[George W. Bush]

Another blatantly dishonest article from you. Hardly surprising.

The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.

Produce proof that any of Ron Paul's earmarks have passed the relevant budget committees and made it past reconciliation.

But then, that would spoil your entire little ongoing trollfest, wouldn't it? Because there are no Ron Paul earmarks that have been funded. We can find plenty of others for House leaders and committee chairmen and the senior minority leaders on the committees. But none for Ron Paul.

Produce these earmarks.

[SJackson]

The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.

None of his earmarks get funded?

An interesting use of time then.

[DugwayDuke]

“The article doesn’t mention how many of Ron Paul’s earmarks ever get funded. That’s because they don’t get funded.”

Absolutely totally irrelevent to the theme of the article which is if Ron Paul truly believed in and was a ‘staunch defender’ of the Constitution he wouldn’t propose them in the first place.

But, even if what you say is true that none of those earmarks were funded, then those that deleted these earmarks are better ‘staunch defenders of the Constitution’ than is Ron Paul.