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

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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."

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.

I went out of my way to research what he was saying as far as his intent to request funds in Committee for KY and that is what an earmark is. That is why the WSJ called it that way...that is why "The Hill" said the same. The vast Majority of Earmarks are obtained via Committe. The very "no earmark" pledge he signed is violated in almost every term of thier definition.

I read his statement as..."I will never, ever, hit my children. I have always said that! you have my word" "I will however when warranted, clench my fingers into a semi-tight fist and make contact with them at a high velocity"
"but NO I will never hit my children...never have and never will"

Overly dramatic example I know...but you get the idea.

Well, then, that's it. End of discussion. Rand Paul has a fatal flaw and must be expelled from the congress immediately.

He has gone overboard and committed a mortal sin.. He has done what no other politician has ever done - especially the one that is held to be the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama - he has reneged on a campaign promise. And there is absolutely no doubt as to his intentions...he did it only to win the election.

Therefore, all of his previous life's accomplishments must be cast away. As one member wrote, "I couldn't agree more! Rand Paul is a disaster. "

A disaster is putting it mildly. Rand Paul has lost all right to walk among the halls of Congress. Further punishment will be decided by our authorities.

Meanwhile, we can all agree that the TPM has shown to be nothing more than a hollow shell of lies. It is time to foresake them. Now we should bow to our opponents. Time to lick their boots as a gesture of defeat.

My God, how did this demon pull the wool over our eyes long enough to get elected? :shk:

Originally posted by mishigas
As one member wrote, "I couldn't agree more! Rand Paul is a disaster. "

IMO, he was a disaster before he flipped on earmarks (which I have nothing against) and he was a disaster before he won the election. My comment doesn't have to do with this particular event, just a general opinion of him ever since I read about his political opinions.

Originally posted by mishigas
Well, then, that's it. End of discussion. Rand Paul has a fatal flaw and must be expelled from the congress immediately.

He has gone overboard and committed a mortal sin.. He has done what no other politician has ever done - especially the one that is held to be the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama - he has reneged on a campaign promise. And there is absolutely no doubt as to his intentions...he did it only to win the election.

Therefore, all of his previous life's accomplishments must be cast away. As one member wrote, "I couldn't agree more! Rand Paul is a disaster. "

I don't think Rand Paul should be kicked out of the Senate.

I do think that all the rhetoric of him being a new kind of politician can cease though.

And I think that it takes special kind of opportunist to actually sign a pledge for an endorsement during a campaign and then immediately declare his intent to break that pledge before he is even sworn in.

It's OK for him to lie to get elected because he is GOP or TP? I think that attitude doesn't do anyone in this country right, left or whatever..any good what-so-ever.

Alright, just got done watching a lot of video. Hope I did not screw up my encoding that my computer was doing.

So far, we have conflicting statements.

I wonder if Rand is using the thing I brought up about a year and a half ago. He will back spending that is only spending. Meaning that a spending bill that is specifically for spending. Not bills that have riders to cover those that vote for the bill.

Personally, I think ALL bills should be one component oriented. You have a health care bill, it is about health care. You have a financial regulation bill, it is about financial regulation. Not the crap we have had over the last 30 years where we have 50 riders on a save the children type bill.

Anyway, the proof so to speak will be in the pudding. If he is just another pawn in the field of pawns, we need to neuter him just like all the rest.

BUT, from what I discerned from the videos, he was taken out of context. That is why I want to hear the EXACT transcript or video, not the perception that the supposed reporter comes away with.

I am not alone in my read on what Rand Paul said to both the WSJ and CNN...Even outlets on the right are speaking up.

The National Review
Is Rand Paul Already Selling Out

Leading up to the election, Paul was adamant about killing pork-barrel spending, says Veronique de Rugy in National Review. So I'm taken aback by how quickly he's "selling out." Even if you look at his comments charitably, he's still promising to send federal money back home "to buy state and local goodies," which is hardly "in line with my dream of going back to true fiscal federalism."

theweek.com...

Maybe Ron Paul should smack his son around a little bit. WTF rand... My gf gave him some mula for his election seat. What a pos.

reply to post by maybereal11


You are using interpretations of someone's words as what someone states. Disingenuous.

Funny how the guy that is all about government spending is being attacked as being a spender, even though he has never even voted for ANYTHING YET.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by maybereal11

 

You are using interpretations of someone's words as what someone states. Disingenuous.

Funny how the guy that is all about government spending is being attacked as being a spender, even though he has never even voted for ANYTHING YET.

I am unsure what else there is to go by beyond what he says he is planning to do? And he has said twice now that he will ask for Earmarks for KY...though he doesn't want to call them that.

I am with you...let's see his actions in vote. I have no idea why he would say he would ask for them (twice) and then not....

Sidenote: Jim Demint has moved the "Earrmark Ban" vote to this upcomming Tuesday, but for anyone looking for transparency and hoping to see the GOP do as they once promised...prepare to be dissapointed, it's scheduled as a secret vote...we will not be able to tell who voted for or against it.

Otherwise...no earmark ban.

The TP candidates have now been fully assimilated by the GOP...and yes, I am hoping I am wrong. But every bit of early news is leading that way.

I am not sure if this young lady is a member of the tea Party but, I feel quite sure if Rand Paul where to be judged not satisfactory for the Senate seat she could easily replace him.

They seem to be speaking with but a single mind. I am sure most of you will agree.

www.break.com...

Now that she has fixed the California economy, maybe she could be encouraged to help with the national job.

Obama is the one using the earmarks after saying he wouldn't! All Rand Paul said was that he would push for the money during the current system, he doesn't say he is for them but HE can't change the corrupt system by himself! wake up!

Anybody who attacks Rand or Ron Paul who are the ONLY ones who want to ABOLISH the private bank called Federal Reserve is a traitor to the Republic. All your tax money goes to the Rothschilds right now and NONE of it goes to fix the country. Ron and Rand Paul are the only ones in Congress exposing this FACT! But of course you don't talk about this, you just try to attack this great Patriot. I guess you like being a slave to the bankers OR you are a FED that wants the Federal Reserve slavery system to continue.

reply to post by maybereal11


Originally posted by mishigas

Well, then, that's it. End of discussion. Rand Paul has a fatal flaw and must be expelled from the congress immediately.

He has gone overboard and committed a mortal sin.. He has done what no other politician has ever done - especially the one that is held to be the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama - he has reneged on a campaign promise. And there is absolutely no doubt as to his intentions...he did it only to win the election.

Therefore, all of his previous life's accomplishments must be cast away. As one member wrote, "I couldn't agree more! Rand Paul is a disaster. "

I don't think Rand Paul should be kicked out of the Senate.

I do think that all the rhetoric of him being a new kind of politician can cease though.

You better create another two dozen attack posts against him to make sure you get your point across.

And I think that it takes special kind of opportunist to actually sign a pledge for an endorsement during a campaign and then immediately declare his intent to break that pledge before he is even sworn in.

"Special kind of opportunist". Another slap at a man in his job for one week.

While you're at it, here's your leader with just one of his unkept campaign promises:



I guess if you cite Justice Brandeis it lends plausibilty to your lies...

It's OK for him to lie to get elected because he is GOP or TP? I think that attitude doesn't do anyone in this country right, left or whatever..any good what-so-ever.

You totally missed the point, didn't you? I was addressing those in this thread who have condemned the TPM because of what Rand said/did (allegedly). Showing how silly and illogical their attack on the TPM was. You want to defend that?

Btw, there is no 'TP', for the hundredth time.

I almost wasn't going to respond, but given it is my OP I think I am obligated.

Originally posted by GlennCanady
Obama is the one using the earmarks after saying he wouldn't!

"Obama" is the President of the United States, not a Senator or Congressman. He does not have the opportunity to use earmarks.

All Rand Paul said was that he would push for the money during the current system, he doesn't say he is for them but HE can't change the corrupt system by himself! wake up!

My issue is not on the validity of his current stance, but the dramatic about face that it represents when compared to the campaign pledge and rhetoric that got him elected.

Anybody who attacks Rand or Ron Paul who are the ONLY ones who want to ABOLISH the private bank called Federal Reserve is a traitor to the Republic.

That sounds kind of facist of you...should I expect to be hauled off for questioning Rand Paul?

Rand also said in the WSJ interview that he had no plans on abolishing the Fed...sorry.

All your tax money goes to the Rothschilds right now and NONE of it goes to fix the country. Ron and Rand Paul are the only ones in Congress exposing this FACT! But of course you don't talk about this, you just try to attack this great Patriot. I guess you like being a slave to the bankers OR you are a FED that wants the Federal Reserve slavery system to continue.

I have a question. If we abolish the Federal Reserve, the Fed. Gov. still needs a bank? Right? Is the idea to hand over the accounts of the Federal Gov. to private bankers? Reform the Fed? ok..Abolish...hmmm

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mishigas
As one member wrote, "I couldn't agree more! Rand Paul is a disaster. "

IMO, he was a disaster before he flipped on earmarks (which I have nothing against) and he was a disaster before he won the election. My comment doesn't have to do with this particular event, just a general opinion of him ever since I read about his political opinions.

Oh, was it you that said that? In that case, mea culpa. You'd never judge a person based upon his//her stated political leanings.

I musta thought someone else.

Eh.. I don't think he has changed his stance, I don't think he's twisting the definition. I think it was a small instance of misquote or being misspoken and the liberal media taking it as far as possible. BTW i'm in no way a republican, had he been a dem and was misquoted fox news would be dragging it out. I actually think this is something he stands for as it isn't what got him elected so he wouldn't lie about it (actually most people, including his father are fond of earmarks, why would my fellow Kentuckians be upset if they senator was using earmarks to gain more funding for their state) he isn't flipping, it's not a big deal.

Originally posted by mishigas
"Special kind of opportunist". Another slap at a man in his job for one week.

It's OK for him to lie to get elected because he is GOP or TP? I think that attitude doesn't do anyone in this country right, left or whatever..any good what-so-ever.

You totally missed the point, didn't you? I was addressing those in this thread who have condemned the TPM because of what Rand said/did (allegedly). Showing how silly and illogical their attack on the TPM was. You want to defend that?

Btw, there is no 'TP', for the hundredth time.

I'll skip the Pres. Obama bit since it is distraction, but will note that you are correct, he broke that promise.

I will also acknowledge that Rand Paul is not the Tea Party in it's entirety, but he sure was a hero of thiers.

I oppose the Tea Party Social agenda, the rhetoric on immigration and the general ignorance that I saw at some of the rallies....THAT SAID one of the few things that I appreciated about the TPM was it's call for Fiscal Conservatism...and I see that one ray of hope being abandoned quickly, so this really irked me seeing Rand Paul flip on the issue.

add to that...the "secret" vote on banning earmarks that is scheduled for Tuesday...where who votes for or against will be kept secret...which leads me to believe it is a political stunt and will not pass.

add to that that Mitch McConnel and John Boehner have already made it clear that they will not cut military spending (23% of budget)

What you have left in the form of Fiscal Conservatism is political BS...Every time you see the GOP talk about eliminating some program over the next two years...be sure to do the math...last time I checked most of what was on thier hit list totaled all together less than .005 of 1 percent of the national budget.

The GOP went public earlier this week saying they would oppose any plans for withdrawl from Afghanistan and want a harder line taken with Iran!

Absent earmarks, military spending, SS and Medicare....What is left that will actually effect budget?

Before you answer...figure out the annual budget for that item and divide by 3.5 Trillion.

Short of the TPM actually being able to effect spending...then what is left is all the idealogical, religious, often intolerant BS...and I am not interested and I doubt the rest of the country will be either come 2012.

Fiscal Conservatism and his pledge to not use earmarks were the ONLY things I found redeeming about Rand Paul....and that is out the window.

reply to post by maybereal11


Just gotta love those flip-flops.

Was Paul just naive? Or does this flip-flop result from informed pre-election lying aka positioning?

reply to post by soficrow


Well he signed a pledge during the campaign…I have highlighted which items he will immediately violate if he follows through with his intention of “advocating for KY in the Committee process” aka “EARMARKS”

He has actually said this twice now...once to the WSJ and once to CNN when he was trying to rebut the WSJ.

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...

Not only did he sign it, his campaign made good use of it in press releases and with the TPM to secure their endorsement.

So back to your original question…Did he know during the campaign that he was going to flip? I think so, but just my opinion.

This is no surprise. You will see this type of thing from any tea party candidate who manages to get elected. Once they get elected the Republican party will sit them down and explain to them who is running the show.

reply to post by maybereal11

I'll skip the Pres. Obama bit since it is distraction, but will note that you are correct, he broke that promise.

Oh, I have tons of broken promises and lies from Obama. I'd be happy to supply them, if you want.

I will also acknowledge that Rand Paul is not the Tea Party in it's entirety, but he sure was a hero of theirs.

And Obama was certainly a hero of the Democrats, wouldn't you agree?

The point is, maybereal, I don't remember you writing dozens of attack pieces on every single lie and broken promise committed by Obama or the Democrats. But you sure are throwing the book at Rand Paul in this one overcooked, excessive, regurgitated thread.

Why is that? Don't you think you should spend as much time and energy criticizing Obama and the other Democrats, if only in the interest of fairness? Otherwise, it may appear that you are being hypocritical, and denying ignorance. You even managed to make one of the staunchest conservatives on this board concede to you at least twice, He/she has even apparently thrown Rand Paul under the bus, since RPcannot be trusted with larger things because he failed at this. :shk: Don't you think you've beaten this dead horse quite enough?