I guess you didn't get the message that you were supposed ot drop that talking point and go with the latest article he wrote for LewRockwell.com about how the budget wouldn't change whether he voted for it, submitted it or not.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html
But, while we are at it.. let's just look at one of the funnier ones..
Voted FOR $100 Million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (note, there were cuts in there, but also the renewal of $100 Million of funding to PBS.)-
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3550&can_id=296
Or how about the Jobs and Economic Growth bill of 02- which is a good bill, but did contain pork to the tune of ten billion dollars.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3260&can_id=296
Still, I like the, he was for it before he was against it argument.. it is very Kerry..
LOL!!!! I had to ping this some other Paul supporters. You praise both bills for making cuts yet you criticize Paul for voting for them!
Is that the best you can do? If you want a real issue, how about Fred's public and proud support for putting that thug and apologist for necklacing Aristide back in power?
For all of the bashing that Paul gets here, he is still closer to Reagan’s principles than the ‘top tier’ of GOP candidates and some of the 2nd tier as well.
While you may not want to think of him as a Republican in some ways, who is all that proud of the pubbies after what they have done over the last 6 years?
I like Paul, but I believe that he is wrong on the war and thus will not vote for him. Duncan Hunter gets my vote, so far. I just think that you are all doing yourselves and your favored candidate and the GOP a disservice by being so nasty to his supporters. Assuming even as he does that he will not get the nomination, those voters will vote for someone. Don’t you want to win them to your side?
...
all the earmarks in themselves aren’t bad, it is that he makes himself to be a champion of opposing them.. in other words, he is full of S*it.
Ahem.
(Fred Thompson) made a point of talking about pork barreling spending and the budget. Thompson said that Republicans "lost the advantage" in budgetary issues because they also over spent and did not do anything to get the budget under control. He said, "We went to drain the swamp and became the alligators."And...He singled out Tom Coburn and John McCain as two senators he thought were principled on budgetary issues. When I mentioned Democratic Senator Kent Conrad as another budget hawk, he acknowledged that but said Senator Conrad was just as insistent as anyone else in bringing pork back to his home state.
Senator Thompson said it was too hard to change the system when the accomplishments were so minor and the setbacks were so large. To be clear, I didn't bring up the budget issue, he did. It seemed to be his primary source of frustration with his time in the Senate.
Thompson was fiercely protective when it came to his own earmarks. His congressional website boasts of the federal dollars he was able to "snag" for his Tennessee constituents, including $25 billion in highway funds; $70 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; $2 million for the Tennessee River; and $23 million for the Spallation Neutron Source project. Thompson felt so strongly about preserving funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, he fought to exempt funds for the TVA from the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, carving out a new category of "constitutional pork." And though Thompson supported and voted for the presidential line-item veto, he fought vehemently to undo President Clinton's veto of two Tennessee projects.So, what could one say about your candidate Fred's record on earmarks? That "all the earmarks in themselves aren’t bad, it is that he makes himself to be a champion of opposing them.. in other words, he is full of S*it."?