Posted on 08/31/2009 6:57:36 PM PDT by GoldStandard
U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul on Monday pledged not to accept campaign contributions from any U.S. Senator who voted for the bank bailout and challenged his opponents to follow suit.
Dr. Paul issued this challenge after learning that Trey Grayson has scheduled a Washington D.C. fundraiser co-sponsored by several U.S. Senators, seventeen of whom voted for the so-called TARP bailout in 2008, which was then used to fund an auto industry bailout Congress rejected.
"This isn't about holding politicians to an impossibly high standard of agreeing with everything one's supporters say or do," Paul said. "But a primary focus of my campaign is that we need Republicans in office who will have the courage to say no to federal bailouts of big business."
"There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector and the Republican party platform specifically condemns bailouts," Paul said. "I'm running for the U.S. Senate to stand up for true Republican principles and the Republicans I've talked to agree that is what we need."
Statement from the Grayson Campaign:
"Trey Grayson opposes the bailouts and disagrees on that issue with some Republicans. However, rather than attacking fellow Republicans, Secretary Grayson has called for an exit plan to end the TARP program, stop the bailouts, and get the government out of the business of owning and managing private companies. If elected, Secretary Grayson will focus on solutions and will work to rally more Republicans to his position while working to build our party, not tear it down."
I’m sure there are many members of the Senate desperate to contribute to Son of Nutcase.
A nutcase whose been right every step of the way.
Sounds “fishy” to me...I don’t know who to trust anymore!
Do you have any info you can share with us on the “nutcase”? I’d like to know more about it.
Thanks.
Good for him, principles are rare in politics these days.
So he was right in questioning the governments account of 9/11? It was really Bush that was behind it? There were not really any Arab terrorist? The planes were unmanned drones and everybody who supposedly died on those planes is in hiding to support the Bush war effort? No plane hit the Pentagon, it was a U.S. Missile?
He’s not going to find too many US Senators that are going to support a Constitutionalist anyway...
That comes off bad. "Right in question the government's account..." always sounds bad. And no, I'm not a truther (or a birther.)
Regardless, Ron Paul never did such a thing.
It was really Bush that was behind it? There were not really any Arab terrorist? The planes were unmanned drones and everybody who supposedly died on those planes is in hiding to support the Bush war effort? No plane hit the Pentagon
Please point me to where Paul specifically stated ANY of this.
And when exactly did Ron Paul or Rand Paul do this?
so has Trey but it seems that Rand wants to play the game of “who really really REALLY opposes the bailout?”
find another issue to find differences
You know Paul doesn’t think that - right. He’s never said anything like that.
He has always said that guys with box cutters took down those planes - and that if the gov. was culpable it was because of a failure of intelligence.
You know damn well as you ask the question that Paul won't come right out and say it. Here is a section taken from Michelle Malkin's website dated May 19th, 2007;
"Transcript of the Truther-pandering exchange:
Student: We’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.
Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.
“Whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever?”
Yes, friends, we are in grassy knoll territory. And the Truthers certainly think they know what Paul is signaling when he said “or whatever.”
The student follows up after Paul gives a speech:
Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.
Paul: Into 9/11?
Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.
Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.
Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?
Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.
This is just part of the exchange and you can read it here: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
I don’t understand why people choose to lie about Ron Paul. The government’s account of ANYTHING has ever been truthful? Please... I’m not a truther either but for God’s sake why would anyone trust the folks in D.C. to tell the truth? At least the whole truth.
Ah well, that is only slightly less laughable evidence than the transcript for the May 15, 2007 South Carolina GOP debate where Paul and Giuliani had that spat. I thought for sure you’d go with that one.
Oh yeah, and certainly the 9/11 commission was full of upright and outstanding beacons of moral compass. What was her name...Jamie Gurelyk or whatever. She would never cover up for gov’t mistakes. C’mon! Don’t people see that big gov’t is ALWAYS leftist and devious?
Yeah I know what you mean. That liberal Michelle Malkin just lies all the time doesn’t she!
The question is does Ron Paul believe the Bush Whitehouse rather than Islamic militants were behind 9/11?
Apparently he either does believe it or was simply pandering to get votes.
That’s not the question at all. The question is; Was the government negligent (after all the money they spent) in not catching wind of the 9/11 plot beforehand? They had foreigners with expired passports who only wanted to learn to fly “in the air”, not land or take off, in U.S. flight schools and they missed it.
“Student: We’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.
Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does ...”
Only the truly naiive faithfully drink the koolaid dispensed by the ruling administration - regardless of their party affiliation. Such thinking leads to totalitarian regimes or at least very dishonest government. I cannot recall one recent administration that has not tried to pass off at least one bald faced lie and then got caught, damaging both their party and America’s credibility. They initially had supporters grandstanding and calling any anyone who questioned unamerican, partisan or crazy.
Any reasonable person would agree that questioning official accounts is prudent and leads to better disclosure and a more honest government.
The government always tells the truth. Anyone who thinks differently is crazy.
That’s crazy talk. The government would never lie about anything about 9-11.
Perhaps you are an Al Qaeda love slave. Paulie is Al Qaeda's spokesthing in the US Congress along with Weepy Walter Jones, Dennis Cuckoocinich and Paul Abercrombie. Paulie: pathetic paleopeacecreep and friend of the enemies of America.
Nutcase he was, is and always will be.
As for Ron Paul,he’s the only republican Cindy Sheehan can stomach. Proving the adage, birds of a feather.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Cindy Sheehan endorses Ron Paul over Barack Obama
http://wigdersonlibrarypub.blogspot.com/2008/05/cindy-sheehan-endorses-ron-paul-over.html
and earlier:
Sheehan: “I don’t want to even discuss who is likely to be the Republican nominee, because besides having little foreign policy difference between any of them and Hillary, anyone of them would be a complete disaster on matters of war and peace, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (Tx).”
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1590/t/523/blog/comments.jsp?key=346&blog_entry_KEY=21045&t
As for the son and his “sacrifice” of funds from senators who won’t vote as he tells them, it reminds me of the Aesop fable of the fox and the grapes. Trying and trying, but failing to get a bunch of grapes hanging just out of his reach, the fox sulks off saying he didn’t want the grapes anyway, they were probably sour.
I was wondering why there is so much hatred on here for Ron Paul, too.
All I have seen on here is that some of Jewish folks have expressed hatred for Rand Paul’s father, Ron, for not voting for Israeli causes. Some call him anti-Jewish.
I don’t know about Rand, but his dad is not supporting the US being the world’s military force. He rejects nation building, and does not support the US sticking our noses into into the affairs of other Nations. He is consistent in his rejection of expansionist causes. He is for free trade but against globalism. Ron Paul never goes along to get along...
On social issues Ron Paul is not in line with social conservatives on some things. I don’t know about Rand, but his dad is also against “drug prohibition.” He thinks we lost the war on drugs and have created the monster in Mexico’s drug cartel. Ron Paul does not support the nanny state thing and some conservatives get real angry because they love the State crack down on smoking and other behaviors they don’t like.
But likewise, he does not believe in the Fed’s giving out money for the centralized imposition of Leftist social causes like diversity race meaning and preferences, abortion and sex ed. and mandatory moral acceptance of homosexuality.
I think I picked up that during the election when people on here were supporting McCain, Ron Paul supporters got kicked off because of the competition but I am not sure about that.
I want someone to clarify all this for me, too.
Thanks for the info...I guess the first question that comes to mind after reading your post is, what exactly, or what side of the fence, does Paul find himself?
Like you stated, confusing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.