vote Result:
Cloture Motion Rejected


Measure Number:
S. 2685 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN2685:) (USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 )


Measure Title:
A bill to reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes.




Vote Counts:
YEAs
58



NAYs
42




Vote Summary (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#top)
By Senator Name (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#name)
By Vote Position (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#position)
By Home State (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#state)


http://www.senate.gov/resources/graphic/horiz_content_break.gifAlphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
Booker (D-NJ), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fischer (R-NE), Nay
Flake (R-AZ), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Yea

Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Yea
King (I-ME), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea

Murphy (D-CT), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Walsh (D-MT), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea





Vote Summary (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#top)
By Senator Name (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#name)
By Vote Position (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#position)
By Home State (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#state)


http://www.senate.gov/resources/graphic/horiz_content_break.gifGrouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---58


Baldwin (D-WI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)

Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Walsh (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)





NAYs ---42


Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)

Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-FL)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)





Vote Summary (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#top)
By Senator Name (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#name)
By Vote Position (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#position)
By Home State (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282#state)


http://www.senate.gov/resources/graphic/horiz_content_break.gifGrouped by Home State

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay


Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea


Arizona:
Flake (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay


Arkansas:
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea


California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea


Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea


Connecticut:
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Yea


Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea


Florida:
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Rubio (R-FL), Nay


Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay


Hawaii:
Hirono (D-HI), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea


Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay


Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Nay


Indiana:
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea


Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea


Kansas:
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay


Kentucky:
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay


Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay


Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Nay
King (I-ME), Yea


Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea


Massachusetts:
Markey (D-MA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Yea


Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea


Minnesota:
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea


Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay


Missouri:
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea


Montana:
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Walsh (D-MT), Yea


Nebraska:
Fischer (R-NE), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay


Nevada:
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea


New Hampshire:
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea


New Jersey:
Booker (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea


New Mexico:
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea


New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea


North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea


North Dakota:
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay


Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Nay


Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay


Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea


Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Nay


Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea


South Carolina:
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Nay


South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay


Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay


Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Cruz (R-TX), Yea


Utah:
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea


Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea


Virginia:
Kaine (D-VA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea


Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea


West Virginia:
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea


Wisconsin:
Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay


Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Brett85
11-18-2014, 07:09 PM
Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?

Indy Vidual
11-18-2014, 07:10 PM
Was the renewal defeated by a good margin?
Is there a link/source?

Virgil
11-18-2014, 07:17 PM
53 yes, 41 no. Needed 60 votes

-virgil

Brett85
11-18-2014, 07:18 PM
53 yes, 41 no. Needed 60 votes

-virgil

It was 58 yes, 42 no, final margin. Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it except for Cruz, Lee, and Heller.

lib3rtarian
11-18-2014, 07:22 PM
Did Rand single handedly block this, or did he merely vote against it? If it's the latter, "blocked" it is stretching it. Good, either way.

Brett85
11-18-2014, 07:26 PM
Actually, every Democrat voted for it except for Bill Nelson from Florida, and every Republican voted against it except for Lee, Cruz, Heller, and Murkowski.

Matt Collins
11-18-2014, 07:29 PM
From a Campaign for Liberty e-mail:






We did it!

. . . for now.

Earlier tonight, the Senate rejected cloture on the USA Freedom Act, which at the time of the vote still renewed key and controversial provisions of the so-called “Patriot” Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.

This is yet another blow to the security statists, who tried to get their extensions through without being dragged into a public debate over how much the “Patriot” Act has infringed on our liberties.

And this victory is only thanks to grassroots voices like yours!

But we’re not done yet.

The bill could still be brought back up at any time with an extension of these provisions.

So please keep contacting your senators at 202-224-3121 (tel:202-224-3121) and urging them to oppose every vote on the USA Freedom Act unless any extensions of sections 215 and 206 of the “Patriot” Act and Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act are removed.

Campaign for Liberty has been leading the charge to rein in the national surveillance state, but it must be done without putting another stamp of approval on Constitution-shredding legislation such as the “Patriot” Act or the status quo.

Thank you for all you do in defense of liberty!

In Liberty,
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/_WF0zDZcMvp437c1y95svqMmS_nkYfK4Urqm26U65h2kr2tuWq wuxw2sLmPU9OhpJyDd8bJPD96ojDUCkJdWQGFEZp5PCUsDOZSf fg=s0-d-e1-ft#http://www.chooseliberty.org/images/tate-signature.gif
John Tate
President

Brett85
11-18-2014, 07:38 PM
Um, this isn't going to somehow stop the Patriot Act from being extended. It will be extended easily before June when it's set to expire. The Republicans will have the majority with 54 Senators in January, and all of them except for Rand, Lee, Heller, Murkowski, (and possibly Cruz) are in favor of extending the Patriot Act. That's 49 votes right there, and about half of the Senate Democrats voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act last time. So that's about 75 Senators who are going to vote in favor of extending the Patriot Act when it comes up for a vote sometime before June.

Brian4Liberty
11-18-2014, 07:46 PM
Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?

Obviously, there was too much reform in the bill for the neoconservatives.

And not enough reform for Rand.

Christian Liberty
11-18-2014, 07:48 PM
Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?

Yes, it bothers me. But I still think Rand was right, weird as that is.

Matt Collins
11-18-2014, 07:50 PM
Roll call and vital details inserted into the OP

Brett85
11-18-2014, 07:54 PM
Yes, it bothers me. But I still think Rand was right, weird as that is.

I think either vote is right in this situation. I think someone like Lee felt this bill was a step in the right direction since it weakens the NSA surveillance program, and I don't blame him at all for voting for it. But I don't blame Rand for voting against it either.

Natural Citizen
11-18-2014, 07:55 PM
Senior Republicans said stopping the surveillance would benefit enemies of the United State, including Islamic State militants, according to Reuters.

"God forbid that tomorrow we wake up to the news that a member of ISIL is in the United States," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), according to the Huffington Post. If the NSA cannot track phone calls, he said, "that plot may go forward -- and that would be a horrifying result."

"Let's not have another repeat of 9/11," added Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.).

However, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said there has been no evidence to suggest that the NSA's surveillance program prevented a terrorist attack on the US."If this was important to stop ISIL, ISIL never would have started," he said.

Third party supporters also expressed disappointment over the vote.

“We are disappointed that the Senate has failed to advance the USA Freedom Act, a good start for bipartisan surveillance reform that should have passed the Senate," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a statement. "[The] Act is a first step in comprehensive surveillance reform. Future reform must include significant changes to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, to the operations of Executive Order 12333, and to the broken classification system that the executive branch counts on to hide unconstitutional surveillance from the public."




http://rt.com/usa/206731-nsa-reform-fails-senate/

Brett85
11-18-2014, 08:07 PM
Here is the roll call vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282

It still seems absurd to me to suggest that Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski are the bad guys in this. They've been the most pro civil liberties Republicans we have in the Senate. The Republicans who voted against this bill because they felt it went too far in reigning in the NSA surveillance program are the bad guys.

Brian4Liberty
11-18-2014, 08:15 PM
534871329015881729

kcchiefs6465
11-18-2014, 08:37 PM
nvm

1836er
11-18-2014, 08:37 PM
It still seems absurd to me to suggest that Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski are the bad guys in this. They've been the most pro civil liberties Republicans we have in the Senate. The Republicans who voted against this bill because they felt it went too far in reigning in the NSA surveillance program are the bad guys.

I think you are correct; I have no problem with the votes of those four even though I think Rand's "nay" in this case was the better option. I think this response in the Guardian actually shows the wisdom in voting "nay" even though in some ways the bill could have scaled back the surveillance state a little bit.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/18/usa-freedom-act-republicans-block-bill

V4Vendetta
11-18-2014, 08:43 PM
Well... good news... but it's pretty obvious, those who voted against it, did it for different reasons.. some because they don't want to weaken the NSA at all... others because it didn't go far enough.

A bill needs to be introduced to abolish the NSA

Brett85
11-18-2014, 08:47 PM
Well... good news... but it's pretty obvious, those who voted against it, did it for different reasons.. some because they don't want to weaken the NSA at all... others because it didn't go far enough.

Actually, all of those who voted against it, with the exception of Rand, voted against it because they didn't want to weaken the NSA at all.

r3volution 3.0
11-18-2014, 08:49 PM
Um, this isn't going to somehow stop the Patriot Act from being extended. It will be extended easily before June when it's set to expire. The Republicans will have the majority with 54 Senators in January, and all of them except for Rand, Lee, Heller, Murkowski, (and possibly Cruz) are in favor of extending the Patriot Act. That's 49 votes right there, and about half of the Senate Democrats voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act last time. So that's about 75 Senators who are going to vote in favor of extending the Patriot Act when it comes up for a vote sometime before June.

I think Rand wants to make a big public stink about renewing the PATRIOT Act in the spring, rather than allowing it to be quietly slipped through in this deceptive bill. You're right that he'll probably lose, and the Act will be extended, but he evidently believes that it's worth sacrficing what little benefit this bill would have provided in order to increase public awareness of the deeper problems. I would tend to agree, but I understand your point - a reasonable person could come down on either side of this.

eleganz
11-18-2014, 08:56 PM
Um, this isn't going to somehow stop the Patriot Act from being extended. It will be extended easily before June when it's set to expire. The Republicans will have the majority with 54 Senators in January, and all of them except for Rand, Lee, Heller, Murkowski, (and possibly Cruz) are in favor of extending the Patriot Act. That's 49 votes right there, and about half of the Senate Democrats voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act last time. So that's about 75 Senators who are going to vote in favor of extending the Patriot Act when it comes up for a vote sometime before June.

The way McConnell voted this time and his reasoning is obvious he will also disagree with Rand when it comes time for the re authorization of Patriot Act, the good thing is Rand will be leading the fight against it and it will give him the continued visibility he needs to ride strongly into 2016.

brandon
11-18-2014, 09:09 PM
What a headline. wtf collins

Was a complete party line vote. The mainstream media is running with a completely different headline... "Bill to Restrict N.S.A. Data Collection Blocked in Vote by Senate Republicans"

Collins my patience with you wears thin.

brandon
11-18-2014, 09:12 PM
I haven't read the bill and I probably wont, and I suspect the bill had some good and some bad, but the meat of the bill seems to be aimed at reigning in the surveillance state and I think I would have preferred for it to pass.

Matt Collins
11-18-2014, 09:21 PM
What a headline. wtf collins

Was a complete party line vote. The mainstream media is running with a completely different headline... "Bill to Restrict N.S.A. Data Collection Blocked in Vote by Senate Republicans"

Collins my patience with you wears thin.
The headline came straight from Rand's press release. I didn't make it up, I simply copied it.

Christian Liberty
11-18-2014, 09:26 PM
I think either vote is right in this situation. I think someone like Lee felt this bill was a step in the right direction since it weakens the NSA surveillance program, and I don't blame him at all for voting for it. But I don't blame Rand for voting against it either.

I'm with you. In this particular case motivations matter way more than the vote itself. I still prefer Rand's "no" and that's what I would have done.

Brett85
11-18-2014, 09:33 PM
I think Rand wants to make a big public stink about renewing the PATRIOT Act in the spring, rather than allowing it to be quietly slipped through in this deceptive bill. You're right that he'll probably lose, and the Act will be extended, but he evidently believes that it's worth sacrficing what little benefit this bill would have provided in order to increase public awareness of the deeper problems. I would tend to agree, but I understand your point - a reasonable person could come down on either side of this.


The way McConnell voted this time and his reasoning is obvious he will also disagree with Rand when it comes time for the re authorization of Patriot Act, the good thing is Rand will be leading the fight against it and it will give him the continued visibility he needs to ride strongly into 2016.

Yeah, you may both be right. I don't blame Rand for voting against this bill, but I don't blame Lee and Cruz for voting for it either. But I will blame Cruz if he votes to extend the Patriot Act as a stand alone bill, when the extension of the Patriot Act is voted on sometime before May.

Inkblots
11-18-2014, 09:41 PM
I haven't read the bill and I probably wont, and I suspect the bill had some good and some bad, but the meat of the bill seems to be aimed at reigning in the surveillance state and I think I would have preferred for it to pass.

This bill was a cosmetic, window-dressing exercise. In addition to extending PATRIOT Act provisions, it also codifies in law various malign NSA practices that weren't explicitly authorized previously. The entire basis of the bill was to allow Congress to claim NSA surveillance had been reformed and placate public anger without actually making any meaningful changes.

Letting the bill come into law would have been substantially worse than killing it. If you don't believe me, take the time to read it. Rand made the right call here.

r3volution 3.0
11-18-2014, 09:46 PM
But I will blame Cruz if he votes to extend the Patriot Act as a stand alone bill, when the extension of the Patriot Act is voted on sometime before May.

Yes, that vote will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Brett85
11-18-2014, 09:49 PM
This bill was a cosmetic, window-dressing exercise. In addition to extending PATRIOT Act provisions, it also codifies in law various malign NSA practices that weren't explicitly authorized previously. The entire basis of the bill was to allow Congress to claim NSA surveillance had been reformed and placate public anger without actually making any meaningful changes.

Letting the bill come into law would have been substantially worse than killing it. If you don't believe me, take the time to read it. Rand made the right call here.

If that's the case, then why did McCain, Graham, Rubio, etc. all vote against it?

Anti Federalist
11-18-2014, 09:52 PM
What a headline. wtf collins

Was a complete party line vote. The mainstream media is running with a completely different headline... "Bill to Restrict N.S.A. Data Collection Blocked in Vote by Senate Republicans"

Collins my patience with you wears thin.

As it does with me as well.

Anti Federalist
11-18-2014, 09:54 PM
The headline came straight from Rand's press release. I didn't make it up, I simply copied it.

Anything or anybody else it would have been just a non descript link.

Keith and stuff
11-18-2014, 10:22 PM
Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?

It would have bothered me if Cotton blocked the bill ;)

It seems that at most only 1 Democrat in the US Senator cares about civil liberties. Shame on the Democrats!

Brett85
11-18-2014, 10:31 PM
It would have bothered me if Cotton blocked the bill ;)

Yeah, I shouldn't have included him. But he certainly would've voted against it had he been in the Senate.

Brett85
11-18-2014, 10:32 PM
It seems that at most only 1 Democrat in the US Senator cares about civil liberties. Shame on the Democrats!

Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the one Democratic Senator who voted against this did so because he thought it went too far in reigning in the NSA.

Inkblots
11-18-2014, 10:33 PM
If that's the case, then why did McCain, Graham, Rubio, etc. all vote against it?

Because they disagree that there's any problem to begin with. They don't want even window dressing reforms because that would be conceding that the public outrage at the NSA is justified, which they would never admit.

Keith and stuff
11-18-2014, 10:38 PM
Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the one Democratic Senator who voted against this did so because he thought it went too far in reigning in the NSA.

I said at most :) I already made a smiley face in the other part of my comment, wasn't sure if it was okay to share 2 in the same post when replying to a traditional conservative.

Brett85
11-18-2014, 10:48 PM
I said at most :) I already made a smiley face in the other part of my comment, wasn't sure if it was okay to share 2 in the same post when replying to a traditional conservative.

Ok. But I'm pretty sure that the 54 Democrats who voted for this along with Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski made a far more pro liberty vote than the 40 Republicans and one Democrat who voted against this bill because they felt it went too far in reigning in the NSA.

Brett85
11-18-2014, 11:07 PM
Because they disagree that there's any problem to begin with. They don't want even window dressing reforms because that would be conceding that the public outrage at the NSA is justified, which they would never admit.

This is what Jennifer Rubin had to say about it.

h ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/11/18/a-dangerous-nsa-bill/


Senators are likely to vote soon on S. 2685, the USA Freedom Act — which should be named the Terrorist Plot Protection Act — a bill championed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) aimed at severely curtailing the National Security Agency surveillance operation. As a memo for the Republican Policy Committee explains, “This bill has never received committee consideration or a mark-up. By contrast, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence passed a bill on this topic, S. 1631, by a bipartisan vote of 11-4, after having roll call votes on nine amendments during mark-up.” Numerous officials and former officials have warned that the bill is dangerous and unwise:

In the main, according to Senator Leahy’s press release on the matter, this bill “bans” critical intelligence tools authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act. As Mike Morrell, the former acting director of the CIA and member of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, has written: if this intelligence tool had “been in place more than a decade ago, it would likely have prevented 9/11.”

The Director of National Intelligence has pointed out that metadata is the “only” type of information collected under this particular program. Metadata has nothing to do with the content of the phone call, but rather relates to the “telephone numbers dialed [or] length of calls.” . . .

In place of the current program, the bill creates a scheme that is far less agile and far more burdensome. It requires the government to seek a court order requiring the production of records from third parties, namely call detail records, related to a “specific selection term.” This is defined as “a term that specifically identifies a person, account, address, or personal device, or another specific identifier, that is used by the Government to narrowly limit the scope of tangible things sought to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, consistent with the purpose for seeking the tangible things.” Its practical effect is to make it more difficult for the government to seek call detail records from third parties, where the Constitution does not legally require such a burden.

Republicans on the intelligence committee have warned colleagues about the bill’s threats to necessary intelligence-gathering. And former attorney general Mike Mukasey and former CIA director Michael Hayden likewise argue:

Nothing in the bill requires the telephone companies to preserve the metadata for any prescribed period. . . .

The bill’s imposition of the warrant requirement on the NSA would be more burdensome than what any assistant U.S. attorney must do to get metadata in a routine criminal case, which is simply to aver that the information is needed in connection with a criminal investigation—period.

Proponents say this change is necessary to allay fears that the NSA could use telephone metadata to construct an electronic portrait of an American citizen’s communications, and determine whether that person has, say, consulted a psychiatrist, or called someone else’s spouse. However, only 22 people at the NSA are permitted access to metadata, and only upon a showing of relevance to a national-security investigation, and they are barred from any data-mining whatsoever even in connection with such an investigation. . . .

[T]he nearly uniform success of the government before the FISA court is due both to the government’s careful restraint in presenting applications, and to pushback from the court itself—which results in the amendment of applications. Even when the government applies for wiretaps or search warrants in ordinary criminal cases there is no advocate opposing the application.

Nonetheless, this new bill would establish a permanent advocate appointed by the court to oppose the government’s applications before the FISA court. This provision has elicited an extraordinary written objection from a former presiding judge of the FISA court. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates points out that the presence of such an advocate, who cannot conceivably be aware of all the facts, would simply add to the burdens of the court and could wind up sacrificing both national security and privacy.

This bill redefines the FISA court, which was never meant to be an adversary tribunal and was imposed simply as an added safeguard in the 1970s, without regard to its history or its purpose. Worse, it is a three-headed constitutional monster: It is a violation of both the separation of powers principle and the Constitution’s appointments clause by having judges rather than the president appoint the public advocate, and then it has the advocate litigate against the Justice Department when both executive offices are supposed to be controlled by the president.

It is a rotten, destructive response in search of a problem. And for self-described constitutional purists, this bill should be an outrage, not a solution.

As you may recall, an independent panel appointed to review the program found zero abuses, perhaps why Obama keeps reauthorizing it. Unlike Iran sanctions, however, there is no sign the administration wants to dispatch Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to prevent a vote on a bill at odds with current policy. To the contrary, administration officials have coughed up their approval, all the while noting that it risks damaging U.S. national security. (How they can be “comfortable” with the bill “even as they conceded that the bill may have ‘additional impacts that we will be able to identify only after we start to implement the new law’” is unfathomable.)

Nevertheless, we should be delighted to see the Senate weigh in on the measure. Who in that body would risk disrupting a successful, abuse-free program at a time we are worried about hundreds of foreign jihadists plotting to return to their home countries to murder innocents? We know where the far left of the Democratic Party stands, but what about the self-described moderates? Where does Hillary Clinton really stand?

It also can be a clarifying moment for Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has railed against the program, sued the administration to stop it and falsely implied it allows unrestricted listening in on our calls, claims the bill does not go far enough. Think about that. When it comes to anti-terror surveillance, he is to the left of Obama and Leahy. So much for his claim to be a mainstream Republican on national security.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) – who has also dabbled in anti-surveillance hysteria and seeks to grab some of the far-right presidential primary vote — is supporting the bill along with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and the American Civil Liberties Union. He should explain why Hayden and Mukasey are wrong. Why should mainstream Republicans imagine he understands any better than Rand Paul the necessity of data collection to fight our real enemy, the jihadists (not the federal government)? What does he think is so broken in a program thoroughly reviewed for abuses that would justify hamstringing our intelligence collection? (Both this stance and his groundless assertion that airpower alone can win the war against the Islamic State suggest he is closer to Paul than to the pro-defense Republicans, despite months of tough-sounding speeches.)

By contrast, former ambassador to the United Nations and potential presidential candidate John Bolton says, “As the level and violence of terrorist attacks is rising worldwide, this is precisely the worst time to impose further restrictions on U.S. Intelligence gathering capabilities.”

Republicans should be looking for officials and candidates who are brave enough to support an effective and critical program. Frankly, a Republican seeking the presidency — or election or reelection to the Senate for that matter — should be soundly rejected if he chooses to sacrifice national security in order to play to the fears of the public and posture for the votes of paranoid libertarians. The GOP and the country need someone to reverse Obama’s lackadaisical national security posture, not double down on it and not wilt when the mainstream media distorts and exaggerates the threat to our civil liberties. That would be standing up and leading.

economics102
11-18-2014, 11:46 PM
We have to stand our ground at some point. The NSA spying is very unpopular, and Rand will try to connect the dots from the NSA spying to the PATRIOT Act in the public consciousness, which is what needs to happen.

surf
11-18-2014, 11:53 PM
I heard Amash say that this bill, that started out pretty killer and had Justin Amash as one of the original cosponsors, was so butchered when it got out of the house that he was hopeful it would fail. he voted against this. Rand can just follow Amash' lead on items born in the people's house.

originally it was worthy of the title "freedom act." when it got to the senate it was an oxymoron.

Rand did the right thing.

anaconda
11-19-2014, 12:09 AM
Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?


I'm assuming that most of the "nays" were because the bill did not go far enough in advancing the police state.

r3volution 3.0
11-19-2014, 12:19 AM
Because they disagree that there's any problem to begin with. They don't want even window dressing reforms because that would be conceding that the public outrage at the NSA is justified, which they would never admit.

Bingo

These people can never acknowledge even the slightest flaw (no matter how trivial) in the national security state, because public confidence in the whole thing rests on the perceived omniscience and omnipotence of the state. Strong-men have to hide their imperfections from the public: nobody can know FDR is a cripple, Kim Jong Il never gets the hiccups, Putin wrestles bears, etc.

presence
11-19-2014, 12:24 AM
So the bill was originally built to do two things:


Reign in the NSA, including their collection of Metadata
AND
Renew the Patriot Act

As it was voted on... the first notion was grossly watered down and the bill was essentially just a renewal of the Patriot Act.


However you got 4 opposing Bootlegger and Baptist coalitions voting:

YEA = Renew the Patriot Act at the expense of moderate Reforms
or
YEA = Support moderate NSA Reforms, unfortunately renew PA to do so.

NAY = Do not renew the Patriot Act, reforms inadequate.
or
NAY = Not willing to make any NSA Reforms




The words convoluted, byzantine, and circuitous come to mind.


Essentially nothing happened. Stalemate.

milgram
11-19-2014, 12:31 AM
Marcy Wheeler digs pretty deep into these surveillance bills, so here's her bullet points for why she opposes it. Click the link for more details.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/11/12/why-i-dont-support-usa-freedom-act/


As you may remember, I don’t support USAF. Here’s a summary of why.

1 - No one will say how the key phone record provision of the bill will work

2 - USAF negotiates from a weak position and likely moots potentially significant court gains

3 - USAF’s effects in limiting bulk collection are overstated

4 - USAF would eliminate any pushback from providers

5 - USAF may have the effect of weakening existing minimization procedures

6 - USAF’s transparency provisions are bullshit

7 - Other laudable provisions — like the Advocate — will easily be undercut

On the downside, Feinstein/Chambliss have competing legislation which McConnell actually favors.

thoughtomator
11-19-2014, 01:02 AM
Collins, don't try to spin us. You owe us more respect than that. Save it for the idiot crowd in the media.

Feelgood
11-19-2014, 01:48 AM
Wow. Cruz voted yes?

Both of my Senators voted no??

WTF is this Twilight Zone episode Im watching!??!

idiom
11-19-2014, 03:49 AM
If Rand can turn voting for the Patriot bill into an election losing event, then he doesn't need to win a vote to kill it as it will sunset itself. If the senate gets messy enough we could run out the clock on it.

Todd
11-19-2014, 06:27 AM
So the bill was originally built to do two things:


Reign in the NSA, including their collection of Metadata
AND
Renew the Patriot Act

As it was voted on... the first notion was grossly watered down and the bill was essentially just a renewal of the Patriot Act.


However you got 4 opposing Bootlegger and Baptist coalitions voting:

YEA = Renew the Patriot Act at the expense of moderate Reforms
or
YEA = Support moderate NSA Reforms, unfortunately renew PA to do so.

NAY = Do not renew the Patriot Act, reforms inadequate.
or
NAY = Not willing to make any NSA Reforms




The words convoluted, byzantine, and circuitous come to mind.


Essentially nothing happened. Stalemate.

Yep. That is what it is.
But I guess that stalemate is the first step in slamming the breaks on the runaway train. Now if we could just get the sucker into reverse.




Collins, don't try to spin us. You owe us more respect than that. Save it for the idiot crowd in the media.

This^

economics102
11-19-2014, 06:51 AM
This is an unfortunate position Rand has been put in but I suspect he'll turn it to his favor and use it to draw more attention to the Patriot Act.

Stallheim
11-19-2014, 07:44 AM
This is a great grass roots opportunity for some subterfuge: rather than accuse No voters of doing it for the wrong reasons we should get the message out through various channels that they should be celebrated for their courage in opposing Patriot Act renewal. When they see that they are on the side of a wave of American popularity they might flip when the bill to renew comes up again.

Stallheim
11-19-2014, 07:48 AM
As a bonus, if they don't, we can have it proclaimed that they are inconsistent pawns of the corporate elite, let them defend against that! This drags them out from under the rotten log.

Brett85
11-19-2014, 07:56 AM
I heard Amash say that this bill, that started out pretty killer and had Justin Amash as one of the original cosponsors, was so butchered when it got out of the house that he was hopeful it would fail. he voted against this. Rand can just follow Amash' lead on items born in the people's house.

originally it was worthy of the title "freedom act." when it got to the senate it was an oxymoron.

Rand did the right thing.

Leahy's bill isn't the same as the bill that passed the house. It's stronger than that bill, which is why Rubio, McCain, Graham, etc. all voted against it.

No1butPaul
11-19-2014, 08:44 AM
Mike Lee??? That's surprising to me, as is Cruz, since they both stood with Rand in the past.

Brett85
11-19-2014, 09:07 AM
Mike Lee??? That's surprising to me, as is Cruz, since they both stood with Rand in the past.

Again, Lee and Cruz's votes were far more pro liberty than those who voted against this bill for the reason that it went too far in reigning in the NSA. Marco Rubio got up on the Senate floor and talked about how we were all going to get killed by ISIS if this bill passed.

presence
11-19-2014, 09:36 AM
Collins, don't try to spin us. You owe us more respect than that. Save it for the idiot crowd in the media.

Not every thread posted at RPF is addressed to the choir. To some degree this site is a liberty news portal to the general public.


Rand Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act

...makes good sound bytes.

jmdrake
11-19-2014, 10:05 AM
I predict ultimately the Patriot Act will be extended and the NSA will not be reformed. I'm in unsure if this was a good move. Time will tell.

Lucille
11-19-2014, 10:40 AM
The comsotarians whine that he was letting the perfect be the enemy of the "merely better," as if any of it would stop anyway.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/19/senate-votes-to-maintain-the-national-se



Paul said immediately after the vote that he “felt bad” about his vote against the motion.

“They probably needed my vote,” he said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. “It’s hard for me to vote for something I object to so much.”

Although his single vote would not have been enough to open up debate, Paul should nevertheless have heeded the insight of the developer of radar Robert Alexander Watson-Watt who explained, "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes." I am no parliamentarian, but it appears that under Senate rules because Paul voted with the prevailing side, he could move to have the Senate reconsider the bill, although it seems unlikely that he will do so.

Paul and the rest of his fellow citizens may well come to rue the day that he allowed the perfect to get in the way of the merely better.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2013/09/when-state-floods-zone-reform-is-dead.html


As a result of the recent NSA/surveillance stories, there is much debate about the NSA and its massive spying apparatus. But as the existence of InfraGard shows, the NSA is only the beginning of what should concern us. In fact, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, but it's better to face the truth as fully as we can, if the NSA ceased to exist today, it would not make any appreciable difference in the surveillance activities of the United States government.
[...]
As I already noted, you could eliminate the NSA entirely this very minute, and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference. But the heightened focus on the NSA, while ignoring all the other agencies and programs involved in similar and even identical activities, leads directly to the "solution" that will make the State writhe in ecstasy. Congress will have some hearings, and they will provide for some "oversight" and "accountability," and most people, including most of the State's critics, will herald the great triumph of "the people" and "democracy." Meanwhile, the State will continue doing exactly what it was doing before.

http://ohtarzie.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/usintelligencefunding.png?w=640&h=272

http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/dr-rosen-and-the-snowden-effect/

Occam's Banana
11-19-2014, 12:50 PM
The words convoluted, byzantine, and circuitous come to mind.

When you have some "authoritarians" united with some "libertarians" in opposing something (the former because it "goes too far" and the latter because it "doesn't go far enough") - and at the same time you have other "authoritarians" united with other "libertarians" in supporting the very same thing (the former because it "goes adequately far" and the latter because it "doesn't go too far") ... well, then you know that you have reached the utter and droolingly vacuous wit's end of politics ...

And that's not even considering the fact that you could simply "reverse the polarity" of the "goes far" rhetoric and it would STILL amount to exactly the same thing (for example, "authoritarians" in opposition to this bill could say that it "doesn't go far enough" and "libertarians" in opposition could say that it "goes too far") ...

SMGDH ... but what else can you expect from such a grotesque mish-mash of "X steps forward, Y steps backward" stuffed into the same bag? ... it's like a Trojan Horse for everybody ...

Brian4Liberty
11-19-2014, 01:07 PM
The official press release from Rand's office:


Sen. Paul Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act
‘One step closer to restoring liberty’
Nov 18, 2014

Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension and offered the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”
...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244

presence
11-19-2014, 01:15 PM
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17cvb2xvb86g2gif/original.gif

Christian Liberty
11-19-2014, 01:21 PM
Again, Lee and Cruz's votes were far more pro liberty than those who voted against this bill for the reason that it went too far in reigning in the NSA. Marco Rubio got up on the Senate floor and talked about how we were all going to get killed by ISIS if this bill passed.

I'm with you on this. I can forgive either vote on this because its so much an issue of pragmatism since both sides are good and bad in different ways. Its a question of whether the good outweighs the bad.

I predict ultimately the Patriot Act will be extended and the NSA will not be reformed. I'm in unsure if this was a good move. Time will tell.

Probably true.


When you have some "authoritarians" united with some "libertarians" in opposing something (the former because it "goes too far" and the latter because it "doesn't go far enough") - and at the same time you have other "authoritarians" united with other "libertarians" in supporting the very same thing (the former because it "goes adequately far" and the latter because it "doesn't go too far") ... well, then you know that you have reached the utter and droolingly vacuous wit's end of politics ...

And that's not even considering the fact that you could simply "reverse the polarity" of the "goes far" rhetoric and it would STILL amount to exactly the same thing (for example, "authoritarians" in opposition to this bill could say that it "doesn't go far enough" and "libertarians" in opposition could say that it "goes too far") ...

SMGDH ... but what else can you expect from such a grotesque mish-mash of "X steps forward, Y steps backward" stuffed into the same bag? ... it's like a Trojan Horse for everybody ...

So true. Its such a weird law.

Mind you, nobody in this discussion, not even Rand Paul, and certainly not Lee or Cruz, are libertarians, but I know what you mean.

The official press release from Rand's office:

I am more inclined to agree with Rand. But the bill is complex enough that this is still fundamentally an issue of pragmatism, rather than one vote being "wrong" and the other "right."

twomp
11-19-2014, 01:29 PM
IF they really cared about reigning in the NSA, they would let the Patriot Act die and require the NSA to get warrants as stated in the 4th Amendment. The fact that so and so voted this way or that way has got everyone debating whether this bill was a "good bill" or not does not matter. Just another distraction from the main point of all this. It EXTENDS the PATRIOT ACT. If they really wanted to reign in the NSA, they would not have attached that clause.

It is the equivalent to letting marijuana smokers out of jail in order to extend the NDAA. Giving you peanuts while they take your fking dinner.

puppetmaster
11-19-2014, 03:56 PM
It was 58 yes, 42 no, final margin. Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it except for Cruz, Lee, and Heller.

Heller is an idiot. Seriously I have met him.

Brett85
11-19-2014, 03:58 PM
Heller is an idiot. Seriously I have met him.

But yet he's one of only three Republicans who voted with Rand against extending the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote several years ago, so he's good for something.

jmdrake
11-19-2014, 04:06 PM
IF they really cared about reigning in the NSA, they would let the Patriot Act die and require the NSA to get warrants as stated in the 4th Amendment. The fact that so and so voted this way or that way has got everyone debating whether this bill was a "good bill" or not does not matter. Just another distraction from the main point of all this. It EXTENDS the PATRIOT ACT. If they really wanted to reign in the NSA, they would not have attached that clause.

It is the equivalent to letting marijuana smokers out of jail in order to extend the NDAA. Giving you peanuts while they take your fking dinner.

Who is "they"? Lee and Cruz aren't the "they" that attached "that" clause. It was probably attached by someone who ultimately voted against the bill. "They" will most likely vote on a clean version to extend the Patriot Act once the GOP gets in power. It's simple math. Most of the people who "stood with Rand" on this vote support the Patriot Act and the NSA spying. When "they" get in power "they" will find enough democrats to vote with them to get what "they" want which is clean extension of the Patriot Act. The best Rand can hope for is to pull the same tactics and somehow attach something to the clean Patriot Act extension bill that "they" don't want. I suggest gay marriage.

Brian4Liberty
11-19-2014, 05:42 PM
When you have some "authoritarians" united with some "libertarians" in opposing something (the former because it "goes too far" and the latter because it "doesn't go far enough") - and at the same time you have other "authoritarians" united with other "libertarians" in supporting the very same thing (the former because it "goes adequately far" and the latter because it "doesn't go too far") ... well, then you know that you have reached the utter and droolingly vacuous wit's end of politics ...

Or you could say that it has reached a balance point, and the appropriate action is the no-consensus default, which is to let it expire. ;)