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.)
...
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.
