It does, because motivation decides what that "something" in "something being done" is.

Rand Paul's party is by far the biggest supporter of NSA, TSA, and other TLAs. If he really wanted to change things, he could start by convincing his own party to stop fellating the NSA.

I think injunctive relief against the NSA is a goal, a "something" that most civil liberties advocates and Rand Paul can agree on. Let it not be said that liberals took yet another opportunity to miss an opportunity at bipartisan reform of our executive branch's powers.

Motivation matters because you serve the goal, not the tactics. If Paul's motivation is not actually restricting the NSA, then at some point he's likely to pivot.

Where in Rand Paul's heavily libertarian-leaning history do you see evidence that he's in favor of a police state (or policies that make such possible), such that a massive issue like this is one on which he's likely to pivot away from his fundamental beliefs?

I know nothing of Rand Paul's history. When I see someone talking about an issue (the NSA) and using it to paint an opponent ("Obama's NSA"), then I think it's safe to say that the point is as much that opponent as the mere paint.