Replies

It’s so laughable to see the ‘machine’ at work in an attempt to discredit or destroy Dr. Paul, while virtually ignoring Guliani’s and Romney’s records altogether.

Actually, you miss the point entirely.. it isn't condemning Paul simply because he has some pork out there.. it is his speaking on one side of his mouth how bad on pork is, on another side of his mouth telling his constituents he will submit their pork requests, and another side of his mouth voting against a bill he told a constituent he would support.. on top of that.. all of Paul's followers make him out to be some second coming of Hamilton.. when in reality, Paul is just another politician like Guilani, Romney, or Hagel. He is just a little more verbose.

Situational ethics. It all depends on what the meaning of the word “pork” is.

“condemning Paul simply because he has some pork out there’

Shrimp not pork! Shrimp number 37, pork number 52.

Paul's fortune cookie say, man who run to limit pork should not complain he got no place at trough.

Reposting original #35, excerpt this time:

Will: What the Founding Fathers Really Intended
Rep. Ron Paul says he can find in the Constitution’s enumeration of the federal powers—Article I, Section 8—no reference to rice.

By George F. Will
Newsweek

Feb. 26, 2007 issue - Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul’s district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill.

He believes, with more stubbornness than evidence, that the federal government is a government of strictly enumerated powers, and nowhere in the Constitution’s enumeration (Article I, Section 8) can he find any reference to rice. So there. “Farm organizations fight me tooth and nail,” he says, “but the farmers are with me.” Of course they can afford to indulge their congressman’s philosophical eccentricity because lots of other House members represent rice farmers, so rice gets its share of gravy. Still, Paul is a likable eccentric, partly because he likes his constituents while disliking what he considers their incontinent appetite for government. Why, “If you ignore what they say about rice, they are nice people.” He would help them by ending the trade embargo with Cuba, to which they used to sell a lot of rice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/page/0/

Actually, you miss the point entirely.. it isn't condemning Paul simply because he has some pork out there.. it is his speaking on one side of his mouth how bad on pork is, on another side of his mouth telling his constituents he will submit their pork requests, and another side of his mouth voting against a bill he told a constituent he would support.. on top of that..

I don't miss it at all. My point is that he openly admits that he works both sides of the fence on earmarks (see #59). So how is that talking out of both sides of his mouth? It's actually more comparable to, talking out of both sides to get your individual points across, and then your opening your WHOLE mouth to tell the full story.

Nutshell: 'The Government is killing the shrimping industry, because we overregulate it, to the point where they need taxpayer money to stay afloat. So here's this proposal, which by the way, isn't within our Constitutional powers to fulfill. Have a nice day.'

That tactic alone, is pretty refreshing to me...with all of the backdoor shenanigans that go on between Washington and K Street in the modern era. 'It's like it is, because we made it that way, and they want us to bail them out, which we really can't do'. It's freaking brilliant.

What's even more compelling to me, is that his constituents, who obviously send him plenty of pork proposals that get submitted and then shot down by the SAME MAN...keep sending that SAME MAN back to office.

Says a lot about the man.