I absolutely agree with you. His record on earmarks for his district isn't perfect, and I don't agree with his voting for them, BUT:
1. His record on voting with Jeff Flake against earmarks in general is superb.
2. His record on voting to cut spending on non-Constitutional projects in general is superb.
3. Please point out a candidate running for President that has a better record on voting to cut spending, returning responsibilities to the states, and reducing the size and power of the federal bureaucracy. Until then, I'll support Paul.
PaleoPaulie is a craven surrendermonkey. Who you support is your business. Who actual conservatives support is our business. Money isn't everything. Neither is a narrow view of the constitution in time of war. It is a constitution and not a suicide pact. We don't need to have military policy determined by a drunken display of Cuckoocinich, paleoPaulie, Weepy Walter Jones, Duncan, Nancy Facelift, Traitor Murtha, Traitor Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam??? He served the NVA and VC), Comrade Conyers, Comrade Levin, David Obey, et al., running around in bumper cars like Keystone Kops arguing about which direction which Bradley vehicle will take fleeing helter skelter from Baghdad for the maximum benefit of our Islamofascist enemies.
Oh, and pro-lifers which he claims to be, are the people who, unlike paleoPaulie, are not interested in merely returning the babykilling issue to the states for the sake of "constitutionalism" three and a half decades and 50 million slaughtered babies after the babykilling was crammed down our threats by Herod Blackmun and six other blackrobed killers. A national ban on abortion is now in order by whatever means necessary. That will take precedence over constitutional fussiness under the circumstances. Then comes Lawrence vs. Texas: the "rights" of lavenders case.