"The Senate opened a rare Sunday night session in a desperate attempt to extend a national security surveillance program... that was on the verge of expiring at midnight."

"Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, criticizing Mr. McConnell on the Senate floor, said, 'The majority leader had five months' to fix the problem through committee work. 'Everyone saw this coming,' Mr. Reid, the Senate minority leader, said."

The session quickly became contentious when Senator Rand Paul, the other Kentucky Republican, whom Mr. McConnell has endorsed for president, fought for the right to speak. After being rebuked by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for not understanding the Senate rules, Mr. Paul railed against the surveillance program. �We should be upset, we should be marching in the streets,� he said.

Mr. Paul seemed determined to use his procedural weapon � the words �I object�...

"They should ask [Hillary], 'Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic? Did it allow radical Islam and ISIS to grow stronger?'"

Said Rand Paul, as part of his answer to this week's Question of the Week on this morning's "Meet the Press":

CHUCK TODD: Are you satisfied after Governor Bush's sort of fourth answer on this, saying that he wouldn't have gone into the war in Iraq, knowing what we know now?...

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well, I think it's an important question and I don't think it's a historical  anecdote. I don't think it's something that's a hypothetical question. I think it's a recurring question in the Middle East. Is it a good idea to topple secular dictators? And what happens when we do? I think when Hussein was toppled, we got chaos. We still have chaos in-- in Iraq. I think it emboldened Iran. I think-- we now have the rise of radical Islam in Iraq as well. But I think the same question, to be fair, ought to be asked of Hillary Clinton, if she ever takes questions. They should ask her, "Was it a good idea to invade Libya? Did that make us less safe? Did it make it more chaotic? Did it allow radical Islam and ISIS to grow stronger?" So I think the war in Iraq is a good question and still a current question, but so is the question of, "Should we have gone into Libya?"

Rand Paul on ending the bulk collection of phone records but keeping the NSA.

He impressed me in this section of an interview this morning on "Meet the Press."



From the transcript:

... I would have the NSA target their activities more and more towards our enemies. I think if you are not spending so much time and money collecting the information of innocent Americans, maybe could have have spent more time knowing one of the Tsarnaev boys, one of the Boston bombers, had gone back to Chechnya. We didn't know that even though we had been tipped off by the Russians, we had communicated, we had interviewed him and still didn't know that. Same with the recent jihadist from Phoenix that traveled to Texas and the shooting in Garland. We knew him. We had investigated him, we had put him in jail. I want to spend more time on people we have suspicion of and we have probable cause and less time on innocent Americans. It distracts us from the job of getting terrorists.

"But wait a minute... there's nothing inconsistent about being a libertarian and collecting Social Security."

"If you believe the government is wrongfully taking your money (in the form of taxes), naturally you should want to take as much of it back as possible (in the form of benefits). You can still complain that this was inefficient because you would've spent the money better if you had kept it all along; some of your money was siphoned off by government workers; etc. By analogy, if a thief stole your wallet and spent half of the cash that was in it, then offered you the wallet back, you'd take it back, simply to recover most of what you had lost. That wouldn't be an admission that what the thief did was good."

Jaltcoh, reacting to a "Zing!" by Daily Kos over a tweet that says "Rand Paul is running from Libertarianism faster than Ayn Rand ran to the mailbox for her Social Security checks."

Kelley Paul is here to soften Rand Paul for you, and she's got a book of essays about women and the bonds they forge called "True and Constant Friends."

That phrase, "women and the bonds they forge," comes from the New York Times, which has a article about Kelley Paul titled "Kelley Paul Has a Task: To Make Her Husband More Approachable."

�Rand�s personality is kind of �Cut to the point,� � she said... �I think in some ways people respond better to that, but we�ll see. We�ll see what the country wants.�...

�He�s the last person in the world who would ever be dismissive of someone [e.g., Savannah Guthrie] because they�re a woman. I mean the last person,� Mrs. Paul went on, pointing out that his partner in his ophthalmology practice in Kentucky was a woman. �Someone could make the argument that perhaps he should be more poised, he needs to be smoother with this. And that�s legitimate,� she added.

5 quick reactions:

1. Is she making him more approachable, or is she trying to make us want to be tough and appreciate the value of a "cut to the point" style? I would prefer the latter!

2. "Cut to the point" is a good metaphor when talking about a surgeon. Isn't it weird that there are two surgeons running for the GOP nomination? Is the surgeon mentality what we want in a President?

3. Did Kelley Paul really write that book? I see it comes out today. The full title is "True and Constant Friends: Love and Inspiration from Our Grandmothers, Mothers, and Friends." I can't bring myself to add that to my Kindle. From the description at that Amazon link: "Kelley explores the universal themes of hardship, determination, commitment, family, independence, optimism, friendship and love � and illuminates the power of the female bond that enriches all our lives." That exploration of everything takes up all of 144 pages, including the photography, which seems to be of gentle, happy women in sunlight and earthtones:



4. In the NYT's expression "women and the bonds they forge," I detect a deliberate insinuation that the traditional, relationship-oriented female life is, metaphorically, slavery. The oldest meaning of "bond" is "Anything with which one's body or limbs are bound in restraint of personal liberty; a shackle, chain, fetter, manacle," and the word "forge" calls attention to the fabrication of iron devices.

5. The campaign's second video, which features Kelley, really is excellent, but in saying that I'm aware that my standards for video are quite different from the way I think about books. With video, I'm more likely to observe from a distance as if I were someone else watching this and being affected (even though I personally resist the sentimentality and cheeseball expressiveness):

"The Best Reason to Take Rand Paul Seriously Has Nothing to Do With His Politics."

Writes Jim Rutenberg in the NYT.

[T]he ground game that [Paul's] team is planning is pure realpolitik. His staff is focused on the delegate math and party rules that could determine the next Republican nominee � a game-theory style of presidential politics at which the Paul team is particularly adept....

[I]n a close-fought, state-by-state contest between two or more competitive candidates, the campaign that best understands the intricacies of delegate allotment will have a real edge � and at this point, that campaign is almost certainly Paul�s. Like Obama in 2008, Paul is a first-term senator who, aware of his underdog status, is spending the campaign�s early days planning for all the scenarios it can envision.

The Rand Paul has a problem with women meme.

I've watched the clip of Paul with Savannah Guthrie on "The Today Show," and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but it is, and now any time Paul talks over a female, we'll hear about it and this meme will grow. Rand Paul has his response: He's "pretty equal opportunity." He's "been universally short tempered and testy" � toward males and females � and he needs "to get better at holding my tongue and holding my temper."

That's a good answer. Equality is a great concept, and women mostly want equality, and, I think, most men want equality for women. But in real life, rudeness toward women is perceived differently. For one thing, it was traditional for more respect to be shown to women, so we � some of us � notice its absence. And the reaction well, but I'm an asshole to everybody doesn't satisfy those who want a culture of civility.

But even for those of us who don't want special sensitivity to women and who think it will hurt women's opportunities � in journalism, in politics, and elsewhere � we observe how well women are treated with an understanding of what has gone on in the past when women were subordinated and diminished and dissuaded from entering the fray. (I had a high school English teacher who asserted with confidence that women could never work as broadcast journalists because our voices were unsuitable to the medium.) With that background understanding, what is objectively equal treatment may feel unequal.

Of course, it's also true that Rand Paul has his opponents who will use whatever works, and I fully expect them to accuse him of sexism whenever they can now. Once it's a meme, that's how it goes. If he remains "short tempered and testy," whatever hits women will be highlighted as Rand Paul's problem with women. If he manages to take the edge off, because he's trying "to get better," what niceness is aimed at women will be characterized as patronizing and even exclusionary. His opponents will want to box him in. Whatever he does will be wrong.

"I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government."

Says Rand Paul.

"Rand Paul Is Not A Libertarian."

"Take it from Rand Paul: 'I�m not a libertarian.'"

AND: "GOP Hawks Set to Ruin Rand Paul's Big Day."

Maybe she said "Oh, Todd."

But it's in the "Meet the Press" transcript as "Oh God."

[Former press secretary to Hillary Clinton] KAREN FINNEY: It's crazy, you just can't imagine. The real problem, it's not the letter, it's whom it was addressed to. You don't send a letter to the Ayatollah...

CHUCK TODD: All right, I'm going to hit the pause button there, because we're going to have more fireworks, I have a feeling.

KAREN FINNEY: Oh God.

Finney is a former Hillary Clinton press secretary. It was only 2 weeks ago that the Democratic Party strategist Maria Cardona blurted out "Jesus!" on "Face the Nation." I'm keeping an eye on these female Democratic Party spokespersons. I think they are being misprepped for these Sunday shows. They're making a terrible impression... and not just for the fleeting expletives. Emotive emptiness like "It's crazy, you just can't imagine" is crazy. I just can't imagine why I am listening to her.

Finney was on the show to interact with Matt Bai, who was lively, articulate, and substantive:
Click for more �