Senator-Elect Rand Paul Breaks Tea Party Pledge, Now Vows To ‘Fight’ For Earmarks

[^_^ 5,021]

Congressional earmarks has been one of the key targets of the Tea Party’s anti-spending fervor.

...

Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY), jumped on the anti-earmark bandwagon early, making “a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign” in March ... Paul vowed to “dismantle the culture of professional politicians” even if he “ruffled a lot of establishment feathers” while doing it.

But after joining the GOP flock on Election Day, Paul is singing a different tune. In a Wall Street Journal profile this weekend, Paul signaled an about-face on his earmark position, committing to “fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork.” After all, he’s “not that crazy” of a libertarian:

Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad’s talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. 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, 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.

So you’re not a crazy libertarian? “Not that crazy,” he cracks.

In entertaining the idea of earmarks, Paul is bucking one of his prominent supporters, Tea Party hero Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). DeMint has repeatedly made it clear that “he wants to ban all lawmakers’ requests for specific spending.” “We can’t have 500 congressmen and senators who think it’s their job to bring home the bacon and that’s what’s going to change,” he told CBS’s The Early Show last week.

...

If he’s already selling out his Tea Party pledges, as the conservative National Review suggests, Paul may be proving earmark-happy Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) sentiments correct: “they can be as ideological as they want before getting to Washington but will soon discover that things are quite different once inside of the beast.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/08/paul-earmarks-pledg/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not surprised.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The beast strikes again. Watch them all fall in line. Their corporate campaign contributors will demand their dues. It will be as it's always been - money talks.

[^_^ 5,021]

I have to admit, I'm shocked. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really believed the Tea Party people were going to stand strong on principle.

[scandal 951]

I have to admit, I'm shocked. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really believed the Tea Party people were going to stand strong on principle.

I don't believe it. Sure, he'll pick his battles and won't try to abolish the IRS or EPA on day 1. But I don't think he'll sell out so crassly so soon.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I really believed the Tea Party people were going to stand strong on principle.

You never really came across as a naïve guy. Until now, that is.

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't believe it ... I don't think he'll sell out so crassly so soon.

I guess time will tell. I am also finding this very hard to believe. The Tea Party movement struck me to one of true believers. Crazy nutjobs, but true believers, the kind you don't negotiate with or try to reason with. This news, if true, is shocking.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess time will tell. I am also finding this very hard to believe. The Tea Party movement struck me to one of true believers. Crazy nutjobs, but true believers, the kind you don't negotiate with or try to reason with. This news, if true, is shocking.

Change you can believe in.

[scandal 951]

I guess time will tell. I am also finding this very hard to believe. The Tea Party movement struck me to one of true believers. Crazy nutjobs, but true believers, the kind you don't negotiate with or try to reason with. This news, if true, is shocking.

I suggest you read the original WSJ article.

From http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html

Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad's talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. 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, 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.

Note that it's the WSJ reporter Matthew Kaminski who says "..he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork", and not Rand Paul himself. All Paul is quoted as saying is that he'll "advocate for Kentucky's interests", and do so openly in Senate proceedings. Nothing at all wrong with that - he is the Senator from Kentucky, after all.

Edited November 9, 2010 by scandal

[Pooky 3,825]

Read carefully, the author never posts an actual quote from Rand Paul where he says he will support earmarks. the first para of the excerpt seems to have him quoting something, but the second para subtly backs away from this being an actual quote. What we get is a very paraphrased "he tells me ...", but no actual quote.

But after joining the GOP flock on Election Day, Paul is singing a different tune. In a Wall Street Journal profile this weekend, Paul signaled an about-face on his earmark position, committing to “fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork.” After all, he’s “not that crazy” of a libertarian:

Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad’s talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. 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, 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.

Makes me wonder how much of the interview we're getting and what was really said.

[^_^ 5,021]

Oh, so hope is alive after all. I can't wait for the chaos to erupt.

[Danno 1,228]

If there were any truth to this a vid would have been posted instead of some lame semi-quote.

Rand Paul said he would fight to ways to improve his state but He never said he would use earmarks.. in fact he clearly just said, those days are over.

Now someone prove me wrong by posting a clip of him claiming he is going to use ear marks.

[^_^ 5,021]

If there were any truth to this a vid would have been posted instead of some lame semi-quote.

Rand Paul said he would fight to ways to improve his state but He never said he would use earmarks.. in fact he clearly just said, those days are over.

Now someone prove me wrong by posting a clip of him claiming he is going to use ear marks.

It is really cute how you yell out loud and throw down challenges after two other posters have already made the same point you did.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Read carefully, the author never posts an actual quote from Rand Paul where he says he will support earmarks. the first para of the excerpt seems to have him quoting something, but the second para subtly backs away from this being an actual quote. What we get is a very paraphrased "he tells me ...", but no actual quote.

Makes me wonder how much of the interview we're getting and what was really said.

I was giving Elizabeth Edward's rag the benefit of the doubt, but the usual innuendo and half truths from the left are to be expected.

Edited November 9, 2010 by ##########

[^_^ 5,021]

I was giving Elizabeth Edward's rag the benefit of the doubt, but the usual innuendo and half truths from the left are to be expected.

How do you feel about the WSJ?