Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
josh....the distinction I would make is that Ron Paul does not only want the change the rules on earmarks, he says without reservation that they are unconstitutional.
If he believe that strongly in his constitutional interpretation, he should stand by it all the way and not act in what he believes is an illegal manner. He is trying to play it both ways that IMO is counter to his conviction. He should tell his constituents right up front that he will not submit earmarks and stand or fall on that position...or back off from the constitution argument.
John McCain believes earmarks are fiscally irresponsible and will not request any on behalf of his constitutents. His constituents know that and accept it.
|
Well you are very correct about that all, I think in this instance, and depending on the earmarks in question, one could definitely make the argument that Paul's public pronouncements, due to their strong nature, would require a requisite show of action to back them up. And it is also true that there are more than just McCain that do in fact avoid earmarks and yet successfully retain their seat.
My statement was really more of a general commentary on the general concept of how much one should be expected to go against the system in demonstration of their desire to change the system. As for Paul in particular, I have to admit I've not closely analyzed him as he is not a candidate in an election I'll be voting in.