Rand Paul Forced Expiration Of NSA's Bulk Collection Practices

Sen. Rand Paul Forced The Expiration Of Key Sections Of PATRIOT Act, Angering GOP Senators. Sen. Rand Paul forced the expiration of the National Security Agency's authority to bulk collect phone records, angering his Republican colleagues in the Senate, Politico reported:

Behind closed doors in the Senate's Strom Thurmond Room, Republican senators lashed out at the junior Kentucky Republican's defiant stance to force the expiration of key sections of the PATRIOT Act, a law virtually all of them support. Indiana Sen. Dan Coats' criticism was perhaps the most biting: He accused the senator of “lying” about the matter in order to raise money for his presidential campaign, according to three people who attended the meeting.

[...]

Since becoming a senator, Paul has long railed against the PATRIOT Act, arguing it's a blatant violation of Americans' constitutional privacy rights. His position gained steam among many civil libertarians after Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency's bulk data collection program of Americans' phone records.

Buoyed by Snowden's leaks, a bipartisan majority in the House moved to overhaul the bulk data program through the USA Freedom Act by proposing that phone companies -- not the federal government -- maintain those records, though the NSA could access them via a secret court order.

But Paul contends that the USA Freedom Act would be an expansion of the PATRIOT Act and could torpedo a lawsuit aimed at ending the bulk data program. The phone companies, he said, “may do the same thing” as the NSA.

Republican leaders in the Senate, after initially resisting the USA Freedom Act because of concerns it would hamper intelligence gathering, on Sunday reluctantly accepted it. They did so with a midnight deadline to extend the surveillance law hours away, their backs against the wall. [Politico, 5/31/15]

Right-Wing Media Pundits Suggest Paul's Actions Disqualify Him From Presidency

Wash. Post's Jennifer Rubin: Rand Paul Has “Discredited” And Disqualified Himself From Presidency. In a column titled, “Rand Paul and others disqualify themselves from the presidency,” Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote that Paul has “demonstrated such gross irresponsibility and lack of character that it is hard to argue [he] deserve[s] to hold any office, let along the presidency”:

No matter how well or poorly prepared candidates may be, there is no justification for an elected leader who acts recklessly on national security, beginning with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Not only has he demagogued the National Security Agency issue and misled the country as to what it does and does not do, but he also forced the program to lapse even knowing he lost the battle to discontinue it. He would put the country as risk to score political points for a losing -- and disreputable -- cause. To top it off, he accused Republicans of secretly wishing for an attack on the United States to discredit him. He has already discredited himself, and his vile rhetoric recalls the many attacks from the White House on the motives of its adversaries. Coming on the heels of his claim that Republicans are responsible for the Islamic State, one must conclude that Paul's hatred of political adversaries in his own party not only outweighs his distaste for our enemies but also has entirely clouded his judgment. One has to question why the people of Kentucky, if and when Paul loses the presidential race, would think such a misguided and divisive character should represent his state. I cannot think of a bigger contribution (other than electing a responsible commander in chief) to the cause of national security than finding a more serious junior senator for that state. [The Washington Post, 6/1/15]

Fox's Guilfoyle: “If You're Trying To Run For President,” “It's Difficult To Swallow” Why You Would Risk National Security. During the June 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, host Kimberly Guilfoyle questioned why Rand Paul would “put our country's national security at risk” when running for the presidency:

GUILFOYLE: I'm just not entirely sure why the senator from Kentucky feels that this is something that he needs to be out in front of.

[...] 

It has been his thing, 100 percent. But also, if you're trying to run for president of the United States and asking for this nomination, I think it's really, to me, difficult to swallow this, to say that why would you put our country's national security at risk? This is someone who's asking to be commander-in-chief. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/1/15]

Fox Contributor Ralph Peters: “Rand Paul Is A Scoundrel And A Charlatan ... He Is Protecting Terrorists.” On the June 1 edition of Fox Business Networks' Varney & Company, Fox contributor Ralph Peters attacked Paul for opposing the NSA metadata collection program, accusing him of “protecting terrorists”:

PETERS: Well, he needs to go after Google, and Amazon, and every online marketplace because they're collecting data on Americans. The NSA doesn't. He doesn't know how it works. He doesn't care how it works. Rand Paul is a scoundrel and a charlatan. He is not protecting the American people. He is protecting terrorists to further his own craven political ambitions, and he reminds me of no one so much as of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

[...]

Rand Paul is doing a terrible disservice to this country. [Fox Business Network, Varney & Co, 6/1/15]

The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein: Republicans Will Say “Rand Paul's Decision To Grandstand On National Security Matters Makes Him Unfit To Protect A 7-11, Much Less” The U.S. In an opinion piece titled, “The Fall Of Rand Paul?,” The Daily Caller's senior editor Jamie Weinstein suggested that it would be “effective” if Republicans attacked Rand Paul as “unfit” to protect the country based on his decision to block NSA bulk collection:

Paul's actions Sunday might have excited members of his father's Revolution -- and enabled him to raise some money -- but it has also opened him up to easy attacks by his Republican presidential competitors for playing politics with national security. “Rand Paul's decision to grandstand on national security matters makes him unfit to protect a 7-11, much less the United States of America,” you can imagine one of his GOP rivals slinging in an upcoming GOP debate. Fair or unfair, such an attack will probably prove effective, especially since the debate will pit almost the entire field against Paul on this issue. [The Daily Caller, 6/1/15]