Ron Paul Endorses Porkster:

Ron Paul has apparently endorsed Alaska Rep. Don Young for re-election (HT: Instapundit).

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. The Ron Paul Endorsement:
  2. Ron Paul Endorses Porkster:
Cornellian (mail):
I thought the link was going to be something from The Onion, but apparently it's a real news story. Unbelievable.
8.24.2008 1:09pm
Elliot123 (mail):
I suspect the people of Alaska will also endorse Young.
8.24.2008 2:03pm
Young isn't only a porkster, he is a serious candidate for jail. Some think he is more likely to wind up in jail than Alaska's senior porkster, Ted Stevens. Convictions of the porksters could moot any endorsements of these two by the so grateful Alaskan electorate that for years has been getting far more from Washington than it sends to Washington.

Will Paul endorse Bob Barr too, or has he already done so?
8.24.2008 2:33pm
Polls show that Young and Stevens will both almost certainly lose their re-election bids.
8.24.2008 3:22pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Well, it's not as embarrassing as when Paul endorsed a white supremacist running for judge in Los Angeles County. To be fair, that endorsement was retracted when Paul's DC staff learned about the dirtbag's background (Paul's CA coordinator had moved on after the primary to run the judicial campaign, and apparently was able to get an endorsement for her new candidate without anyone checking beyond her say-so).

8.24.2008 4:59pm
Bill McGonigle (mail) (www):
'The art of the possible.'
8.24.2008 5:22pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Convictions of the porksters could moot any endorsements of these two by the so grateful Alaskan electorate that for years has been getting far more from Washington than it sends to Washington."

That's why they have been repeatedly sent back to Washington. The feds blew it in the statehood agreement when Alaska state government managed to secure all mineral royalties for itself. That was also a factor in the creation of ANWR. The feds wanted to scrap the ststehood agreement and cash in on oil royalties.
8.24.2008 7:22pm
As a long-time reader of this blog, I can say that its true colors have come out most during this election -- the colors of neo-con snobbery that is.

First, I'm sure that Ron Paul would have no problem publicly stating that he thinks Young makes a terrible mistake by supporting the Iraq war. Note that Paul has also complimented Dennis Kucinich for his conservative-libertarian foreign policy. The pickings are pretty slim for those of us who actually want to follow the Constitution.

Second, Paul himself finds no problem in go after earmarks. The money is already taxed and set to be allocated in the budget somewhere. So why not get as much as possible back to the tax payers in your own district? Yet, Ron Paul consistently fights against taxing or allocating the money in the budget in the first place.
8.25.2008 12:59am
John Gamble (mail) (www):
I think Ron Paul lacks serious integrity.
I'd argue he doesn't "support" any socially liberal policies, he just doesn't oppose them, and hands over responsibility to the states (no brainer there... he's a Republican, so wants Republicans to run the states... hence the people deciding on the issues will introduce socially conservative policies). Ron Paul is actually very similar to this "porkster", however his lackeys have done a good job of spreading the word that he's a fiscal conservative with lots of socially liberal policies.

For the record... Paul supports invading Iraq, however wants pirates commissioned by the president to do it, not US troops as that's too expensive. This isn't being socially liberal, it's being extremely conservative economically! He couldn't give a damn about the social side of the Iraq war; and he's in clear support of invading Afghanistan. Whereas Obama outright opposes Iraq. He's your man if you want somebody with socially liberal views (your choice on that one, I'm not promoting conservative or liberal social policies... just saying...)

This is yet another clear cut connection between Paul and the other ultra-conservatives. Don't be fooled by his socially liberal pitch; its always just been a scam in order to take away Democrat votes (i.e. people who are socially liberal) and make them actively vote for the republicans.
8.25.2008 6:23am
Craig Jackson (mail) (www):
I disagree with you on your views of Ron Pual. He did support using letters of marque, but that does not mean to invade Iraq. It means that the private soliders would only go after the men who the letters accused of the attack. Which would be Osama Bin Ladin and his faction. Saddam would not have been killed and no major war would have erupted. It is a better stance than either the Republicans or the Demacrats took. Ron Paul does care about the social side of Iraq and if you get on You Tube you can here some of the talks he has with the new leaders of Iraq. The last thing you are wrong on is that Ron Paul only wants the Federal Government to use the powers that the Constitution gives it, which means very little econmically and no social views besides the right for everyone to vote and who is allowed to have the privalge to be an American Citizen. Every other issue is reserved to the States and the People according to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Also Obama is now in favor of the War.
8.25.2008 11:08am
John Gamble: Check your facts. You are way off. Where in the world did you even get that information?
8.25.2008 11:42am
Old Ben Franklin (mail):
Let's be candid. All the men and women in Congress today are, without question, a crew of dubious characters, so it's a matter of degree. They all need "plenty watching".

And we'd be one hell of a lot better off if 'bout 95% of them would go home and stay there. Certainly, the career politicians are the biggest problem. They are solely to blame for the situations we find ourselves in today with the economy and the world. They are, very simply, in Washington D.C. to make money for themselves and that's all. Retire rich at the taxpayer's expense is their secret agenda, so wake up to that fact. Turn off the TV and read about it, if you don't believe me. There are any number of books out there that will say it and can clearly document it as fact. So, turn off the TV or radio and start reading.

But if you're looking for a reason, any reason, to dislike Ron Paul, you'll find one somewhere - though I'd say you'll have to look for a while especially where his voting record is concerned. And that's the bottom line on these guys and gals in office. What's their voting record say? Use the old adage, "It's not what they say that counts so much as what they do." What other measuring stick do you really have anyway? You can't believe what you read or hear in the media most of the time. It's all just partisan slanted baloney, depending on who owns the newspaper, TV or radio station. They lean toward their favorites with a clear bias, and always try to exaggerate the misdeeds of the politicians they don't like. Human nature, I guess.
8.25.2008 12:32pm
Old Ben Franklin (mail):
Part II:

Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he's one of the best you've got by far and away. Look at his official voting record. It's astonishing compared to some of the other bums up there. Compared to the voting record (and backroom dealing) of Obama or McCain or just about anyone you can name, Ron Paul is a man of "remarkable integrity" for a U.S. politician, but, of course, that's comparatively speaking.

So, turn off the TV and start reading about these guys. Read several books and articles on each of the ones you're interested in and get a composite picture. You'll be amazed at what you will learn.

Seriously, the TV, the radio and the electronic media is partisan puck for the simpleminded. And, you may really like your announcer or newscaster, but they have to say what the owners of the station tell them to say. Otherwise they face termination. They don't have as much latitude to speak as they'd like you to believe. No way.

If folks would have read books over the past 50 years about their candidates instead of getting their information from the damn TV, our Congress(es) would be composed of an entirely different set of men and women. Our country would today be 100% better off. Read and teach others to read about these politicians, read about political and economic history of the U.S. and about the history of currencies, etc. You'll get the real picture, and you'll see what's wrong and what needs to be done, but will most people do this, I mean read about it, nope. So, we're probably gonna just get more of the same, I'm sorry to say.

Save your country while you still have one. And, you do. So, turn off the TV and start reading. Get the whole family involved in this study, and learn the real truth.
8.25.2008 12:51pm
reality check:
Looks like some GOP loyalists are a little peaved the good Dr Paul is having his Campaign For Liberty Rally at the time of the Convention!
8.26.2008 4:42am