“So because a candidate who put in earmarks in an effort to get some of his own money back in case a bill passed, but tried to stop the bill from passing and has a record of voting against the crazy spending going on in congress today, that candidate totally unacceptable?”
The word “hypocrite” means more to me than you apparently. For those believing Paul is the uber Constitutional guy, how many of those earmarks that Paul got are for items specifically permitted for the federal government in the Constitution?
Thus, the hypocrite tag...
Everyone goes off on these dumb tangential issues and arguing over whether a state should accept money thrust upon them (assuming of course that there are no strings attached) is one of those tangential issues.
The real issue is: How do we stop the spending. How do we prevent any and all earmarks? How do we get each and every appropriation examined and voted on by the congress?
Cure those problems and the question of earmarks is moot. They die from lack of life support.
The key to problem solving is to identify the real problem, not wasting times on the symptoms. The symptoms are not the disease, they are only pointers that one uses to find the disease.
Earmarks are pointers. The disease is the idea that wealth can be created by government.