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.
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.