Ron Paul Congressional Hypocrite

Congressman Ron Paul is bad for America on so many levels. There were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

On top of all that, Congressman Paul is a hypocrite.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

For example in last year's 111th Congress, Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 17  earmarks totaling almost $24 Million dollars

During the 2009 Fiscal Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling almost $81  million dollars. That's almost $105 million in earmarks over two years. Can you imagine if he wasn't a fiscal conservative?


In 2009 Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
If you cannot see video below click here

CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone elses district.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. The problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a “drooling crazy” type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good fiscal script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.

Last Night's New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN and John King Were The Big Losers

There was something terribly bothersome about about last night's debate between Republican candidates for President, and I couldn't figure it out until I watched it a second time this morning.

First of all there were either too many candidates or not enough time.  It seemed as if the candidates did not have enough time to answer particular questions, and because all the candidates did not answer each question its is hard in some ways to compare.

Secondly moderator  John King was a disaster.  With almost every answer one could hear King in the background, it was hard to tell if the guy was lifting something or trying to answer questions of his own, because the sound of grunts or "ums" coming from King were annoying as hell.

The three most important topics to voters are how to create jobs, how to fix the economy and energy, yet there were few questions on those topics,but there were questions about the tea party which are important only to King and the rest of the liberal media.  The United States is facing economic disaster....why would John King trivialize the debate with those inane "this or that" questions? Is it really important to know whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish or flat pizza?

Despite the problems with the format some of the candidates did find a way to stand out yesterday.

Winners:

• Romney's job in last night's debate was "not to lose it." In other words not to make any gaffes.  He seemed knowledgeable about each of the topics and he even seemed to believe his answer about Romneycare.  Romney was a winner by not losing. I wish he didn't seem like such a dammed politician all the time.

•  Michele Bachamann was a big winner last night.  Her job was to prove that she wasn't the nut job she is portrayed as by the liberal media. Bachmann more than succeeded.  She seemed knowledgeable and enthusiastic, perhaps a bit too enthusiastic the times she tried to get the crowd to cheer along with her. Her answers were knowledgeable, not only her answers to the economic questions which one would expect, but on foreign policy also.  I wouldn't surprise to see her jump up in the polls after her performance.

Losers:

• The biggest loser last night was Tim Pawlenty.  Already with a reputation of being a "98 pound weakling" as a candidate, perhaps the debate's most uncomfortable moment was the "Obamnycare" question.  John King served Mitt Romney's head to Pawlenty on  a silver platter, but the former Minnesota Gov. chickened out. I believe that last night will mark the end of Tim Pawlenty as a serious candidate.

• Most of Newt Gingrich's answers were very good (although his continuing claim that his comments on the Ryan plan were taken out of context doesn't do him any favors). The Gingrich campaign is falling apart. All of his senior people have quit.  Gingrich had to win the debate and win big in order for his campaign to remain viable...he didn't.  Goodbye Newt.

Disappointing:

• I went into last night wanting to really like Rick Santourm. He did an adequate job but for a guy participating in his first candidates debate he needed to do much better.  He looked very uncomfortable when he was asked for economic plan specifics and offered a handful of nothing. Many of his answers seemed like political hooey.

• Anybody that ran a pizza company has a leg up in my book but Herman Cain did nothing to break away from the pack last night. Too many of his answers revolved around "hiring the best people" and/or asking the Generals.  Sorry Herman but you have been running long enough, you should have surrounded yourself with some of the right people and asked a general or two by now...we need to know some specifics. Cain was wonderful when he stopped King and showed how he misquoted the"hiring Muslims" line, but then he took three paragraphs to get to what he really meant Shariah Law. 

 Also there:

•  Racist/Anti-Semite Ron Paul was also there. I am sure he appealed to the Ronulins. 

Overall the big winner was Michele Bachmann and the biggest loser was John King and CNN