Fake left meme that Rand has 'broken a campaign promise' re earmarks

[sailingaway]

People who have no idea what earmarks are are saying that Rand has broken a campaign promise not to take earmarks. This started with a WSJ article this weekend which characterizes as a 'change' from his not taking earmarks his statement that they are a bad symbol but he will fight for Kentucky's interests in the committee process. The left is spinning this as a flip flop.

Except earmarks are NOT through the committee process where at least some level of relative ranking is given to projects, they are essentially tagged on to buy votes. Rand doesn't like that process (I say all money sent the executive should be designated and don't care if that is in committee, which might be better, but on the floor is still better than a blank check to the president.)

Anyhow, Rand never said he'd take earmarks; these people are simply idiots. If you see the meme (and it is everywhere) that is what they are referring to.

Here's the actual wall street journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html

[sailingaway]

OK, now this is ridiculous, even the National Review is getting into it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252748/rand-paul-already-selling-out-veronique-de-rugy

[Agorism]

Not our fault they ASSUME that Rand Paul saying he is against Earmarks means something more than voting for the final bill.

He's committed to voting against final passage, which is perfectly in line with the primary campaign.

[sailingaway]

Not our fault they ASSUME that Rand Paul saying he is against Earmarks means something more than voting for the final bill.

He's committed to voting against final passage, which is perfectly in line with the primary campaign.

In the primary he said he would accept the amount of spending up to a balanced budget. His position isn't the same as Ron's on this; Rand wants to redo how funding is done at the committee level so it is by need and merit not by seniority of the representative and regardless of merit.

[specsaregood]

OK, now this is ridiculous, even the National Review is getting into it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252748/rand-paul-already-selling-out-veronique-de-rugy

Rand entered the NR shit list last weekend when he argued that the military budget could be cut. Of course they are going to start jumping on anything to reduce his credibility.

[sailingaway]

Rand entered the NR shit list last weekend when he argued that the military budget could be cut. Of course they are going to start jumping on anything to reduce his credibility.

I think he's only on half the NR shit list; I mean, I think there are a few there who agree with him on military being on the table. A bunch don't, though.

[Agorism]

In the primary he said he would accept the amount of spending up to a balanced budget. His position isn't the same as Ron's on this; Rand wants to redo how funding is done at the committee level so it is by need and merit not by seniority of the representative and regardless of merit.

Ron votes against every earmark bill for final passage.

Rand won't do that?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

OK, now this is ridiculous, even the National Review is getting into it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252748/rand-paul-already-selling-out-veronique-de-rugy

Any "conservative" website that thinks highly of the slick Marco Rubio is highly suspect.

[sailingaway]

Ron votes against every earmark bill for final passage.

Rand won't do that?

He has a totally different point of view. He thinks money should be at the committee level. Remember he's a junior senator who wants term limits. Currently, seniority, not merit of a project, gets the money to constituents.

I agree with Ron on this but so long as the money is designated in congress not given as a blank check to the executive I can live with it. It seems that what Rand wants is an entire revamping of the process.

It is a difference between them. Rand doesn't want earmarks AT ALL and won't take them, but will try to advocate for KY's important projects in the committees that create the basis of the bill to begin with. At the committee level and so long as IN THE CONTEXT OF A BALANCED BUDGET he said he'd advocate for the most important Kentucky projects, since KY does pay tax for them, as well.

[Agorism]

It is a difference between them. Rand doesn't want earmarks AT ALL and won't take them, but will try to advocate for KY's important projects in the committees that create the basis of the bill to begin with. At the committee level and so long as IN THE CONTEXT OF A BALANCED BUDGET he said he'd advocate for the most important Kentucky projects, since KY does pay tax for them, as well.

Ron Paul advocated for Texas-16 projects as well. I don't get the difference unless Rand won't commit to voting against final passage.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rand Paul did sign the pledge:

http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/congressional-candidates-sign.html

I really don't want to see him become a porker like his father.

[TheDriver]

Cavuto had a panel on Fox Business ripping Rand over this? Wtf? Where's Rand's Chief of Staff? :D

[sailingaway]

Rand Paul did sign the pledge:

http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/congressional-candidates-sign.html

I really don't want to see him become a porker like his father.

absolutely. But what is an earmark? Most people mean the stuff stuffed into a completed bill after it comes out of committee.

[sailingaway]

Wait, he signed THIS pledge? http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/congressional-candidates-sign.html An earmark is ANYTHING not requested by the president? So change the power of the purse to the executive in refutation of our Constitution and separation of powers since the time of Magna Carta in England?

I sure hope he didn't sign this, and it ISN'T what he kept saying. He always said he would work in committee to get things awarded on merit within the context of a balanced budget.

You know what I have come to think? There was someone not very bright signing stuff that SOUNDED like what Rand was talking about, without reading the fine print. This has come up more than once. I think he meant earmarks in its colloquial sense which does NOT violate our constitutional separation of the power of the purse from the President. When people on the street say 'no earmarks' they don't mean 'no spending unless the president wants it', that is the view only of those who want a line item veto and MORE power in the executive office.

This pledge I whole heartedly object to.

Damn it!

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul advocated for Texas-16 projects as well. I don't get the difference unless Rand won't commit to voting against final passage.

Ron also put stuff in by amendment on the floor, that is what most mean by earmarks, it wasn't the reason for the initial bill. Rand won't put it in on the floor, he'll only go through committee.

Rand is going to have to explain this. And in the future he should PERSONALLY read any pledge he 'signs'. Because I suspect others had the authority to sign them, after just saying stuff like 'will you sign a no earmark pledge'?

Whatever. This pledge is contrary to what he said on the campaign trail, but it is in fact going to be an issue, if he signed it.

[TheDriver]

You know what I have come to think? There was someone not very bright signing stuff that SOUNDED like what Rand was talking about, without reading the fine print. This has come up more than once.

LMAO! If Rand signed something, no one should point fingers at staffers - they don't sign Rand Paul's name to the dotted line.


He's been consistent on earmarks - he opposes the process so many Americans have come to hate, he dislikes how earmarks are used as bribes in the dead-of-the-night.

And as you have mentioned, he wants to use federal spending that comes back to the states based on need - not seniority - and wants to run that spending through the appropriations committee.

I haven't seen him drift from this, despite the meme today.

[sailingaway]

LMAO! If Rand signed something, no one should point fingers at staffers - they don't sign Rand Paul's name to the dotted line.


He's been consistent on earmarks - he opposes the process so many Americans have come to hate, he dislikes how earmarks are used as bribes in the dead-of-the-night.

And as you have mentioned, he wants to use federal spending that comes back to the states based on need - not seniority - and wants to run that spending through the appropriations committee.

I haven't seen him drift from this, despite the meme today.


You didn't read the pledge. The pledge says he won't go for any spending unless it is requested by the president. The Constitution, like the Magna Carta, put the power of the purse in the legislature to restrain the power of the executive office. And the fact is, people rely on their staffers when they are at a sufficiently high level they can't read everything themselves. He is responsible for it, but they usually fulfill that responsibility by getting the kind of staff that is reliable and comes to know them and their policies.

The wording of the earmark pledge is VERY DIFFERENT from what he campaigned under. He is living up to what he campaigned under, including in the WSJ article. But he is not living up to the pledge, and I sure wouldn't want him to.

[TheDriver]

You didn't read the pledge. The pledge says he won't go for any spending unless it is requested by the president.

Hmm... Maybe I don't understand it...

[sailingaway]

Bullshit! You didn't read the pledge or you don't understand it! ;)

"I, __________________, pledge to the constituents of the state of______________
and to the American people that I will not request any pork-barrel earmark, which
is defined as meeting one of the following criteria:
�� Requested by only one chamber of Congress
�� Not specifically authorized
�� Not competitively awarded
�� Not requested by the President
�� Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s
funding
�� Not the subject of congressional hearings
�� Serves only a local or special interest
________________________________ ________________________"

The key there is that spending is an earmark even if it satisfies ONLY ONE of the listed criteria, including "Not requested by the President."

That is not what you, I or Kentucky thought he was saying, but that is what that pledge says.

Now if you turned it around and said it is not an earmark if it satisfies ANY of the processes referred to, that would be different, but that isn't what it says.

Mind you, for it not to be an earmark under that pledge it has to be requested by the President, pass both houses, be subject to hearings, satisfy a general interest, be within reason from prior year funding, be both competitively awarded AND be specifically authorized.

[TheDriver]

The only earmarks that became an issue during the campaign were bridges that joined Kentucky to Ohio and Indiana, which obviously are a federal issue that should be covered by road taxes, but are earmarks.


And the drug war program Unite, which I don't think RP is going to lose any sleep over...


And the Bluegrass Army Depot clean up.. Live ammo left over on an old army base in KY...


Does anyone else remember any specifics?

[sailingaway]

The point is that he has told Kentucky he will work within committees for them, which is what he said to the WSJ and they took it as a flip (maybe because of the wording of the pledge, as opposed to what he has been saying on the campaign trail.) And MY point is that more power shouldn't be given to the president. I'd outright oppose him on that. We have too much of a unitary executive as it is. However, I can't imagine him ignoring separation of powers that way. I think he didn't realize what was in that version of the pledge.

[TheDriver]

The point is that he has told Kentucky he will work within committees for them. And MY point is that more power shouldn't be given to the president.

Rand's point has always been the same: we don't need to send our money to DC in the first place.

[Libertea Party]

I love how Professional Libertarians like De Rugy and other people at Reason seem to think they had something to do with electing Rand Paul. I googled and I couldn't find anything by De Rugy promoting Rand Paul to her readers or praising the fact that a hardcore libertarian like Rand was coming in.

Yet they're the first to criticize perceived deviation. From what I've seen most of Rand's victory is attributed to Paul donors/grassroots supporters and establishment help from McConnell. Despite being the most libertarian candidate I doubt anything more than a few personal donations (which went to Trey during the primary as well) came from the Kochtopus which bankrolls de Rugy, Reason and the Mercatus Center--not even kind words! They, like Raimondo, just hop on the Randwagon when it suits them without getting out and pushing the wagon when the times were rough.

Look there's some debate as to what exactly constitutes an earmark. My take on it is that Rand might even be personally unfamiliar with the earmarking process. Here's what Wikipedia provides about earmarking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_%28politics%29):

Definition 1:


The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Notice that I highlighted the "Executive" part of the definition. Why? Because that's an executive office, OMB, defining Earmarks in terms of avoiding executive decision making.

Later on in the wiki a different definition is provided by the Sunlight Foundation:


An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review.

Rand needs to 1) figure out exactly what version of earmarking he agreed not to engage in 2) decide what appropriation he's comfortable with as being considered as "not earmarking" and 3) provide a clear policy to deal with earmarks

[Libertea Party]

Even the CAGW pledge (http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/congressional-candidates-sign.html) mirrors the Sunlight Foundation:


By signing CCAGW’s No Pork Pledge, incumbents and candidates vow not to request any pork-barrel earmark, which is defined as meeting one of the following criteria:

* Requested by only one chamber of Congress
* Not specifically authorized
* Not competitively awarded
* Not requested by the President
* Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding
* Not the subject of congressional hearings
* Serves only a local or special interest

Are de Rugy & Co really getting paid for what they're doing? Can they even read? It's sad to see ostensibly libertarian funded writers attack Rand Paul without merit. Talk about waste!

[sailingaway]

I love how Professional Libertarians like De Rugy and other people at Reason seem to think they had something to do with electing Rand Paul. I googled and I couldn't find anything by De Rugy promoting Rand Paul to her readers or praising the fact that a hardcore libertarian like Rand was coming in.

Yet they're the first to criticize perceived deviation. From what I've seen most of Rand's victory is attributed to Paul donors/grassroots supporters and establishment help from McConnell. Despite being the most libertarian candidate I doubt anything more than a few personal donations (which went to Trey during the primary as well) came from the Kochtopus which bankrolls de Rugy, Reason and the Mercatus Center--not even kind words! They, like Raimondo, just hop on the Randwagon when it suits them without getting out and pushing the wagon when the times were rough.

Look there's some debate as to what exactly constitutes an earmark. My take on it is that Rand might even be personally unfamiliar with the earmarking process. Here's what Wikipedia provides about earmarking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_%28politics%29):

Definition 1:



Notice that I highlighted the "Executive" part of the definition. Why? Because that's an executive office, OMB, defining Earmarks in terms of avoiding executive decision making.

Later on in the wiki a different definition is provided by the Sunlight Foundation:



Rand needs to 1) figure out exactly what version of earmarking he agreed not to engage in 2) decide what appropriation he's comfortable with as being considered as "not earmarking" and 3) provide a clear policy to deal with earmarks

Bingo, and I think it is that second version that he meant because it and NOT the first version is consistent with everything he said on the trail.

BUT the pledge he supposedly signed says something different. See text above.

[TheDriver]

Bingo, and I think it is that second version that he meant because it and NOT the first version is consistent with everything he said on the trail.

BUT the pledge he supposedly signed says something different. See text above.

We should contact CAGW ourselves and get a good "working definition." :D

[sailingaway]

We should contact CAGW ourselves and get a good "working definition." :D

The definition is in the pledge. If it weren't there would be no issue

[sailingaway]

Even the CAGW pledge (http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/congressional-candidates-sign.html) mirrors the Sunlight Foundation:


Are de Rugy & Co really getting paid for what they're doing? Can they even read? It's sad to see ostensibly libertarian funded writers attack Rand Paul without merit. Talk about waste!

Read it again, the language is tortured but they are saying an earmark is anything that fits ONE of those -- so if the president didn't request it, that is enough to make it an earmark. That is contrary to our Constitution's separation of powers.

However, talking about it here doesn't help. The question is what does RAND mean by it, and it sounds like he means the Sunlight Foundation version (since he always spoke of advocating in committee). Then the pledge, if he accidentally signed or authorized something that didn't reflect his intention becomes an embarrassment but not a policy issue.

[sailingaway]

So now the WSJ has created this nonsense they are now calling Rand anti earmark... but are saying De Mint is collecting signatures to get rid of earmarks. I wonder what the wording on THAT is. I have long thought that MOST who want earmarks gone actually WANT to strengthen the executive. I hope that isn't Rand's position.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703957804575602930038132758.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_politics

[TheDriver]

The definition is in the pledge. If it weren't there would be no issue

I fail to see the issue. Rand has said he doesn't support the earmark process and won't stick them on bills.


If you want to talk semantics, no earmark would be within a balanced-budget considering the trillion or so we are in the red, per year.

[sailingaway]

I fail to see the issue. Rand has said he doesn't support the earmark process and won't stick them on bills.


If you want to talk semantics, no earmark would be within a balanced-budget considering the trillion or so we are in the red, per year.

The issue is separation of powers under the constitution. Who directs spending, the president or congress.

[TheDriver]

The issue is separation of powers under the constitution. Who directs spending, the president or congress.

Spending on what? Pet projects back in your district?

[TheDriver]

The issue is separation of powers under the constitution. Who directs spending, the president or congress.

You're acting like CAGW defines all government spending as an "earmark" and I don't think that's true.

[low preference guy]

The issue is separation of powers under the constitution. Who directs spending, the president or congress.

That makes sense only IF congress authorizes funds without earmarks. But if Congress doesn't authorize funds at all, more than the essential functions, there is nothing to spend.

The issue of separation of powers arises only when Congress authorizes more funds to be spent than it should. I'm guessing Rand is against authorizing unessential funds completely. So there's no separation of powers issue there.

[Brett85]

The issue is separation of powers under the constitution. Who directs spending, the president or congress.

Rand's position should be that neither Congress nor the President should spend the money. The money should stay in the states to begin with.

[sailingaway]

You're acting like CAGW defines all government spending as an "earmark" and I don't think that's true.

Read it.

For it not to be an earmark it has to be requested by the president under their definition. And a bunch of other things, but unless requested by the president it is an earmark. Under THEIR definition, not under the definition usually used, but it was their pledge people say he has signed.

[Libertea Party]

Read it again, the language is tortured but they are saying an earmark is anything that fits ONE of those -- so if the president didn't request it, that is enough to make it an earmark. That is contrary to our Constitution's separation of powers.

However, talking about it here doesn't help. The question is what does RAND mean by it, and it sounds like he means the Sunlight Foundation version (since he always spoke of advocating in committee). Then the pledge, if he accidentally signed or authorized something that didn't reflect his intention becomes an embarrassment but not a policy issue.

That's the thing. If "Not requested by the President" excludes all earmarks then why even include the rest of the other CAGW criteria? Presumably anything "not requested by the President" automatically includes things like "Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding" and does everything that a Department does become "a subject of congressional hearings"? The CAGW pledge itself seems muddled.

The only way I can think of being consistent to the CAGW pledge is that a Senator pushes a Department/President to add a program as a request and that "request" is confirmed by the Department/President as a whole.

That would be consistent with what Rand was saying all along. I don't think the pledge was meant to say the President gets to choose what gets funded without any input from Congress. I think its purpose was to have Representatives and Senators lobby the Department/President and have their program meet their internal "merit-based" tests for reviewing the program.

If it doesn't meet the Department's test it doesn't get listed as a "request" by the Department/President and the Pledge says they can't unilaterally just add it anyway i.e. earmarking. The "request" is then voted on the by the body as a whole.

So I think the CAGW way goes like this: Senator lobbies appropriations committee, Appropriations committee lobbies Department/President, Department/President approves program and puts it up as part of the budget vote in front of Congress.

The way it works now: Senator lobbies Appropriations committee, Appropriations committee earmarks. President/Department adds the earmark on top of whatever it's already doing or incorporates it into its budget.

Again I don't think CAGW considers requests for programs from Members of Congress earmarks/pork otherwise why not just stop at "Not requested by the President". I think Appropriations involves more than just the Department/President unilaterally searching for programs to fund. I think it involves input from all of Congress via the Appropriations committee and a merit based approach to dealing with those suggestions by the Department.

I think the goal is balancing local priorities (individual member) and filtering them through national interests (Appropriations committee) and finally applying a merit-based approach on what's left (Department).

Now I think along with everyone else here that government spending outside of it's Constitutional prescriptions is inherently wasteful and illegal to begin with. But if it's going to happen CAGW/Club for Growth/DeMint/Rand argue that it's best to make it as least wasteful as possible by putting it through the above mentioned filters.

[TheDriver]

Read it.

For it not to be an earmark it has to be requested by the president under their definition. And a bunch of other things, but unless requested by the president it is an earmark. Under THEIR definition, not under the definition usually used, but it was their pledge people say he has signed.

You're starting to sound like Larry Craig on this issue. :p

http://membership.cagw.org/site/DocServer/PorkFinal.pdf


Definition
A pork-barrel project is a line-item in an appropriations or authorization bill that designates funds for a specific purpose in circumvention of the normal procedures for budget review.

When you read CAGW's definition, you see Rand Paul is advocating we return to the "traditional" process (pre 1980's), at least that's how I see it.


More from that link:

The terms “pork” and “earmarks” are often used interchangeably, but they are different. The term “earmark” generally means any expenditure for a specific purpose that is tucked into a larger bill. Only when the earmark is inappropriately added to the bill is it considered pork. Although there is no universal definition for “earmark,” an analysis by the Congressional Research Service identified 15,268 earmarks in the non-emergency appropriations bills for fiscal 2005.11 By comparison, CAGW’s 2005 Congressional Pig Book identified 13,997
11. “Earmarks in Appropriations Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005,” 4
pork-barrel projects in the same bills.
Precise terminology is essential for holding Congress accountable for the reforms that are needed to fix the budget process.

[MRoCkEd]

This is all over conservative (and liberal) sites saying he sold out. I think Rand needs to clarify this.

[sailingaway]

This is all over conservative (and liberal) sites saying he sold out. I think Rand needs to clarify this.

Actually, he clearly never sold out. This is from that WSJ article we all read, where they took his saying he would advocate for KY in committee, within the context of a balanced budget as being 'for earmarks in violation of his pledge' which simply isn't true. He has consistently said he would advocate in committee, just not tack stuff on at the end without having to justify its merit, in return for a vote. As far as the media spin this is essentially like that 'soft on drugs' nonsense when he never said what he was paraphrased to say, and then the media ran with it.

I actually am better with his position than I was last night. I'm kind of 'meh' about it, but I always was kind of 'meh' about his earmark position. Now at least I understand why he made earmarks an issue, though. That pledge essentially makes it harder to spend money. The president can't do it without Congress and Congress can't do it without the president. Greater chance of gridlock. And blank checks to the president wouldn't be ok, either, as I read it.

However, I was at a Best Buy until about 2 a.m. fulfilling my end of a Call of Duty, Black Ops bargain, and then had to be up at five. Take anything I say that involves brainpower with a grain of salt.

[TheDriver]

http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/11/09/neil-cavuto-busted-peddling-liberal-smack-on-rand-paul/


Neil Cavuto Busted Peddling Liberal-Smack On Rand Paul (http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/11/09/neil-cavuto-busted-peddling-liberal-smack-on-rand-paul/)

[RonPaulCult]

If you look at th WSJ article, that started this mess, the part that says he will fight for earmarks is NOT in quotes. The words were therefore chosen by the person writing the article. I seriously doubt the words came out of Rand's mouth - because it's not something he would say for one thing - and because they would have quoted him on it had he actually said it.

This is something the press does all the time. When you give interviews, they twist your words around and write what they want to write. Look closely at the article and you will see what I am saying.

When you watch his clip from the Sunday morning show, you hear the words that actually come out of Rand's mouth and it paints a different picture. The real picture.

[TheDriver]

If you look at th WSJ article, that started this mess, the part that says he will fight for earmarks is NOT in quotes. The words were therefore chosen by the person writing the article. I seriously doubt the words came out of Rand's mouth - because it's not something he would say for one thing - and because they would have quoted him on it had he actually said it.

This is something the press does all the time. When you give interviews, they twist your words around and write what they want to write. Look closely at the article and you will see what I am saying.

When you watch his clip from the Sunday morning show, you hear the words that actually come out of Rand's mouth and it paints a different picture. The real picture.

Exactly!


First let’s look at the relevant part of Matthew Kaminski’s fictional piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html) in the Wall Street Journal:


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.

I’ve highlighted the only direct quote, which is taken out of context, as it’s only a snippet. Because Rand Paul said he would advocate for Kentucky’s interests, Kaminski’s somehow constructs that to be a flip-flop on earmarks, and a direct indication of Paul wanting to sneak on pork-laden earmarks in the dead of night. Did I miss something? Is Kaminski a fiction writer?

The bulk of the paragraph is Kaminski’s “wishful” thinking – his own summaries. Kaminski claims there is a big “shift” from Paul’s campaign pledge, but that is not accurate. I’m going to assume Kaminski didn’t read the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CCAGW) No Pork Pledge – the pledge Rand Paul took and signed – or Kaminski doesn’t understand what is generally referred to as the “earmark process.” Because the only pledge concerning earmarks Paul has taken is the CCAGW’s No Pork Pledge. Rand Paul has also called for “reforming” the earmark process, but that’s pretty vague and tough to smear, even for the Wall Street Journal.
http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/11/09/neil-cavuto-busted-peddling-liberal-smack-on-rand-paul/

[jct74]

HuffPo is pushing this REALLY hard, LOL.

http://i51.tinypic.com/25yzjoh.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/rand-paul-earmarks-ban_n_780832.html

[RonPaulCult]

We need to all write the WSJ to demand either the exact quote where Rand said that (audio file of it would be nice - I'm sure they were recording it) or a RETRACTION.

There's no way he said those words.

[specsaregood]

I care little for what they say now. They are just acting like spoiled brats that didn't get their way. He already won. His voting record will speak for him later.

[sailingaway]

We need to all write the WSJ to demand either the exact quote where Rand said that (audio file of it would be nice - I'm sure they were recording it) or a RETRACTION.

There's no way he said those words.

He didn't. He said what he always says, that within the context of a balanced budget, he will fight for Kentucky's interests in the committee process -- not circumvent that process with earmarks. They just took the 'fight for Kentucky's interest' and called it being for earmarks.

Look at my other thread about Jim DeMint gathering support to ban earmarks for 2 years. Rand is one of the cosponsors.