Paul decries challenge in “my own primary”

posted at 11:15 am on February 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Scott Brown likely won his special election to the US Senate through his retort to David Gergen in the final debate that he was running for “the people’s seat” in Massachusetts, not “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” when Gergen challenged his opposition to ObamaCare.  Conservatives cheered the populist message Brown sent to Democrats in one of the most liberal states in the country.  What will they make of Ron Paul’s statement about “attack dogs” coming after him in “my own primary”?

Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-oriented Republican whose 2008 presidential run provided kindling for the Tea Party movement, suddenly finds himself dealing with the blowback: a handful of Tea Party-inspired candidates are seeking to dislodge him in Tuesday’s Texas Republican primary. …

In a January email alert titled “They’ve Turned Their Attack Dogs Loose On Me!”, Paul warns that both parties are “doing everything they can to make sure I am defeated.”

“These candidates include three Republicans in my own primary on March 2,” he wrote, “and they will stop at nothing to tear down and destroy all we have worked for.”

It’s not your primary, Rep. Paul.  It’s the Texas Republican Primary, and it belongs to the voters who use it to hold their elected officials accountable.  That smacks of the same arrogance that led Democrats to reserve one of their Senate seats for the Kennedys or their approved, hand-picked successor in Massachusetts.

Why might TX-14 Republicans want to replace Paul?  They’ve gotten a little tired of the show:

“Where are you Congressman Paul?” reads the website of Tim Graney, a small business owner who is one of the Republicans running against Paul. At a debate last week, John Gay, another Paul challenger, took a shot at the congressman’s national political organization, Campaign for Liberty: “I applaud Dr. Paul for what he’s done and I want him to retire and do the things that he likes to do and run the foundations that he’s started.” …

Gerald Wall, a chemical worker who is also challenging Paul, echoed their criticisms.

“The problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn’t spend any time representing his people,” he said. “Everyone knows that if we elect him to Congress he will spend one month in Congress and 18 months running for president.”

In two interviews I conducted with Graney, the challenger says the issue goes beyond being an “absentee landlord,” although that’s certainly part of it.  Paul is simply not effective in Congress, Graney argues, because of his predilection for grandstanding to an absurd degree while participating heavily in pork barrel politics.  Graney also thinks that Paul’s foreign-policy positions are extremist.

Even if one is inclined to support Paul, the primary process is a healthy way to ensure that incumbent politicians are listening to and serving their constituents.  Claiming ownership of a seat as an entitlement is the first sign that a constituency needs to find someone new to send to Washington. (via William Amos)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

There is nothing a Neoconservative hates more than a libertarian.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Tell you what. I would ease up on the hate if he would just leave the Republican party.

stefanite on February 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

I think [Medina's] revelation a couple of weeks ago that she was of the same cloth as Paul not only ended her campaign, it also prevented a runoff in the GOP governor’s race. I bet Perry will get over 50% now.

Vashta.Nerada on February 28, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I haven’t seen any polls so I just hope you’re right. She’s still pretty popular in some areas of West Texas.
Eren on February 28, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Just days before Texas Republicans pick their nominee for governor, incumbent Rick Perry has his biggest lead yet.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Republican Primary voters finds Perry leading Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 48% to 27%, with Tea Party activist Debra Medina earning 16% of the vote. Nine percent (9%) of Texas GOP voters remain undecided.

If the 9% undecided break even across candidates, or stay home, Perry avoids a runoff. Either way, Medina goes home.

Vashta.Nerada on February 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Tphilli and lies go hand in hand. Also he is an ugly person.

CWforFreedom on February 28, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Ron Paul is for freedoms…as long as it does not interfer with his dynasty….i agree…it seems like the Pauls want to be the Tea Party Kennedys..no more government Bush, Kennedy, Clinton, and Paul family own business

charmingtail on February 28, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Paul is no better than Spector or any Kennedys…since when is the seat an entitlement? and what ever happened to the serve 10 yrs and move on or 2 terms? Seems Paul thinks he is owed a “career” in D.C.

charmingtail on February 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Tell you what. I would ease up on the hate if he would just leave the Republican party.

No thanks.

I voted for Chuck Baldwin in the presidential election due to lack of choices, but I feel it’s more constructive for Paul to try to win the republican primary.

Since he failed to win that, I reluctantly voted Constitution Party, but I would have preferred that Paul had been the republican nominee.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM

My primary! My precious . . .

Ingenue on February 28, 2010 at 3:58 PM

A primary challenger has a great shot at beating Paul. The Paul-bots are so dispersed throughout the country they they have NO voting clout in his actual district!

It’s just young single males mostly.

Paul has such weird positions that no amount of money he might get and have thrown into campaigning will sway normal adult voters about him.

scotash on February 28, 2010 at 4:10 PM

This little Demigod deserves every thing coming his way.Congressman Paul like someone as already said it,s not your primary it,s the people of the state of Texas primary.

thmcbb on February 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Ron Paul will win this election in another landslide. He is extremely popular in his district and at CPAC too!

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 4:34 PM

GEE:

Sure sounds to me LIKE “Mr. Constitution”

(his self-constructed “image”…not mine…)

is having a problem with the actual U.S. Constitution.

*W*H*A*C*K*J*O*B*

Lockstein13 on February 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM

There is nothing a Neoconservative hates more than a libertarian.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

There’s libertarian, and then there’s conspiracy-theory-minded, childishly naive kook. And I won’t even mention his strange bedfellows.

misterpeasea on February 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

I voted for Chuck Baldwin in the presidential election…

I would have preferred that Paul had been the republican nominee….

Spathi

So in other words, you are a categorically a moonbat. Why don’t you join a less annoying cult like the “Peoples Temple Agricultural Project” or the Branch Davidians? … Something that keeps to itself and doesn’t maniacally take to the internet to defend Ron Paul’s every brainfart?

Boxy_Brown on February 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

The Last Indispensable American Was George Augustine Washington…after him everyone is pretty much interchangeable.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Why would Ron Paul want a shallow bench of Republican hopefuls?

John McCain has said, lets, let a thousand flowers bloom…he wants more Republicans participating in public service not less. Isn’t Ron Paul, Right of John McCain?

Dr Evil on February 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Ron Paul is just another old fart that should give way to those that are inheriting the mess that he and his colleages have created for them. The nations future is dependant on younger people like Scott Brown and Paul Ryan.

docdave on February 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Tea Party people do not discriminate when it comes to those in either party that meet the standard.

Kini on February 28, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Anagram – Ron Paul = run a pol

Conspiracy or proof positive as to why Ron Paul wins online polls ?

William Amos on February 28, 2010 at 5:57 PM

The brainless white supremacist needs to be crushed. If it wasn’t for the Bush family, Paul would have me hating Texans as unwashed, uneducated rednecks. Its bad enough they voted for him in the first damned place. Maybe he can move in with his brother, Howard Dean, another predjudiced mad doctor.

Virus-X on February 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Paul is no better than Spector or any Kennedys…since when is the seat an entitlement? and what ever happened to the serve 10 yrs and move on or 2 terms? Seems Paul thinks he is owed a “career” in D.C.

charmingtail on February 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Clearly Paul intends to die in that seat.

The sad thing is, considering that he’s done nothing in the 20+ years he’s been there, no one will notice until the janitors come to clean the place up.

Rebar on February 28, 2010 at 6:06 PM

There is nothing a Neoconservative hates more than a libertarian.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Tell you what. I would ease up on the hate if he would just leave the Republican party.

stefanite on February 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

For a “libertarian” he sure does love that sweet, sweet government money.

29Victor on February 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Excuse me… Mr Ron Paul.. the Tea Party would like to have a few words with you about you’re entitlement attitude…

Razgriez on February 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

I suspect “my own primary” was used in the same way as “my race” or “my campaign.” He is not claiming ownership of the primary election, he is stating that his campaign for US Congress now has a primary. If there were no challengers, there would be no primary.

Leave it to Ed to use this as tool to hammer Paul and make the tie to the arrogant elitism of Martha Coakley. Hey Ed, while you were brown-nosing Graney, who claims Paul isn’t effective in Congress, did you get around to asking how many votes Ron Paul has missed? Did you ask about Ron Paul’s End the Fed bill that passed the House with massive bipartisan support?

With Ron Paul’s support at an all time high, I’m thinking the primary challengers will be staying right there in the district. Keep up the attempted knee-capping of Ron Paul at HotAir, you might be able to move the numbers 1%.

alteredbeat on February 28, 2010 at 6:22 PM

If it wasn’t for the Bush family, Paul would have me hating Texans as unwashed, uneducated rednecks.

Virus-X on February 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I know what you mean. Your comment would have me thinking you were more ignorant than an unwashed, uneducated redneck if it wasn’t for… uh…

Never mind.

entropent on February 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Claiming ownership of a seat as an entitlement is the first sign that a constituency needs to find someone new to send to Washington.

Perhaps with normal politicians, but with Ron Paul, good grief too many signs have come before to count.

jarodea on February 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Such as just last week making Maxine Waters paranoid ranting about the Federal Reserve look somewhat sane.

jarodea on February 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM

The huffingtonpost covered all of Ron Paul’s accusations to Bernake as well as several other journals, and they were all legitimate.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Ron Paul has lost all passion for TX14th. It means nothing more to him than a steady paycheck so that he can travel around the nation pandering to the paranoid.

Its a darn shame, Ed, that you didn’t try and interview Gerald Wall and John Gay. Why 2 interviews w/Graney and no interest in the others? Graney is your typical, establishment GOP type, soft on the border issue. As you are. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on February 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM

Ron Paul will easily win.

His constituents love Ron Paul. You’ll see on Tuesday.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM

This thread indicates another reason for term limits. No one would get comfortable and wealthy if they had only two terms. The longer in the more pork they want.

wi farmgirl on February 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Hey Ron. Thats why they call it politics. The Tea Party has their reasons for being represented and you just might not be the guy that does. Its a primary. let the best man win. Whatever will be, must be.

volsense on February 28, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Paul has only been in congress since 1996. He took a 10 year break before that.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Nuts…Is that redundant?

Gohawgs on February 28, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Rebar on February 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Before replying to your… ahem… response…

Let’s just note a gauntlet was thrown down, and there it lays still.

Just like I thought it would be.

Now…

You think your snide comments and personal attacks constitute a response to my statements. They do not.

My witty comments (and even my less-than-witty comments) constitute more of a response than the drivel you have generated deserves.

Personal attacks??? Sounds like evidence of a guilty mind to me.

The facts speak for themselves:
* 11 terms, 20+ years in the House = career politician.

So, the forty years he spent as a physician… was that not his career? Sounds more like a career than something he did in six and fourteen year blocks, twelve years apart.

Of course, some of us have different ideas of what constitutes a career.

So, Dick Cheney?… career politician?

31+ Billion in pork, adding in baseline budgeting and interest on the debt, I’d estimate Paul has grown government by 100 billion dollars.

Wait. I thought the argument was that he wasn’t taking care of the folks back home, that he was too interested in national politics That’s what Tim Graney says.

And yet here you are, saying he is taking too much care of the folks in the district.

Maybe you and Tim Graney ought to get on the same page. Of course, the page he is on is located somewhere in the footnotes, so…

In that 20+ years, zero done to reduce the size of government, not one law passed to bring the size or scope of government down.

He did exactly what a good conservative should do… he voted “No”. On just about everything he could. If, over the last 20 years, every Republican member of Congress had exactly mirrored the vote of Ron Paul, we’d have a dramatically smaller government in DC than we do now.

And you know it.

And the fact that you have let your party be taken over by alleged conservatives who don’t have the stones to vote “No”… well, if it’s not eating you up, it ought to be.

JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2010 at 10:55 PM

If anything, Ron Paul has proven whatever point he has made until now, if only implicitly, about the corruption of power. He should have plenty to do on a national scale without running for Congress again. Besides, I hear they’ve got a great retirement program. He could do worse.

manwithblackhat on February 28, 2010 at 11:05 PM

He hasn’t been in office nearly as long as Boehner.

Plus, Paul votes no against everything so you blame him for things the Federal Government does.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 11:30 PM

I admittedly know nothing about Paul’s district, but I always imagine the people living in it to most likely be some sort of pod people with half of their brains sucked out of their heads. I cannot imagine any other way a nutjob like Ron Paul could ever get elected to any local office, let alone one of the chambers of congress.

Then I remember that he’s all wise and knowing, so I sell all my belongings for blocks of gold, then I hide out in my house as isolated as possible. Afterall, it’s the way that Dr. Paul would’ve wanted it.

TheBlueSite on February 28, 2010 at 11:36 PM

And the fact that you have let your party be taken over by alleged conservatives who don’t have the stones to vote “No”… well, if it’s not eating you up, it ought to be

Paul purports to be in “our party.” How’s that working for you? There are plenty of members of Congress besides Paul who have voted “no” most of the time, but the only one who gets any credit from you is Paul. He’s the only “real conservative” right? LMAO!

JannyMae on February 28, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Anyone on the right who doesn’t understand what the federal reserve is doing to this country forfeits the right to call themselves conservative. BANKS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BIG CORPORATIONS. Railing against banks is not the same thing as railing against capitalism. Banks can actually hurt you, unlike Walmart.

The neocons haven’t woken up to the fact that TARP changed EVERYTHING. People figured out what was actually going on in the economy and they didn’t like it. Now half the people on this board are pretending that it is still 2008.

bingsha on March 1, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Besides, I hear they’ve got a great retirement program. He could do worse.

manwithblackhat on February 28, 2010 at 11:05 PM

A phenomenal retirement program. So good, so lucrative that RP refuses to participate in it. Doesn’t feel he should be enriching himself unfairly.

Funny thing those principles.

JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Almost every GOP congressman minus Duncan and Paul voted to invade Iraq.

Paul just has a better voting record than the other GOPer’s, and votes no more often.

Spathi on March 1, 2010 at 12:22 AM

I think Paul used the phrase “my own primary” as a colloquialism, not that he was claiming to own the primary.

But it makes no difference to Ed’s article, because the whine about being challenged in “my own primary” screams pretty loudly that he thought he was entitled to the seat without any of that nasty competition.

Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM

JohnGalt23 on February 28, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Let’s just note a gauntlet was thrown down, and there it lays still.

An entrenched career politician who porkbarrels like there’s no tomorrow, is the hardest incumbent to dislodge. It’s a ridiculous bet, only a ridiculous person would take it. Or offer it.

was that not his career?

11 terms is a career politician, especially one that claimed to support term limits. Why you interject Cheney into the discussion, is a mystery.

And yet here you are, saying he is taking too much care of the folks in the district.

Here we go again – “pork is pork unless it’s Ron Paul’s pork”. No one buys that nonsense. Paul cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative and constitutionalist, if he had porkbarreling 31+ Billion dollars. It’s a lie, and a bald-faced one at that.

He did exactly what a good conservative should do… he voted “No”.

Conservatives judge on results, not intentions. Leftists judge on intentions, regardless of results. The results of 20+ years of Paul is – nothing except putting 31+ Billion dollars of taxpayers money into the pockets of special interests, and increasing the debt by many multiples of that.

As far as the GOP, there are plenty that DO NOT take earmarks, when Paul is grubbing up as much as he possibly can. Those folks ARE reducing the size of the budget by passing on the pork.

If THATS not eating you up, it ought to be.

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 AM

The huffingtonpost covered all of Ron Paul’s accusations to Bernake as well as several other journals, and they were all legitimate.

Spathi on February 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Well, that settles it then, his accusations have been verified by the Huffington post. Clearly there is no way he could be insane.

RINO in Name Only on March 1, 2010 at 2:50 AM

If even a firm libertarian (party member) can presume “his seat” rather than “people’s seat” after too many years in Washington, surely we need term limits on everybody.

(It might be a good idea for justices to come up for “renewal” every 10 years or so. That becomes a more polite means of impeachment.)

{^_^}

herself on March 1, 2010 at 3:19 AM

If Ron Paul was a true Tea Party candidate he wouldn’t worry about being challenged in a primary – and he would be well aware it was not ‘his’ primary.

This just proves he is not part of the Tea Party movement. His supporters have simply tried to infiltrate the movement (like many others).

He’s also a ‘truther’. Why is Ron Paul not mocked by the MSM for being a ‘truther’? If he was a ‘birther’ he would be constantly ridiculed and pretty much run out of politics as a kook.

Look at who the media chooses to ridicule. Global warming skeptics. Tea Party people. Birthers. Sarah Palin. These are the people that threaten their message and agenda.

Mr Purple on March 1, 2010 at 5:17 AM

As far as the GOP, there are plenty that DO NOT take earmarks, when Paul is grubbing up as much as he possibly can. Those folks ARE reducing the size of the budget by passing on the pork.

Earmarks don’t increase the size of bills. They just move the already fixed spending in other directions. That’s why the anti-earmarks rhetoric is phony fiscal conservatism.

The Dean on March 1, 2010 at 5:20 AM

…another predjudiced…

Virus-X on February 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM

If it wasn’t for the Bush family, Paul would have me hating Texans as unwashed, uneducated rednecks.

Virus-X on February 28, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Interesting…

anuts on March 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM

In a January email alert titled “They’ve Turned Their Attack Dogs Loose On Me!”, Paul warns that both parties are “doing everything they can to make sure I am defeated.”

In the case of Ron Paul, a more apt title for the above alert would have been better suited as being titled “They’re Coming To Take Me Away, Ha Ha, They’re Coming To Take Me Away, Hee Hee!”

pilamaye on March 1, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Another good argument for term limits.

I suggest 10 years (5 terms) for Representatives, 3 terms (18 years) for Senators. Ample time to develop expertise, short enough to drag them back to real life and other careers.

MrLynn on March 1, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Let’s get rid of that effing retard.

Coronagold on March 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Just a point of reference for those of you who do not live in the Republic of Texas, there is no such thing as an undecided Texan. When some pollster thinks or reports that they have encountered one, rest assured, when you spend the better part of your life living with 30 mph wind full of New Mexico sand and grit, you become widely known as a ‘man of few words’.
 
Except for DFW and Houston, Texans will reelect a mangy cur if he votes right.

Blacksmith8 on March 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

And what does that say about Paul, that he has to drown out his primary opponents in special interest money, instead of in a contest of ideas?

Rebar on February 28, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Exactly. I am suspicious of how much genuine enthusiasm Ron Paul generated in 2008. It ended with Jamie Kirchick’s piece. Not all that many people were excited about him in the first place; both Redstate and Wonkette banned his supporters. But then the content of the newsletters and his weak defense of his role in them made his constituents take another look at him. I really don’t believe the people who voted for him and trusted him knew how insane he really is.

About his fundraising, I have a suspicion his money bombs were a beta run for the Obama campaign turning off their security settings, accepting illegal foreign contributions and just working out the kinks. I highly doubt that money is available to Ron Paul this time around. Under the bus!

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Earmarks don’t increase the size of bills. They just move the already fixed spending in other directions. That’s why the anti-earmarks rhetoric is phony fiscal conservatism.

The Dean on March 1, 2010 at 5:20 AM

If you argue to reduce the bloated scale of a bill, that is fiscally conservative. Ron Paul votes NO, but he never comes up with alternative suggestions.

Paul is simply not effective in Congress, (Graney argues,) because of his predilection for grandstanding to an absurd degree while participating heavily in pork barrel politics. (Graney also thinks that) Paul’s foreign-policy positions are extremist.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Look at who the media chooses to ridicule. Global warming skeptics. Tea Party people. Birthers. Sarah Palin. These are the people that threaten their message and agenda.

Mr Purple on March 1, 2010 at 5:17 AM

Amen and pass the ammunition!

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 AM

An entrenched career politician who porkbarrels like there’s no tomorrow, is the hardest incumbent to dislodge. It’s a ridiculous bet, only a ridiculous person would take it. Or offer it.

Uh huh.

So, this little gem:

Ron Paul has ensured his own defeat in the primary.

Rebar on February 28, 2010 at 11:19 AM

… was just you talking out of your arse then. Just another example of another blowhole making ridiculous predicitions, and then being too much of a coward to back up his claims when it really matters,

Sort of puts all of your opinions in perspective, doesn’t it?

11 terms is a career politician, especially one that claimed to support term limits.

So, when does careerism kick in? Two terms? Five? Or is this again a case of you getting to define the terms on an ad hoc basis?

Why, that would be wonderfully progressive of you.

Why you interject Cheney into the discussion, is a mystery.

I asked a question, which you have apparently been afraid to answer, because you know it would lay waste to your claims about Dr. Paul? I ask again, is Dick Cheney a career politician?

Paul cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative and constitutionalist, if he had porkbarreling 31+ Billion dollars. It’s a lie, and a bald-faced one at that.

Dr. Paul believes, as I believe, that all spending should be earmarked, for Congress to fulfill its responsibility to spend the money. That pork-barreling happens as a natural result of the political process is, IMHO, simply a cost that we have to accept.

But if you want to claim that doing so is unconstitutional, why don’t you point out to us the provision of the Constitution that it violates. We’re waiting with baited breath.

Conservatives judge on results, not intentions

Oh, you mean like the “result” of the biggest expansion of the federal government since LBJ? Yeah, we can lay that one at the feet of your so-called “conservatives”. Or the “intention” to get rid of WMD’s in a country that turned out didn’t have them? Well, we’ll blame the neo-cons for that one… I guess real conservatives can be let off the hook for that. Or how about the “intention” to build a permanent GOP majority, when the result was the handing over of the keys to the most left-wing POTUS in our lifetime?

Many is the time I’ve seen people here (and maybe you, Rebar), defend GWB’s presidency because of his good intentions. So spare us the hypocrisy of we only judge on the basis of results, because no conservative in my lifetime (yes, even Ronald Reagan) had results so good as to write home about.

The results of 20+ years of Paul is – nothing except putting 31+ Billion dollars of taxpayers money into the pockets of special interests, and increasing the debt by many multiples of that.

Yeah, I’d like to se your economic analysis of that, if only for a good laugh.

The fact is that earmarks only spend money that is already appropriated. And any money that is appropriated should be earmarked.

As far as the GOP, there are plenty that DO NOT take earmarks

Names? One of the few I can think of is Johnnie Mac. Big supporter of Johnnie Mac on the basis of that, are you Rebar?

Those folks ARE reducing the size of the budget by passing on the pork.

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 2:20 AM

No they’re not. All they are doing is passing on spending decisions to the Executive Branch, once again, IMHO, dodging their Constitutional obligations.

JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2010 at 10:39 AM

JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2010 at 10:39 AM

of another blowhole making ridiculous predicitions

Speaking of blowholes…

So, when does careerism kick in?

We’ll let the Hot Air readers decide if eleven terms is a career or not. Same with Mr. Cheney, as if that had anything to do with Paul.

That pork-barreling happens as a natural result of the political process is, IMHO, simply a cost that we have to accept.

No, it’s not, there are plenty of good honest GOP members who do not porkbarrel – names to follow.

Many is the time I’ve seen people here (and maybe you, Rebar), defend GWB’s presidency because of his good intentions.

Wrong. We defend Bush when he did the right things, like tax cuts, taking the war of terror to the enemy, keeping America safe. We criticized him on what he did wrong, like spending, amnesty, etc. Unlike Ronbots, conservatives don’t see the world in black and white – where everything Ron Paul does is white and what anyone else does is black. GWB is not the sum total of evil as the left and Ronbots make him out to be.

The fact is that earmarks only spend money that is already appropriated.

Wrong.

I guess you’ve never heard of baseline budgeting or the congressional budget cycle. Future budgets are calculated using the previous year’s budget as a baseline. Any unappropriated funds are generally not budgeted in. Earmarking continues the cycle of increased baselines. Every Billion of Ron Paul’s pork increased the baseline budget for the next year by – 1 Billion. His 31+ Billion in pork has increased the baseline budge by that amount – in perpetuity. Add up his earmarks, the increase in the baseline budget, and the interest caused by his increasing the debt – my estimation it’s in the neighborhood of 100 Billion. Fiscal conservative my ass.

Names?

From Texas, two reps don’t take earmarks:
TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb
TX-10 McCaul, Michael
Take a look:
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2009/04/12/catalogue-of-fy-2010-earmarks/#Texas

scroll up and down, plenty of real conservatives don’t take earmarks.

No they’re not. All they are doing is passing on spending decisions to the Executive Branch, once again, IMHO, dodging their Constitutional obligations.

As stated above, that’s a cop out, and that lame excuse doesn’t fly. Ronbots count on ignorance of the baseline budgeting process to excuse Paul’s’ unconscionable porkbarreling, but the cat’s out of the bag.

Fact is, you’re not as sharp as Ed makes you out to be. Ron Paul is a fraud and a liar, as well as a truther. Anyone who’s still a member of his cult of personality lacks the critical thinking skills or plain common sense needed to be taken seriously. Your lame attempts to explain away his porkbarreling fall flat.

But keep pluckin’ that chicken, and make sure to give everything you can to his next “money bomb”.

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Just so we’re clear, you did in fact make a ridiculous prediction that Ron Paul is going to lose in his primary, and then chickened out when asked to defend that prediction with cash.

Just so we’re clear.

No, it’s not, there are plenty of good honest GOP members who do not porkbarrel – names to follow.

Like that good honest conservative John McCain, right. I noticed on your list that Johnnie Mac doesn’t request earmarks, but his colleague John Kyl does. So, by your logic, John McCain is the true conservative, and John Kyl is the poseur.

Right.

and make sure to give everything you can to his next “money bomb”.

You’ll note Dr. (Ron) Paul hasn’t had any need for the money bombs this time around, because he knows that he is going to win, unlike some blowholes that go around making claims that this is the time he is going to lose, then wuss out when challenged to back those claims up.

JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Oh, and of course you’ll be backing John McCain over JD Hayworth, since ol’ JD was well known for sucking down the pork.

JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2010 at 3:11 PM

JohnGalt23 on March 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

you did in fact make a ridiculous prediction

Three weeks prior to the election, predicting Scott Brown was going to win would have been rediculous.

Like that good honest conservative John McCain

ACU lifetime ratings:
- John McCain 83
- Ron Paul 82.3

And your stipulation that Ron Paul’s pork has indeed increased the budget and size of the national debt is noted.

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 3:11 PM

ACU lifetime ratings:
- John McCain 83
- Ron Paul 82.3

ACU ratings are really useless. Ron actually got a lower score for refusing to fund the UN and for not supporting mandatory gun lock registration.

And I also find it funny when you read the article that the supposed “tea party” opponents are criticizing Paul for not getting more government money for his district.

LevStrauss on March 1, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Clearly Paul intends to die in that seat.

Rebar

What’s the holdup?

Boxy_Brown on March 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM

ACU ratings are really useless.

LevStrauss on March 1, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Funny, when something doesn’t feed the “Ron Paul is god” narrative, it’s either irrelevant or a neo-con plot.

But if he wins a wholly unimportant thing like a straw poll three years before an election, why, Ron Paul’s inevitable presidential victory is at hand – bow down to your new master.

Funny, indeed.

What’s the holdup?

Boxy_Brown on March 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM

I wish Dr. Paul a long and healthy life – outside of government.

Rebar on March 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Ed, I think some of you are off the mark with this one. I had no problem calling Ted Kennedy’s seat “Ted Kennedy’s seat” while it was still his seat. Get the difference?

It only became arrogant after Ted passed, and his seat was no longer his. Then, yeah, it’s arrogant to treat it like it’s somehow still his, as if it’s some family or party possession.

Scott Brown likely won his special election to the US Senate through his retort to David Gergen in the final debate that he was running for “the people’s seat” in Massachusetts, not “Ted Kennedy’s seat,” when Gergen challenged his opposition to ObamaCare. Conservatives cheered the populist message Brown sent to Democrats in one of the most liberal states in the country. What will they make of Ron Paul’s statement about “attack dogs” coming after him in “my own primary”?

It is his own primary. He’s the incumbent. No?

It’s not your primary, Rep. Paul. It’s the Texas Republican Primary, and it belongs to the voters who use it to hold their elected officials accountable.

Okay, it’s not literally ‘his’ primary. Aren’t we descending just a little too far into literalism here?

That smacks of the same arrogance that led Democrats to reserve one of their Senate seats for the Kennedys or their approved, hand-picked successor in Massachusetts.

Not really. Though I agree his reaction to competition in the primary was a little overheated (given how routine and widespread primary challenges seem to be this year), I don’t think the phrase “my own primary” refers to anything but the fact that he’s the incumbent and presumed-to-be-blessed Republican nominee from the previous election cycle: NOW they want to come after me, even though I’m no different now then I was last time around?

RD on March 2, 2010 at 4:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2