Rand Paul already breaking campaign promise
 

BEFORE being elected.

"Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign," Paul's campaign wrote on his website. "He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint?s vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban."
?The Tea Party movement is an effort to get government under control,? Paul is quoted as saying on his site. ?I?m running to represent Kentuckians and to dismantle the culture of professional politicians in Washington. Leadership isn?t photo-ops with oversized fake cardboard checks. That kind of thinking is bankrupting our nation. Senator DeMint understands that and has taken action to stop it.?

AFTER being elected.

In an interview published over the weekend with the Wall Street Journal, Paul signaled a major backtrack on a core campaign promise: cutting federal earmarks. The promise is a hallmark of Republican candidates of all stripes, who advocate that a smaller government is in the national interest and that money doled out for special progress is tantamount to backroom dealing.

"In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, 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

I saw him being interviewed just a couple of days ago and he said just the opposite so I suspect the article is not an accurate quote.

This is consistent with what his father has done for years. He will put the earmarks in the bill but vote against it. If the government is going to give out taxpayer money his constituents should get some of their money back too.

You really should try obtaining your news from another source. This article smells of "agenda" and you clearly seem too unintelligent to discern propaganda from real news. It would be interesting to see the link from where this steaming tender nugget is stinking up the web.

sauce ?

op stated it was from the wsj interview, pretty easy to dig it up

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...661943738.html

He broke his promises while campagining. He said he would not accept any campaign money from any politician who voted for the bank bailout. After winning the primary he then went to DC where McConnell threw him a $1,000 per plate dinner to help him raise money. BTW McConnell voted for the bailout. He justified this switch in position by saying that his hardline stance was mostly for the primaries, but now that he had won the primary election he felt his message had gotten across.

Translation: It takes a lot of money to win a senatorial campaign and he was unable to raise it on his own so he changed his position and took the money.

Sums up pretty much every politician ever.

Now that I have read the article...it is very similar to what he stated in the interview that I saw. Which is to say that he is not adverse to spending money in his state as long as it is approved via the appropriate committee and is for something that the state actually needs.

Who the hell would be dumb enough to take GatorB seriously?

Who here is surprised. Anyone? Anyone? No one. Moving on.

Guilty as charged:Oh crap Sometimes I don't read who started the thread before I open.

In an interview published over the weekend with the Wall Street Journal

So you are suggesting that the WSJ is not a valid source?

He UNEQUIVOCALLY said when he was running that he would say NO to earmarks and pork. Now earmarks nad pork are not so bad as long as they are for KY. Well guess what, ther are 49 other states that have Senators that feels the same way. So exactly do you stop earmarks and pork with that attitude? At same point someone has the first to say "hey thanks, but no thanks. I'm taking a stand on earmarks and pork even if it means no money for my state."

This is the problem with the whole teabagger movement. It's everyone else's pork which is causing the problem. Their own pork is just fine and is deserved and needed. This is just like all those older teabaggers railing against goverment handouts and so called government healthcare while they themsleves are collecting social security and medicare.

And your savior admitted he did essentially the same thing, so what?

Post a link to a video of him "unequivocally" stating that he would say "no" to earmarks and pork. Or at the least a link to a source with him making said statement.

Ayn Rand Paul :1orglaugh

The demotards just can't come to grips that they got their ass kicked.. Just more demotard garbage. BTW, I heard the head demotard pelosi just got a job as a fry cook at tgi fridays... just sayn....

Actually I'm not a democrat. I am however a former republican. Oh and how do you like the neg rep I gave you douchebag? please continue to be stupid.

ooooh . . . . neg rep . . . . scary. Fucking idiot.

?The American People are tired of politics as usual and are demanding fundamental reform that ends the overspending and rampant political patronage we see throughout Washington.

?As part of my commitment to this effort, I will not submit Earmarks and will vote against all Earmarks. Also, one of the first pieces of Legislation I introduce will be a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Since there have been erroneous media reports on the subject in recent days, I wanted to be sure to correct the record. I will never Earmark. Period.

?In fact, I am joining Senators DeMint, Coburn, Toomey, Rubio, Lee and others in asking for a GOP caucus vote next week on banning earmarks entirely.

?I am very encouraged that the Senate GOP Conference will vote next week on this caucus-wide agreement to ban Earmarks as well as commit to passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.

?The fact that these votes are happening next week is powerful evidence that the TEA Party message is coming with full force to Washington. Ending Earmarks and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment are two key parts to the fundamental reform Americans are demanding, and I will never waiver in my commitment to fight for these and other crucial solutions to out-of-control Government spending and debt.?

Rand Paul for US Senate


The above is what he stated prior to being elected. So the current article does seem to be at odds with the above.

When do you know that a politician is lying ????

when you see his lips moving .

:1orglaugh Thats funny. :1orglaugh

As if I care about neg rep... BTW is that you in your avatar... :thumbsup

Here's the great thing about politicians and the stupid masses...

He says he'll put forward a ban on earmarks. The masses eat it up. But it has no chance at suceeding so it's a safe campaign promise while keeping everything the same. Then he can say "well I tried"... The masses will forgive him and think he's a great guy for trying.

He says he won't put forward any earmarks and won't vote for them. But clearly from his interview, what he defines as an earmark is not necessarily what the masses view as an earmark. So he can campaign on no earmarks and then do as he wishes and spin it when the next election comes around. Some will see it his way, others won't.

End result, between the two stances, he'll be able to keep most of his support because the masses are morons.

Bottom line, he's a politician like any other and those that think otherwise are deluding themselves.

Another angle of the spin is when someone like Rand or Ron Paul puts an earmark on a bill he is doing so for the good of his state. But if Nancy Pelosi does the same thing, she is a pork obsessed tax and spend liberal.

The plain fact is that Paul not putting the earmarks in the bill only hurts his constituents. The change has to come legislatively and it least he is talking the issue. The rules of the game must be changed... it's just going to take more than a few of these guys to get it done. But I have little faith in the collective American attention span. I am sure everyone feels they have done their part by voting and will forget how truly fucked up the system is currently.

Valid source. I dont agree with the opinion but I do retract my comment.

Exactly right. If money is not earmarked it does not mean that it is not spent. It usually means the executive branch decides where to spend it. Eliminating earmarks would not cut spending even one dollar.

So many misquotes and twisting of the mans words its funny. How can he break a campaign promise before he is even sworn in? LOL

He made it very clear that promise was for the PRIMARY. Selective deafness is an ability the press has perfected with Rand.

Which part of Politician do you guys not understand?? Honestly. Find 1 that has not done the same thing. they all lie. Its about getting paid and nothing more.

When has ANY politician kept their word EVER?!?

he's a politician. all politicans are scum. that's why they get into that occupation. because they are good at lying, fucking over people and enriching themselves and their family/friends.

I think Mitch must have taken Rand under his wing. McConnell is well known as a king of earmarks

our dogcatchers will pick up stray dogs and cats if you catch them and hold them for a couple days for them (I so wish this was a joke)

First his constituents elected him to cut out the pork. But if he doesn't give them THEIR pork then he's doing a bad job? That attitude will reduce pork by ZERO. As I said everyone thing their own pork isn't pork and it's everyone else's pork that needs to be cut. That attitude won't work.

And as far as him talking about it, well this isn't new they've been talking about reducing pork FOREVER.

He also talks about term limits. I wonder if he plans on running for re-election in 2016? I bet he does. And if he wins then I'll bet he runs again in 2022.

First of all, he was largely misquoted.

Second of all, how does not making earmarks cut the pork?

As pointed out earlier, he isn't even in office yet.

:2 cents:

If you rhink any of these guys are pure your kidding yourself.if you look at the past republicans say they are going to cut big spending and big government and they do the opposite.

You like using the word pork, but I dont think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. Earmarks direct money already appropriated by congress to specific purposes. Earmarks are NOT necessarily pork. But it has been bastardized by our system as a way to trade favors(earmarks) for votes(and maybe congressional pages or cocaine). If Paul did not try to get TAX money back into his state he would be derelict in his duty to the people of Kentucky.
No, he is talking about wasteful spending and spending not defined in the constitution. I am not sure you know this, but one of congress' jobs is to appropriate the federal budget.
I happen to agree with him. Career politicians are one of the main reasons we find ourselves in the position we are in today. You could be right, I do not have a crystal ball. But I think he has his eye on a bigger prize in 2012-2016. I don't know much about the younger Paul, but I know the father is the real deal.