Rand Paul: I was against earmarks before I was for them....

[VaYank5150]

After he was elected Paul was asked by Cristiane Amanpour whether he would stand by his pledge to not pass earmarks. Paul stated plainly, "No -- no more earkmarks." When pressed further as to whether he would seek earmarks for his own state Paul stated, "No. No."

The next day Paul was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal (who has also experienced a rift with Sarah Palin recently). In his interview Paul seemed to change his tune on earmarks. Paul stated that he could see himself actually "advocating for Kentucky's interest" through the budget committee as long as it was done out in the open. The phrase "advocating for my state's interest" is the most common defense of every politician when they try to pass earmarks. When Paul was asked by The Wall Street Journal reporter (concerning the subject of earmarks) whether he would describe himself as a "crazy libertarian" Paul responded by saying "Not that crazy."

Rand Paul was against earmarks, then he was for them, and now he is against them - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[LiberalNut]

I LOVE this story. Love it.

Here's your tea party hero wingnuts. Has the right wing pundit army given you talking points yet?

 

[uscitizen]

Rand was the same way on AG subsidies while campaining in KY.
Someone told him most of his supporters were farmers
He was for them again.

I figure he is more politician than his father is.

 

[VaYank5150]

I LOVE this story. Love it.

Here's your tea party hero wingnuts. Has the right wing pundit army given you talking points yet?

I can't wait to hear the spin from the Tea Party loyalists on THIS one....

 

[LiberalNut]

The talking point is pretty obvious...

Since earmarks are a reality and Paul alone can't get rid of them...it just makes sense...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep following in his fathers footsteps.
The mouse that roared.
in the nation of Teastania.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Earmarks are just a way to get Congress to do anything. The only real way for any Congressperson to have interest in a comprehensive bill or a federal bill or anything that doesn't specifically cater to particular interests in his or her state is through getting some spending project they can then take credit for. In either case they barely make a dent in the deficit or in the overall spending of any particular bill. Its just the way Congress works. Is it shady and probably wasteful? That would seem to depend on the particular earmark, but sure, I can understand why people would be pissed off about them. Is it better than the alternative - ie. Congress does nothing - well, that remains to be seen. We will see how voters in particular states react to having a Congressperson openly refuse to "bring home the bacon." Could be good, could be bad.

But it's not going to solve either the recession or deficit problems in any way, so it's more of a sabre-rattling issue more than anything.

 

[VaYank5150]

Earmarks are just a way to get Congress to do anything. The only real way for any Congressperson to have interest in a comprehensive bill or a federal bill or anything that doesn't specifically cater to particular interests in his or her state is through getting some spending project they can then take credit for. In either case they barely make a dent in the deficit or in the overall spending of any particular bill. Its just the way Congress works. Is it shady and probably wasteful? That would seem to depend on the particular earmark, but sure, I can understand why people would be pissed off about them. Is it better than the alternative - ie. Congress does nothing - well, that remains to be seen. We will see how voters in particular states react to having a Congressperson openly refuse to "bring home the bacon." Could be good, could be bad.

But it's not going to solve either the recession or deficit problems in any way, so it's more of a sabre-rattling issue more than anything.

And this will aid the GOP's latest promise of TRANSPARENCY how, exactly? Or, are you all willing to give them a pass on that promise as well?

 

[LiberalNut]

it's more of a sabre-rattling issue more than anything.

Yup, but it's a sabre that the wingnuts rattle CONSTANTLY. Then the idiots they elect based on the sabre rattling bring home the pork as fast as they can.

But reality will not effect the wingnuts.

 

[uscitizen]

Reality often sucks, fantasy is more fun.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

And this will aid the GOP's latest promise of TRANSPARENCY how, exactly? Or, are you all willing to give them a pass on that promise as well?

Well, to be perfectly honest, if Republicans were to actually stop earmarks (unlikely in the long run, but somewhat likely for strategic reasons for the next 2 years anyway) one could make the case that it increases 'transparency' by making whatever bill Congress is voting on stand on its own national merits instead of garnering support from particular congresspeople through spending clauses that benefit financial interests in their state. Or that's what I would say, if I were a Republican.

As for 'giving them a pass,' I don't personally give a pass to either party. their supporters though, are obviously going to give them a pass on everything. And that goes for either party. The point it seems for most Americans (you could make the case for almost everywhere else too) they voted their party in again, and now they can go back home and sit down and shut the fuck up for the next 2 years. They'll say that the Republicans did everything they promised and that they're better than the Democrats and whatever, regardless of whether they do or don't take earmarks or do or not block Obama or do or not cut spending or anything.

it's more of a sabre-rattling issue more than anything.

Yup, but it's a sabre that the wingnuts rattle CONSTANTLY. Then the idiots they elect based on the sabre rattling bring home the pork as fast as they can.

But reality will not effect the wingnuts.

I think this is true, but it kind of goes for everybody. Whichever party isn't running the show always rattles against this sort of issue because its so easy to do - Earmarks are pretty perfect for federal systems because they're projects whose benefits are focused on a particular group and geographic region at the "expense" of everyone else. So everybody is pissed about them, even if many benefit (some probably more than others, depending on their representative's skill, I guess). But then neither party ever enforces anything they say, and of course as we see, their base stays home when they're in power twiddling their thumbs as just happened to the Democrats.

 

[Trajan]

I don't think any of you , so far have an idea what really, 'earmarks' are, how they are organized, funded etc....IF so, I think you'd re read what Rand said and realize he is exactly right.

 

[VaYank5150]

So, you are in agreement then, that the GOP's new promises of transparency, cutting spending and eliminating earmarks are basically bulshit used to get them elected by the weak minded GOP and Tea Party people....GOOD SHOW!

 

[VaYank5150]

I don't think any of you , so far have an idea what really, 'earmarks' are, how they are organized, funded etc....IF so, I think you'd re read what Rand said and realize he is exactly right.

In layman's terms, "earmarks" are funding for programs hidden within a piece of legislation that more than likely has nothing do with the original piece of legislation. Close enough?

 

[Samson]

I'll wait to see how he votes.

Libs are trying to desperately make some post election hay, interpreting comments...

I suppose they need something to keep themselves busy as their Titanic Sinks.

 

[VaYank5150]

I'll wait to see how he votes.

Libs are trying to desperately make some post election hay, interpreting comments...

I suppose they need something to keep themselves busy as their Titanic Sinks.

I'm sorry...how do YOU "interpret" Rand Paul's words:

Paul stated that he could see himself actually "advocating for Kentucky's interest" through the budget committee as long as it was done out in the open. The phrase "advocating for my state's interest" is the most common defense of every politician when they try to pass earmarks.

 

[Trajan]

I'll wait to see how he votes.

Libs are trying to desperately make some post election hay, interpreting comments...

I suppose they need something to keep themselves busy as their Titanic Sinks.

re-arranging deck chairs never keeps one busy for long ......

 

[Samson]

I'll wait to see how he votes.

Libs are trying to desperately make some post election hay, interpreting comments...

I suppose they need something to keep themselves busy as their Titanic Sinks.

re-arranging deck chairs never keeps one busy for long ......

You'll cause them to riot. These people have just experienced the most massive rejection of a political ideaology in DECADES.



Please, let them amuse themselves with hypotheticals.

Here, I'll help:

"It was Bush's Fault."


****Now watch how happy they become****

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No where did he say anything about being suddenly for earmarks, and he later clarified that his position is still against them.

 

[VaYank5150]

No where did he say anything about being suddenly for earmarks, and he later clarified that his position is still against them.

Are you new to politics? Do you NOT understand what "advocating for Kentucky's interest" means in politics?

Paul stated that he could see himself actually "advocating for Kentucky's interest" through the budget committee as long as it was done out in the open. The phrase "advocating for my state's interest" is the most common defense of every politician when they try to pass earmarks.