New Republic: Russert's Bizarre Charge Against Ron Paul

mh311

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
9
http://tinyurl.com/ytfvrm

"Russert seemed determined to convince viewers that this is somehow hypocritical, but I don't see how it is. It's a perfectly tenable position: Paul is categorically opposed to earmarks, but if they're going to exist, his district is just as entitled to them as any other. The analogy Paul used is apt: just because you're opposed to the existence of Social Security doesn't obligate you to return your checks to the government--you were forced to pay in, so you might as well take what you deserve. One can accuse Ron Paul of many things, but philosophical inconsistency isn't one of them. --Josh Patashnik"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic

The New Republic is a left leaning political magazine that was once edited by reluctant Ron Paul supporter Andrew Sullivan.

Good stuff.
 
The 'earmarks' are politically damaging because certain politicians will insist that earmarks be put into legislation in exchange for their vote. But if Ron Paul votes NO on the final bill, then he's not selling his vote to anybody.
 
Ron Paul simply submits all earmarks requested by his constituents to an appropraitions subcommittee.
 
The most glaring thing about the Russert interview is that he resorts to these nitpicking issues. No major scandals, no major flip-flops, nothing of any meaningful substance to attack him on.
 
Did anyone see the comments? The are all anti-Paul. Some of us might might want to rectify that.
 
Back
Top