CNN's "American Morning" making hay with the earmarks

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

They're reporting it hourly, playing a soundbite from MTP. They're really trying to paint him as a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

Youtube that this doesn't happen! :p

But seriously - never mind, it's harmless in contrast of
all the other points of Ron. So it's not that bad.

[Give me liberty]

Cnn is hypocrite, they only love clinton and rudy.

And count to think of it they only love those CFR candidates.

[phixion]

The more interest and curiosity they generate the better.

Pete

[user]

The more interest and curiosity they generate the better.

Pete
This kind of treatment probably angers all of us, but phixion makes a good point. This does generate interest, and a lot of people who look into RP will come away supporting him.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I'm afraid someone who might have looked into him will see this and think: "See, he's just another Washington politician. He's just as dirty as the rest."

[user]

I'm afraid someone who might have looked into him will see this and think: "See, he's just another Washington politician. He's just as dirty as the rest."
I guess it depends on how bad they've made it sound...

[constituent]

that interview was great for Ron. I spoke w/ several people yesterday who had heard of him, but never looked into what he was about. As usually goes, when given the chance to speak, people listen and they like what they hear (in spite of the spin). let's not forget that everyone is skeptical of the media these days.

this type of reporting galvanizes the base (us).

[saahmed]

Ron Paul definitely needs to make his explanation clear and make it known. I completely understand why he did it, but I understand why people may think he went against his principles in doing this.

[Ron LOL]

A competent campaign manager would already be on the phone with CNN to get RP on the air to clarify this position...

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I think an interview (if they'll give him one) or a press release is in order.

[MsDoodahs]

I guess it depends on how bad they've made it sound...


I have not seen it but it is CNN and so I expect they make it sound REALLY bad.

[StateofTrance]

Believe me, 99% of American voters have NO FREAKING IDEA what "earmarks" mean.

[user]

Believe me, 99% of American voters have NO FREAKING IDEA what "earmarks" mean.
Yeah, but if CNN also mentioned "spending," most Americans know what that means.

[Yom]

They're making it an issue on CSPAN right now, too.

[Dutch]

Believe me, 99% of American voters have NO FREAKING IDEA what "earmarks" mean.
Which makes me think, what % of americans know what Habeas Corpus means?
Ron keeps saying we lost it, but how many people would know what it means?
Let alone how serious it is?

Dutch

[LibertyEagle]

I hope his campaign is trying to get him various interviews. He needs to clear this up, I think.

[StateofTrance]

Which makes me think, what % of americans know what Habeas Corpus means?
Ron keeps saying we lost it, but how many people would know what it means?
Let alone how serious it is?

Dutch

You, sir, have made a good point.

[Created4]

There's nothing on the CNN.com website about this that I can see, so I don't think it is a big deal. Besides, Dr. Paul had a great answer for this yesterday, and he just needs to expound upon it. To apply Russert's logic in this issue, it's like saying you are philosophically against the government withholding social security taxes, but does that then mean that when it is your time to get it back at retirement, that you should just let the government keep it to remain consistent in your ideology?? Obviously not! You have a right to that money. I think put that way, along with his mention of taking "tax credits", that most people will not see this as a big issue.

[RonPaulCult]

I didn't care for how that grey haired anchor spoke about Ron Paul last hour.

He said he was a hypocrite in not so few words

[hocaltar]

Silly liberals... Wow, RP has just about gone viral on the MSM lately. What's really funny is that if the MSM would just flat out ignore us, we would go away. By bashing us, our numbers can only grow. They obviously don't read their history books.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I didn't care for how that grey haired anchor spoke about Ron Paul last hour.

He said he was a hypocrite in not so few words
He really teed me off. I wanted to punch my TV screen.

[ItsTime]

He made it very clear what he meant. This is no big deal, more people talking about him IS GOOD. Finally we have some "controversy"! This is all they could dig up on him..

[Alabama Supporter]

He needs a press release clarifying his position. Tiim Russert moved on to term limits without giving him ample time to finish explaining. The average american doesn't understand earmarks other than that they are bad.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HIS POSITION CAMPAIGN!!!

[JMO]

He needs a press release clarifying his position. Tiim Russert moved on to term limits without giving him ample time to finish explaining. The average american doesn't understand earmarks other than that they are bad.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HIS POSITION CAMPAIGN!!!

I think a press release will just make it a bigger problem. This will die away by tomorrow. Explaining something this confusing to the average voter will just bring attention to something that is probably not a winnable argument, all the average voter will hear is you are doing something you are against. You are better off just not trying to make this a big issue.

[Gordon]

They're reporting it hourly, playing a soundbite from MTP. They're really trying to paint him as a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

People really need to get educated about earmarks. I can't tell you every time I hear Rudy McRompsuckabee say they are going to get rid of the deficit by "Getting rid of earmarks." Umm.. no guys, that's actually not going to cut spending.

[Gordon]

He needs a press release clarifying his position. Tiim Russert moved on to term limits without giving him ample time to finish explaining. The average american doesn't understand earmarks other than that they are bad.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HIS POSITION CAMPAIGN!!!

Russert is a fat piece of greasy blob oil.

[LFOD]

Earmarks are such a red herring. It's a convenient *something* for politicians to bash. Obsessing about earmarks isn't going to solve the deficit.

[Ozwest]

Media conspiracy?

Naaahh!

[bobmurph]

RP's tax credit analogy was a great simple way to explain his position. He needs to trumpet that statement.

This has been a talking point against RP for a long time. Neal Boortz was talking about this as far back as September. I'm shocked that it's just starting to be picked up by the MSM. It's s fairly strong point if RP's position goes undefended. This could be good, draw some attention to him and when people understand his reasoning they may be converted.

[literatim]

This gets them talking about it and it will get him on shows for interviews.

[musicmax]

Believe me, 99% of American voters have NO FREAKING IDEA what "earmarks" mean.

Your condescending sneering is NO HELP AT ALL in the recruitment of votes for Dr. Paul.

[musicmax]

I didn't care for how that grey haired anchor spoke about Ron Paul last hour.

He said he was a hypocrite in not so few words

Paul's earmark shellgame IS hypocritical. Take off the fanboy glasses, bud.

[Ninja Homer]

Earmarks isn't a major issue that will sway the average voter one way or the other. If a person doesn't understand earmarks, and they keep hearing about it in the media, that person would be a lot more likely to do a little research on earmarks and Ron Paul than to just flat out decide not to support Ron Paul.

Ron gets little interviews every now and then, and this question will likely come up again. If he can sum up the issue in very basic terms that everybody would understand in about 30-60 seconds, it would be good.

If anything, this is getting Ron Paul's out to more people. If this is the worst thing they can dig up on Ron Paul, using earmarks to get money back to his district that the government was going to spend anyway, then Ron Paul must have a damn clean record, and the people will realize it.

[stefans]

Paul's earmark shellgame IS hypocritical. Take off the fanboy glasses, bud.

it's not.
ron paul has to play by the rules that are there until he can change them.
do you think ron paul should not run for president because he thinks the election system is not very democratic? (biased against 3rd parties etc.)
isn't it also hypocritical to run at all by your standard?

[KewlRonduderules]

Paul's earmark shellgame IS hypocritical. Take off the fanboy glasses, bud.

:confused:

Might I suggest doing some reading up on the issue before suggesting that Dr. Paul is hypocrytical.

It is definitely not hypocritical.

You need to understand money is already allocated for earmarks before Dr. Paul requests it. All members of Congress do this (everyone). If he does not, that money goes to other areas of the government especially the executive branch. Do you really want the White House to determine who and what gets money? I certainly would not.

So he is requesting money that his constituents want and whatever the IRS is taxing them for, he refunds them with money from earmarks.


He votes against these spending bills eventually because he believes they are morally wrong and to protest the system.

I am not exactly sure where the problem lies.

;)

[therealjjj77]

Paul's earmark shellgame IS hypocritical. Take off the fanboy glasses, bud.

I don't think you understand Ron Paul's history regarding this. Take any pork spending bill for example. It already has, let's say, 35 billion dollars that WILL be allocated to it irregardless. So Ron Paul adds an earmark to ensure that part of it goes to the community he represents. And then, every single time, he votes against the bill.

This way, if it does get passed, damage control is minimized for his community. If it doesn't get passed then that is ultimately what his desired outcome was.

Name one pork spending bill he has voted for? Name any unconstitutional spending bill he has voted for?

[literatim]

Paul's earmark shellgame IS hypocritical. Take off the fanboy glasses, bud.

That is like calling a tax credit or taking social security hypocritical. Ron Paul has never even spoke out against earmarks.

[Alabama Supporter]

Believe me, 99% of American voters have NO FREAKING IDEA what "earmarks" mean.

This is a fact. The problem is that earmarks have a VERY negative connotation. I still don't really understand what an earmark is and I consider myself a little more informed than the average voter. RP's explanation did not clarify the issue on MTP.

[legion]

I think a press release will just make it a bigger problem. This will die away by tomorrow. Explaining something this confusing to the average voter will just bring attention to something that is probably not a winnable argument, all the average voter will hear is you are doing something you are against. You are better off just not trying to make this a big issue.

uhm, this is how it works when you are a first tier candidate.

a minor controversy comes out and you have a press release to explain it and get yourself even more attention. this isn't the media trying to discredit ron paul. this is just their game they play to increase viewership and ratings.

to hide now and ignore this would just show to them that RP isn't "serious" about running

[peruvianRP]

Believe me, 99% of American voters have NO FREAKING IDEA what "earmarks" mean.

Hey you are right...I did not even know aobut earmark or Pork meant until very recently and I'm still not 100% understand it.

[Ozwest]

Is there a U-tube of this?

[JPFromTally]

Trust me... if we're going to have negative press this is the neg press we want.

[roversaurus]

When Will Ron Paul be on the air to talk about this "Controversy"
It is a good one to have.

The campaign should be on top of it.

This is ANOTHER opportunity to get on the air.

[Ninja Homer]

I'd say that Ron Paul adding earmarks is borderline hypocritical, but it's necessary. Ron Paul's working within a corrupt system to try to change the system. If he didn't put in those earmarks, he would never get re-elected as congressman for his district. Money was taken away from the taxpayers of his district, and he's trying to get some of it back for them.

It may not be authorized in the Constitution for Ron Paul to add earmarks, but it is also wrong that the money was taken away from the people in the first place. Sometimes, 2 wrongs do make a right; this is one of those cases. The greater right would be to not take money from the people in the first place, which, obviously, is what Ron Paul is fighting for.

[KewlRonduderules]

I don't think it is hypocritical at all. He works with a system that is already corrupt. You do what you have to make sure money is given to your district. Think like Robin Hood- take from the Rich to give to the Poor. Whereas, Dr. Paul takes from the government to give to normal classes in his district.

What else is one supposed to do? Have no money spent for your district?

They all do it. Even if they did not want to, they don't have a choice. It is either that or not get elected to Congress.

Hypocritical is WAY TOO strong of a word for what he does.

They are really trying to make an issue out of nothing. If at all, the issue is how the system works- not Dr. Paul.

[Original_Intent]

We knew the attack phase was coming and this just shows how weak their kung fu is. I mean Tim Russert tried to get Ron Paul to say that amending the Constitution was unconstitutional??:confused: And then implying that he was a hypocrite for earmarking money for his own district and then voting against the unconstituional bill that the earmarks were in??

We should be glad to be supporting a candidate that this is the worst they can do.

Only a few weeks and we move on the the "we win" phase! :)

[Swmorgan77]

They're reporting it hourly, playing a soundbite from MTP. They're really trying to paint him as a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

The establishment floated this trial-balloon a few months ago and it went nowhere. This just shows how squeaky clean RP is if the best smear they can come up with has to do with a supposed "hypocrisy" based on a subject that even the most determined political junkies start to gloss over with boredom about when the issue is raised.

:)

[literatim]

I'd say that Ron Paul adding earmarks is borderline hypocritical, but it's necessary.

How is distributing money already in the system in anyway hypocritical?


It may not be authorized in the Constitution for Ron Paul to add earmarks, but it is also wrong that the money was taken away from the people in the first place.

Appropriation of taxes are constitutional.

[michaelwise]

It's time to strike back with something a little more hard hitting to get peoples attention and re- focus their attention.

For Florida and the other real estate bust states I propose this. Signs that say; Like the Real Estate Bust? Kill the Federal Reserve. Vote for Ron Paul.

[all J's in IL for RP]

This is a non issue. They're trying to make the point that he's not ideologically pure by working within the system. Of course, if he were, he would have been out of congress in 1978.

[RevolutionSD]

Why is anybody so suprised at these attacks?

MONTHS ago we knew eventually they would attack RP.
The official attack mode kicked off with the white supremist nonsense.
The attacks will continue until the elections. This is what they do. Remember our order:

1. First they laugh at you. CHECK
2. Then they ignore you. CHECK
3. Then they attack you. HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
4. Then you win. Coming Soon.

[louisiana4liberty]

This is a non issue. They're trying to make the point that he's not ideologically pure by working within the system. Of course, if he were, he would have been out of congress in 1978.

Exactly...a purist would have stopped participating in government a long time ago. However, you must participate in order to change things. I would say his record of voting NO to unconstitutional bills says he is trying to change the flawed system.

[mconder]

Paul's earmark shellgame IS hypocritical. Take off the fanboy glasses, bud.

Dude...he has never voted for earmarks. He simply puts them in to the spending bill, because he knows the other assholes in Congress will vote for them anyway. At least this way his constituents get some of their money back. Ron's is saying I don't want the money spent, but if your going to do it anyway, my people get a cut of the pie. How is that hypocritical?

[literatim]

Them attacking Ron Paul on something like this is going to just bring us new people. It is so asinine its laughable.

[mconder]

1. First they laugh at you. CHECK
2. Then they ignore you. CHECK
3. Then they attack you. HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
4. Then you win. Coming Soon.

You don't always win, at least in the immediate sense. There are plenty examples of those fighting for a good cause getting themselves killed, or dieing a poor and miserable death as outcasts. Just look at Joseph McCarthy.

[Arklatex]

We should use this to our advantage to further explain Ron Paul's philosophy. He did his congressional duty to represent his district and wrote up these 'earmarks' so they could be voted on; however, he himself doesn't have to vote in favor of theses laws and he never has.

Goes to show how principled Ron Paul is, he even votes against the wish of his own district - but doesn't refuse his duty of writing them up so their voice can be heard and voted on in congress.

This is a selling point for Ron Paul, sadly only the educated minority will realize it. The MSM can spin it all they want.

[literatim]

Earmarks aren't even unconstitutional. The appropriation of money is the job of the Congress.

[0zzy]

I think we've finally got out of the ignore mode. For awhile it's been in the ignore/attack, i think we are in all out attack now. laughing is apart of the attacks too.