Nov 11, 2010
Earlier this week stories ran through mainstream news sources and the blogosphere proclaiming that Rand Paul had flip-flopped on the issue of earmarks, liberally paraphrasing a quote from Paul that was taken from an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Mathew Kaminski. Not only leftwing bloggers, but libertarians too reacted with angry fervor, believing that Rand was showing the signs of a sellout before even taking office.
Even I wrote a piece criticizing Rand Paul for the apparent phoniness. As it turns out, however, I owe the senator-to-be a huge apology, because in typical disinfo fashion the so-called journalist Mathew Kaminski took Paul’s words completely out of context in an attempt to smear him in the eyes of his fiscally conservative base.
A little background first: during the campaign Rand Paul supported Jim DeMint’s call for a ban on earmarks. The media has often attempted to attack Rand’s father, Ron, on the subject of earmarks, trying and portray him as hypocrite for tagging them onto legislation. Ron Paul’s explanation is a reasonable one– that while he doesn’t support the spending, he also wants to get some of his constituents their money back. Fair enough.
On November 6th Kaminski wrote of Rand Paul in an article:
Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad’s talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.
On November 10th Kaminski, who still “stands by his story” responded to Paul’s aids by publishing a portion of the transcript of his interview with Paul from which he based his writing.
Question: What if someone comes to you and says here’s an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?
Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn’t do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that’s the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let’s go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that’s not wide enough? Let’s use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you’re powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.
Only someone getting paid to pump out propaganda can manage to hear, We shouldn’t allow earmarks…I will advocate for Kentucky at the committee level and translate it to, I support earmarks. This shows just how desperate the establishment is to defame Rand Paul and pull the bottom out from under him before he even begins his first day in office.
It also shows just how bankrupt of integrity those who are paid to give us “news” really is. For a truly surreal moment all a person needs to do is watch a show such as “Meet the Press”, and see a roundtable of pundits– mostly made up of newspaper writers and retired politicians– giving complete misinfo about the wars and arrogantly giggle about the legitimacy of bloggers compared to mainstream news before the show goes to a commercial and features an ad for a company like Boeing, which pays for them to be there and also profits from the wars. (Yes, I saw this exact scenario play out one cold Sunday morning).
Fact: most good bloggers source their info with clickable links within the text of their work so that the reader can fact check them.
Fact: most of the big stories that the mainstream media are forced to acknowledge now originated on the Internet, and were usually being talked about there for a long time before.
Fact: the mainstream media can’t control reality anymore so it has to resort to complete fabrications in order to have any impact on America’s increasingly awakening consciousness.
Final Fact: Rand Paul is going against Kentucky GOP Senator Mitch McConnell in supporting Jim DeMint’s push for a freezing of all earmark requests for spending, and has renewed his pledge not to use earmarks to funnel money to Kentucky projects.
Unless the Wall Street Journal writes a full retraction of the claim and an apology to Rand Paul for this obvious disinformation it deserves the fate of other dying newspaper establishments which the American people of the 21st Century are clearly better off without.
This article was posted: Thursday, November 11, 2010 at 5:07 am