Senator Rand Paul, who is praised by young people on the left and the right for being strong on civil liberties, has voted against a bill that would restrict NSA metadata collection. Paul joined 40 other Republicans in voting against the bill. (Eli Sanders mentioned this earlier this morning.) And as Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns, & Money points out, even though Paul will claim he didn't vote for the bill because it wasn't strong enough, he actually voted against the bill at the behest of Mitch McConnell, who believed it took too many powers away from the NSA.

Republicans have been getting too much credit for standing against NSA wiretapping, mostly from people who don't remember that when George W. Bush was in office and you complained about the restriction of civil liberties, Republicans considered you a terr'ist who hated 'Merica. Does Senator Marco Rubio sound like a man who's concerned for your civil liberties when he calls the bill “a reaction to misinformation and alarmism?" And why is Paul agreeing with Marco Rubio? Does he truly believe a better anti-NSA bill is going to happen at any time in the near future?

No. We're watching the softening of Senator Paul, the attempt by Paul to become the kind of Republican that even a Republican could love. When he runs for president next year, a lot of hard-left liberals will entertain a flirtation with Rand Paul because when they happen to pay attention to him, Paul talks tough about things they agree on: NSA wiretapping, the drug war, the military-industrial complex. But if you closely watch Paul's actions, he's got a very spotty record. He's asking his followers to believe what he says, not what he does. You at least have to respect Ron Paul for always voting his conscience; Rand Paul speaks his conscience but votes with his party when it really matters.

(Thanks to otherchuchu—@nongnonghead on Twitter—for the tip.)