The "political leadership" was too busy chasing after blue dresses to pay enough attention. That did not disuade the FBI, the CIA and the justice department from trying, and many of the Patriot Act changes came from them, from their frustration with inadequate procedures more that the lack of political leadership behind them.
You've invoked the spectre of the Clinton family, yet you blindly insist that broad powers that permit intrusion into our electronic activities, sneak & peek searches, our book buying and library usage, and our private business are without any risks. I simply cannot believe that you've thought this through carefully. Read the summaries of what is expiring on December 31st, including the sweeping removal of wiretap permits permits that used to be required in addition to warrants! Read the "one party" (e.g. your ISP) grants of sweeping permission to tap your E-mail. It's all there in black and white, but all you can say over and over again is that spying on Americans is good because you believe that only Republicans are in power now. I've got news for you, and so does Richard Poe: Hillary has been waging a war against Internet freedoms. These powers give her and her ilk more power, not less.
I agree with you that some of the provisions in the core PA are good. I think even some of those expiring are useful and not dangerous, because they limit spying on foreigners. But spying on Americans who have made no contact with anti-American foreigners is a wholly different story. Where does treason begin and patriotism end? I'll not have a Hillary Clinton or a judicial system stacked in her favor deciding that, not if I can help it.
Think it over, but the onus is on you as a supporter of these measures to prove to the rest of us Americans that the PA is harmless, not the other way around. Most laws have harmful side-effects. You've not convinced me that this one is acceptable.