Big surprise! WSJ’s mention of Rand Paul’s supposed flip-flop on earmarks was brazen disinfo

www.prisonplanet.com...

This is what the article said

he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.

And here is what he actually said

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn’t do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process.

So do you expect an apology or just the usually smear tactics?

good eye op, my god it was amazing how so many new accounts jumped on the bandwagon to discredit paul.
I just hope one day all can see there are still a few good apples in the batch of bad

The WSJ writer also changed the story up a bit and acknowledged that there was some discrepancy although he still stands by his story

online.wsj.com...

Come on people. Star and flag this one! We need it to be just as popular as the flip-flop lie!

Lord this is getting mind numbing...

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)


You know why the Wall Street Reporter said Rand was going to ask for Earmarks??

Because that is exactly what he said to the WSJ reporter...

Rand Quote from WSJ:

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that's the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let's go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that's not wide enough? Let's use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you're powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

Here he says he would GRANT earmarks as well……

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee,

Okay this is where you say…HE WAS MISQUOTED…Well Here he is saying the same thing to ABC..

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.

OKAY this is where you say…Maybe ABC misquoted him too…Well here is the video of him on cnn saying AGAIN.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

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"

Again 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)

I am not alone in my read on what Rand Paul said to both the WSJ and CNN and ABC...Even outlets on the right are speaking up….not just the WSJ. Also "The Hill" has said the same...And the National Review..The Weekly...anyone that actually knows what an earmarks is!!

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...

EACH TIME HE HAS SAID HE WON’T ASK FOR EARMARKS AND THEN GOES ON TO DESCRIBE HOW HE WILL ASK FOR EARMARKS.

HE WANTS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF EARMARKS TO AFFORD HIM THE LUXURY OF FLIPPING ON THE ISSUE.

ALSO...People's BS meter should start going off when someone asks you to include the conservative WSJ as part of the "Liberal Media"...plus "The Hill", "The Weekly Standard" etc....seriously?

What is said here isn't flip-flopping. Our roads are in desperate need of repair. I don't have a problem with transportation earmarks meant for road repair/reconstruction... as long as it is NEEDED.

We have a bridge close to here that WAS part of a main thorough fair. The bridge was closed and a new one was started. Then we ran out of money. The poor people that live on the other side of the bridge now have to go almost an hour out of their way to get anywhere near here now.
We need an earmark for that.

Now... research to try and make a better, stronger chicken or for a new steamboat... THOSE I have a problem with.

reply to post by sisgood


I don't have an issue with Earmarks...some are wasteful and should be stopped though.

I don't even have an issue with Rand Paul's current position on earmarks.

I have an issue with him BSing to get elected. Plainly stating he will never ask for any earmark and then quickly changing his tune before he is even sworn in....and then BSing again saying he will ask for "funds in committee for KY"...and pretending that is not an earmark when 90% of all earmarks are exactly that...asked for and awarded in Committe without debate or public scrutiny.

I have issue with his honesty...not him asking for earmarks that might be needed.

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by sisgood

 

I don't have an issue with Earmarks...some are wasteful and should be stopped though.
I don't even have an issue with Rand Paul's current position on earmarks.
I have an issue with him BSing to get elected. Plainly stating he will never ask for any earmark and then quickly changing his tune before he is even sworn in....and then BSing again saying he will ask for "funds in committee for KY"...and pretending that is not an earmark when 90% of all earmarks are exactly that...asked for and awarded in Committe without debate or public scrutiny.

As most would expect, you have no idea what earmarks are and how they are doled out. Either that, or you deliberately blur the difference between legislation and pandering. More crap from a hyperbolic progressive agenda, no doubt.

Earmarks are essentially amendments to legislation that are not debated or presented in committee; they are tacked on to a bill that has already been vetted and voted on at committee level.

Paul staunchly believes in advocating for his constituents, but at the committee level, where bills are shaped and molded to fit a certain agenda that is open to discussion and disagreement. Earmarks never face such scrutiny.

It is people who are agenda-driven who force this false dichotomy where none exists.

Anyone who distorts the legislative process into an endorsement of earmarks either has no idea of the process, or is a deliberate shill for an opposition agenda.

Deny ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by sisgood

 

I don't have an issue with Earmarks...some are wasteful and should be stopped though.
I don't even have an issue with Rand Paul's current position on earmarks.
I have an issue with him BSing to get elected. Plainly stating he will never ask for any earmark and then quickly changing his tune before he is even sworn in....and then BSing again saying he will ask for "funds in committee for KY"...and pretending that is not an earmark when 90% of all earmarks are exactly that...asked for and awarded in Committe without debate or public scrutiny.

As most would expect, you have no idea what earmarks are and how they are doled out. Either that, or you deliberately blur the difference between legislation and pandering. More crap from a hyperbolic progressive agenda, no doubt.

Earmarks are essentially amendments to legislation that are not debated or presented in committee; they are tacked on to a bill that has already been vetted and voted on at committee level.

What I expected...simple BS. Say something, hope people believe it...don't support it.

You are claiming that Earmarks are line items that are not presented in committee...

When in fact MOST earmarks are attached during Committee..

I know it might be too much to ask...but actually read the post I gave on this very page...WITH A LINK to Wikipedia definition.

If that doesn't suffice look here...

www.legistorm.com...

or here to see the definition of an earmark according to the Pledge that "candidate" Rand Paul" signed, but has now said he will break...
www.cagw.org...

EARMARKS AWARDED IN COMMITTEE ARE NOT DEBATED BY CONGRESS...THE ARE NOT COMPETITIVELY BID...AND THEY GO TO A SINGULAR DISTRICT/LOCAL INTEREST

Remember that famous earmark for Alaska?...the Bridge to Nowhere? It was inserted in the Transportation bill IN COMMITEE...(specifically the Transportation Committee) by Rep. Young and Sen. Ted Stevens both of Alaska...just as Paul Describes he will do for Kentucky

Young was head of the Transportation Committe

Bridge to Nowhere..
www.usatoday.com...
articles.cnn.com...OLITICS
thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...

Here we go...see video here...he is talking about EARMARKS just like I said

online.wsj.com...