Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul flips on Earmarks before he is even sworn in !

reply to post by Son of Will


Are you serious that you believe what he said? hahahahaha

I mean anyone can say anything. HaHa, I mean if I told you the sky was going to be pink tomorrow that doesnt make it true. Call me crazy but he said he had no measures and wasnt going to cut anything he just threw out numbers. Also hes a moron as Spitzer pointed out because that obamathing saves a trillion dollars. I am just hoping he lives up to his word as an elected rep and gets rid of the minimum wage like he promised. Im sick of lowlives getting free handouts because they dont know how to earn a living. If they didnt go to college to become a better american then they have no business stealing from hard working families and ripping out the heart of our country. But thats just the patriot in me and not everyone wants the real american dream and prefer socialism over common sense main street capitalism.

Sheesh people look for any little thing to jump on, the man isnt even in office yet and your already attacking him. He technically hasnt gone back on his promisess since he hasnt done anything yet. I cringe everytime I come onto ATS its become nothing but an attack board usually parroting MSM talking points. all the comments are pretty much "your stupid im right na na na boo boo".

alright right wingers...we are all still up for armed revolution and whatnot, right? right? hey..you still here? -crickets-

oh well..I guess its only out of control spending and marxism if dems do it.


pathetic...yet not suprising...ok quick right wing...play defense... lol

Originally posted by hawkiye
Sigh!! Nowhere in any of the links posted has Rand Paul said he will ban "ALL" earmarks All he has said including the pledge he signed is that he seeks to ban "Wastetful" or "Pork" earmarks. There is a significant difference between that and banning them altogether.

Yes...because clearly any earmarks he likes is not wasteful...but any that doesn't effect his district is clearly pork and wasteful.

ahh a black and white world...now nice. and here I thought it was the old addage, one persons trash is another person's treasure.


dude...earmarks is -why- we have congressmen...we give taxes, then the congressmen go and try to spend it responsibly for whatever their district needs from the fed....the whole "I will cut wasteful earmarks and pork" is a gimmick...a bit like a doctor saying he still stop treatments as it eats away at hospital money..


nevermind...just..freaking nevermind...USA USA USA drill baby drill!. ya, there is a simplistic feeling about that...

Originally posted by hawkiye
The stupidity in this thread is monumental.

So true, but you have to understand, there are people here who will jump at any opportunity to discredit the TPM, no matter how lame, and this thread is nothing more than an excuse to do so.

The Obamabots are rabid about the fact that the last election was undeniable proof that the majority of this country believes that the Democrats have been an unmitigated disaster for this country (not that I like the Republicans much more, mind you) and like all good Democrats they will whine about their loss until the next election.

reply to post by maybereal11


So he has violated the terms of his employment agreement.
When are WE THE PEOPLE going to fire him?????
I'm curious if we're going to continue letting one of our employees lie to us or if we're going to let him go !

Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign.

www.randpaul2010.com...

I dont know that all earmarks are wasteful.

At this point nothing has happened. I understand the burning desire of the establishment to attack and smear, but the newly elected representatives have yet to be sworn in...

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Wrong sorry. He was misquoted.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

How'd ya'll miss this?

Link has video of Paul responding to this.

Watched his rebuttal video....BS ...he is changing the definition of earmarks

He is BSing you folks. Listen carefully.

Here is what he says in the rebuttal video..

"I am opposed to Earmarks and I won't use earmarks as a senator"

Then he immediately says "I think the Appropriations process should go through Committee and I have said that I will advocate for Kentucky within the context of the Committee Process"

From Wikipedia on Earmarks..

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").

Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks. Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise might not vote for.

en.wikipedia.org...(politics)

This is precisely why the WSJ reporter interpreted the comments as reversal on his position on earmarks.

Because the Political correspondent at the WSJ journal understands that what Rand is talking about is EARMARKS...Yes they are via Committee but they are earmarks all the same. NO PUBLIC SCRUTINY...STUCK INTO A BILL WITHOUT DEBATE.

Kudo's to Rand..get caught in your BS...just change the definition of Earmarks.

Do you know the vast majority of Earmarks are inserted into bills precisely in the manner in which Rand Paul says he will do for Kentucky?

"The Hill" which exclusively covers congress and understands our political process well was one of the few news outlets politically savvy enough to point out that Rand had pulled a fast one...though they went gentle with him.

Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pushed back Tuesday night on reports that he is no longer opposed to earmarks, adding that he would "advocate for Kentucky though the committee process within the context of a balanced budget."

"I will not put earmarks on bills but I will advocate for things Kentucky needs through the committee process when we deliberate on what are the most important projects. But that's not earmarking and I won't do earmarking," Paul told CNN's Wolf Blizter tonight.

That leaves Paul walking a very fine line on spending and earmarks. Although some earmarks are added to unrelated legislation, most are pushed through the appropriations committee, where Paul says he would "advocate" for Kentucky.

thehill.com...

In the end Rand has left his supporters an out so they can still feel good about their choice.
He is just asking them to knuckle down and change the actual definition of Earmarks.
Take your medicine like a good sheep.

I saw this coming from a mile away.

Anyone here remember the old Uncle Remus stories, with Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, Brer Bear and so forth? If so, do you remember the tar baby and the briar patch? The republicans were brer rabbit. The voters were brer fox. The tar baby was the 2000 and 2002 elections, when republicans were put into power across the board. As the story went, brer rabbit got caught in the tar baby. When brer fox came out to finally get rid of him, brer rabbit saw the briar patch where he grew up. The tea party is the briar patch in this analysis. Brer rabbit used reverse psychology to trick brer fox into throwing him the briar patch, by begging him not to. That's what happened when the "establishment" republicans were adamantly against the so-called tea party. Notice the ticket the so-called tea party candidates were running on. The "establishment" republicans begged and begged voters not to vote for the tea party in the primary, just like brer rabbit begged not to be thrown in the briar patch. Sure enough, tea party candidates won, just like brer fox threw brer rabbit into the briar patch.

Now if you look at what Paul is saying, is it any different than what McCain and Palin said after there were "no more pork!" chants at their rallies, when they were called on to address their support of pork, what did they say? Wasn't it something about transparency in pork? In other words, just a lot of BS to explain why they campaigned on something they never believed in in the first place.

People do not want to admit they were duped and taken for fools, believing lies spewed from the mouths of politicians. That's why the people who voted for Barack Obama believing he really would change the way things are done are so reluctant to admit he's not that much different from George Bush. It's also why the people who were so pro- tea party will not admit that Rand Paul was flat out lying during his campaign when he talked about pork project spending, just like McCain and Palin did. Wake up guys, the republican national committee noticed how popular that rhetoric was during the '08 general election and used it as a focal point of their platform in the '10 midterm general.

While the tea party may have been started by people genuinely fed up with reps and dems, it was overtaken by the reps and used as a way to hide their label and the dissatisfaction associated with it and get themselves back into power in Washington. Voters once again fell for the rhetoric, and when faced with the fact that they were duped, will deny it and twist and spin words to avoid the embarrassment of admitting they were fooled again. It's not exclusive to voters from either party nor to independents. All groups have fell victim to it.

He is NOT even in office yet, and the media is telling us what he has said, instead of showing VIDEO. Hmmm?

And here is the pledge that Rand Paul "the candidate" signed.

I have highlighted the terms violated by his new definition ....that earmarks during committee are not actually earmarks..

No Pork Pledge
www.ccagw.org

I, __________________, pledge to the constituents of the state of______________
and to the American people that I will not request any pork-barrel earmark, which
is defined as meeting one of the following criteria:

􀂃 Requested by only one chamber of Congress
􀂃 Not specifically authorized
􀂃 Not competitively awarded
􀂃 Not requested by the President
􀂃 Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s
funding
􀂃 Not the subject of congressional hearings
􀂃 Serves only a local or special interest
________________________________ ________________________
Member of Congress/Candidate Date

www.cagw.org...

His name is right there on the list of folks who signed it and his campaign touted this fact.
www.cagw.org...

For the love of god...he signed the pledge. What he describes about inserting the request during Committee is EXACTLY what the majority of earmarks are...he is just asking folks to redefine earmarks to accomodate his flip on the issue.

THE PLEDGE HE SIGNED DEFINED WHAT EARMARKS ARE TO AVOID POLITICIANS DOING EXACTLY WHAT RAND HAS DONE...CHANGE THE DEFINITION.

HE HAS BROKEN HIS WORD.

reply to post by maybereal11


REALLY?

You just stated he has broken his word.

Can you show me EXACTLY where he has broken his word?

I will be waiting.............................................................................................................................................
Since he is not even IN THE CONGRESS YET!

Originally posted by civilchallenger
Basically, earmarks are a minor issue in the scheme of things.

A broken promise is a broken promise. Breaking 'minor' promises (and I don't think earmarks are minor) just means that the person isn't as trustworthy as he/she should be. If you can't trust them in small things, then you certainly can't trust them in larger things.

If it's true then
BAD Rand Paul .. bad bad Rand Paul ... (*hitting him on the nose with a rolled up cyber news paper)

Side note ... I'm sure hell has frozen over.
I'm once again agreeing with maybereal11.
Oy ...

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by maybereal11

 

REALLY?

You just stated he has broken his word.

Can you show me EXACTLY where he has broken his word?

You are correct. He has not broken his word in action...

He has just repeatedly declared his intent to break his word. Both in the WSJ interview and his Wolf Blitzer interview trying to create a new definition of earmarks. In both instances he specified he would ask for funds for Kentucky during the committee process...which is the exact definition of Earmarks.

His description of what he said he will do violates almost every term of the pledge he signed concerning not asking for Earmarks.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

I usually agree with ya' but ... we both know that the Wall Street Journal is pretty good when it comes to reporting. (unlike the New York Times, etc). The Wall Street Journal usually gets it right and if they say he has flipped then it's a good bet that he probably has.

reply to post by FlyersFan


If Rand Paul turns away from fiscal policy, I will be the first and foremost person out there denigrating him.

I will have to watch video in regards to this before I make a decision on what folks are saying.

If I am wrong, I will be back to ask forgiveness and ADMIT my mistake, problem is, I do not trust anything but the words from the mouths anymore. Will now look for video on the thread to confirm or deny the allegations.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
problem is, I do not trust anything but the words from the mouths anymore.

That's not a 'problem'. That's being smart. I hear ya'.

Will now look for video on the thread to confirm or deny the allegations.

Excellent! IF this is true - and by the looks of it so far it is - it's very disappointing.
I'd love for you to be able to find information to clear Rand Paul.
I'm just thinking it isn't going to happen.
I've gotta' stop getting my hopes up. (and that applys to everything - not just politicians)
I ALWAYS get my hopes stepped on. Always. UGH.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


The video is at the top of my post on this page..

Along with what he says...

A defintion of Earmarks...per Wikipedia that shows he is talking about earmarks..
The WSJ said he was talking about Earmarks and that is the definition of Earmarks..
The Hill says that is the definition of Earmarks and he is talking about asking for earmarks..
The Pledge he signed defines Earmarks as what he says he will ask for..

As a matter of fact the vast majority of Earmarks are obtained via committee in precisely the manner he describes, he has just decided not to call them Earmarks...which has most politico's and journalists scratching thier head. BUT even if we afford him the luxury of changing the definition...what he describes still violates his pledge which I posted on this page.

click here...video link at the top of post
post by maybereal11

Originally posted by vagrantuterus
Should have elected Ru Paul.

I couldn't agree more! Rand Paul is a disaster.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Side note ... I'm sure hell has frozen over.
I'm once again agreeing with maybereal11.
Oy ...

And hell freezes over again as FF gets a star from BH. I appreciate your integrity.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

I watched the CNN video provided. Rand Paul's quote from the OPs video -

"I never, ever said I would earmark and I will not use the earmark," Paul said in an interview with CNN lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room. "No matter what the Republican Caucus says or what anybody does, I will not put earmarks on bill."

I read Drudge and the Wall Street Journal quotes. Rand Paul says he was misquoted. It does happen.
BUT ... what he says after saying he won't use earmarks ....
Kinda makes me wonder if he understands earmarks, or if he's just covering for what he said.
Or maybe he was punch-drunk or something when he made the (alleged) remarks to WSJ
and he really doesn't intend to use earmarks.

Who the heck knows. Crap ... now I've got a headache.