With the stirring message that he's not Weiner, former NYS Gov. Eliot Spitzer presses his bid to become the new Mario Procaccino

The former governor certainly attracted a media mob on his first day back on the campaign trail.

"At one point, an older woman in a straw hat leaned in to the scrum around Mr. Spitzer and declared: "His wife and his daughters understand. Why shouldn't we?" But a few feet away, a man in a blue polo shirt loudly castigated Mr. Spitzer, saying, "You slept with hookers, and you lied and cheated on your family."

-- from "As Spitzer Campaigns, Candidates and
Voters Weigh In," today on NYTimes.com

by Ken

Okay, now this is getting plain silly. Slept with hookers. Lied. Cheated on his family. If by magic one day every officeholder who met this description was magically removed from office, we would suddenly have one hell of a lot of unfilled offices.

Eliot Spitzer's problem, of course, is that he did these things, or rather wound up doing them, in an alarmingly public way -- the "public" part helped along, it has always seemed, by not-exactly-clean-handed political operatives on a mission to bring him down. Downright embarrassing is this from Christine Quinn, who started the NYC Democratic mayoral-primary season a commanding front-runner but the last I looked has fallen into something of a pick-'em with our other cumback kid, Rep. Anthony Weiner, and former City Comptroller Bill Thompson. Also from the NYTimes.com report:

"The question with both Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer is, what have they been doing to earn this second chance?" asked Christine C. Quinn, the speaker of the City Council and the only woman in the crowded top tier of Democratic candidates for mayor.

She added: "What have they been doing since their dishonest behavior? I don't think we see all that much from either of these men that would put them in a position where they would have earned a second chance -- redeemed themselves from their selfish behavior and earned a second chance by New York's voters."

Really now, Madame Speaker, their selfish behavior? Imagine now an even more miraculous day when every officeholder guilty of severely selfish behavior suddenly vanishes. The decks, it seems to me, have now been pretty much cleared.

Not that my vote counts for anything, considering my long history of voting for losing candidates, but I had already been thinking about casting a mayoral-primary vote for Bill Thompson -- who you'll recall came this close to bringing down Mighty Mayor Mike in the last mayoral election, and probably could have if the Mighty One's public-relations machine hadn't persuaded everyone that his Money (I think MMM's Money really has to be capitalized) made him unbeatable -- and I found this reassuring:

A more measured take came from William C. Thompson, Jr., a Democratic mayoral candidate who previously served as city comptroller and readily acknowledged that Mr. Spitzer would be qualified for the job.

"Eliot served as a very strong public servant," Mr. Thompson said as he greeted commuters at an Upper West Side subway station on Monday morning. "Everybody wants to run, feel free to run."

WHY DOES OUR ELIOT EVEN WANT THE JOB?

Well, as we all saw, his teevee career didn't exactly take wing. Or actually, as probably very few of us saw. I mean, whose idea was it to put him on the teevee anyway? Attorney General Eliot commanding camera time to announce the progress of his investigation of important (i.e., rich) people, the kind who don't usually get hassled by public servants -- that was OK TV. But our Eliot as a constantly talking head? Imagine widespread sounds of snoring. Why, to get people to watch you would probably have had to put him on the air with the high-class hooker, and even then she damn well better be hot.

But a former NYS governor running for NYC comptroller?

It's not what you'd call a "glamor" job, the city comptrollership. At its worst, it can be the emblem of political hackery. And its worst would be a man who not only got elected to the job as more or less a joke (at least on the voters) but four years later won the Democratic nomination for mayor with a whopping 32.8 percent of the primary vote, slipping ahead of a slew of more plausible candidates, and going on to run what political commentator Richard Reeves has called "the worst political campaign in American history." And it's thanks to that 32.8 percent primary "victory" that NYC got the primary runoff law in cases where a city-wide candidate fails to get 40 percent of the vote, a law that is likely to play a crucial role in this year's mayoral primary.

Who was that remarkable man? Glad you asked. Because Howie wanted to be sure I mentioned one of our next city comptroller's most memorable predecessors: Judge Mario A. Procaccino.

THE LEGEND OF MARIO PROCACCINO

Look up "machine hack" in your Political Dictionary, and you'll find Mario's picture. The hack's hack, who had been rewarded for a lifetime of hacklike Democratic-party servitude with a minor judgeship in his home borough of the Bronx, and happened to be in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at the wrong time?) when the NYC Democratic machine had to do some big-time ticket-balancing.

It was a nightmare for the boys in the smoke-filled room: a Jewish mayoral candidate! Speaking of machine hacks, in 1965 then-City Comptroller Abe Beame had paid his political dues and was cashing in his chit: It was his turn for a crack at the top job. But how the dickens did you balance a ticket that was topped by a Jewish mayoral candidate? Under normal circumstances you didn't even have to slot a Jew in for any of the three city-wide offices. Was there any question how the overwhelming majority of the city's Dem voters were going to vote?

What's more, that year there was going to be something different on the Republican side, with the famously charismatic and liberal young Republican congressman John Lindsay making the race. That told the back-room political fixers decided that the way to go was conservative. They already had Abe Beame at the top of the ticket, and his politics were pretty conservative, insofar as a bookkeeper can be said to have politics.

Luckily for the back-room boys, there was an easy choice for the No. 2 job, the City Council president. At a time when the Sixties were beginning to become, you know, the Sixties, when there was already a backlash forming in the country under the banner of "law and order," Queens had a popular district attorney named Frank O'Connor. Get it? You got a Jewish guy from Brooklyn atop the ticket, so here you get an Irish guy from Queens, and somebody people have actually heard of!

But then, but then . . . .

Until finally one of the back-room boys remembered this pain-in-the-ass noboddy judge in the Bronx, Mario A. Procaccino, who had attracted a little attention as a knee-jerk apostle of law and order. Eureka! That's our guy for comptroller: He's Italian (another of the city's crucial ethnic minorities), he's from the Bronx (another of the city's outer boroughs), and he's a "hanging judge" (at least that's how he was known in Howie's and my circle).

The crowning irony is that in that strange year 1965, John Lindsay won the mayoralty atop the Republican ticket but couldn't carry his running mates. (Does anyone remember their names?) So Frank O'Connor became City Council president, and parlayed his new political weight into the 1966 Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1966, when he got creamed by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. (Eventually his party loyalty was rewarded with a judgeship.) And Mario Procaccino became city comptroller, demonstrating that pretty much any lug off the street can do that job.

Which doesn't mean at all that the city comptrollership is a nothing job. It can be and has been done by serious people. The comptroller, most obviously, controls the city's enormous pension-fund investments, which gives him potentially a huge amount of clout. And the comptroller, through his fiscal responsibilities, can at least try to enforce accountability for pretty much everything city government does.

And you know, there may well be more to our Eliot's decision to try to return to public office. Contrary to Speaker Quinn's impression, we may be dealing here with one of our more dangerously un-selfish public servants -- one who actually believes in public service. He did it in his first officeholding career, showing himself as NYS attorney general to have some strong beliefs about the public good, including holding powerful people to account for their misdeeds. It's the message he's trying to convey into all those microphones thrust in his face.

He told DNAinfo's Colby Hamilton that "he's look[ing] forward to using the comptroller's position to go 'beyond auditing paper clips.' "

He pointed to the power the city's pension funds have in the companies they invest in, as well as the ability to audit the city's finances as the tools he planned to use should he get elected.

He added that he wanted to use the city's top financial officer position to play a "affirmative and creative role" in the city, doing "to the comptroller's office like he did to the [attorney general]'s office."

Spitzer said he began thinking about getting into the city comptroller's race only "about 48 hours" before making his decision, but said he'd been interested in the job ever since leaving office.

"It was a decision based on what the office is and what I hope to bring to the office," Spitzer said.

THE EX-GUV INSISTS: I'M NO WEINER!

Obviously the former guv knew that as soon as he made noise about making a race, the name that would be heard throughout the five boroughs and beyond was --

Weiner

Actually, I've taken a little license here in suggesting that our new candidate for comptroller has declared himself the un-Weiner. So far, at least, he's been doing his darnedest to avoid talking about Weiner. According to DNAinfo's Colby Hamilton:

[T]he former governor isn't interested in comparisons.

"I'm not sure it's an issue I will address," he said.

In an interview with DNAinfo New York . . . Spitzer said Weiner's campaign was a factor in his calculations only as he "examined in great detail" the political field in the context of "the entire tableau in the political life that's going on out there."

Spitzer, 54, hoped voters would forgive him for the 2008 scandal that forced him from office.

CAN HE WIN?

At the moment, our Eliot is not wildly popular among NYC Democratic officeholders or party functionaries. His at-the-wire entry into the comptroller race (his first obstacle is going to be assembling the necessary petition signatures by Thursday) has caused confusion and consternation in one race everyone thought wasn't in play. Everyone was quite content with the one declared candidate, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

But then, Eliot's never really been a "party guy." Too independent. Which is a good thing when it comes to setting an agenda that for the average party guy might be uncomfortably disrespectful of established players. But also maybe not so good for a job like his last one in government, when as governor he showed that he didn't exactly play well with others. His short tenure has been largely obscured by its spectacular crash-and-burn, but some of us remember how much ill will he created among people he needed to work with, like the leaders of the state legislature, who not only didn't like taking orders from the new governor but frequently had good reason to question his judgment, something the governor himself seemed seriously disinclined to do, ever.

But the city comptroller's job might actually be a better fit. Being a team player isn't necessarily such an asset for a comptroller who questions both priorities and the way things get done. And he doesn't seem wildly concerned about the minimal institutional support he can expect, with most of that already committed to Scott Stringer. Here's Colby Hamilton:

Spitzer said his past experience in primary battles has left him confident in his chances.

"Endorsements don't vote, voters do," he said.

NEXT UP FOR NYC: DISGRACED EX-ITALIAN 
PRIME MINISTER SILVIO BERLUSCONI?

According to the always-reliable Borowitz Report, the disgraced former Italian prime minster -- "in a stunning bid for a political comeback" -- has revealed that he's "considering running for office in New York City." The report continues:

Mr. Berlusconi announced his intentions after several local polls showed him with a higher approval rating than the candidates currently on offer in the city.

For the disgraced former Prime Minister, the chance to start over again in New York is "like a dream come true."

"In Italy, you make one little mistake, they throw you in jail seven years," he said. "New Yorkers are much more forgiving."

Mr. Berlusconi said that he had not yet decided what office to run for, but was leaning toward public advocate.

"Once they see how good Silvio does at that, they make him mayor or governor, no?" he said, with a booming laugh.

Mr. Berlusconi said that he was unconcerned by rumors of a possible bid for office in New York by another former European politician, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

"Just let him try," he said. "Do I look worried? I am not worried. I walk down street, people tell me thumbs up. New York loves Silvio."

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."

The Party's Over For The Tea Party Because They Couldn't Come Up With Any Solutions-- And We Need Viable Solutions, Not A Failed Austerity Agenda

Not every Member of Congress can be Alan Grayson. That used to make me so frustrated. Then Anthony Weiner tried... but he was Anthony Weiner, not Alan Grayson-- and what a disaster that turned out to be! Alan isn't looking for a platform that's popular... he embodies that platform with his entire being-- the way Raul Grijalva does, the way Judy Chu does, the way Barbara Lee does, the way Jerry Nadler does... the way, I'm afraid. Anthony Weiner just never really did. Authenticity still means something in politics.

A few days ago Eliot Spitzer had Alan Grayson on his TV show, Viewpoint, and you can watch it here (unfortunately, it can't be embedded). It isn't likely to please corporate Democrats who are trying to present Boehner's collaborator in the weakening of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as some kind of a hero. Alan knows who progressive heroes are and who isn't. Think about this exchange between him and Spitzer:

ELIOT: All right. Look, you are going to go to Washington to push a progressive agenda. How comfortable are you that after [the election] the President understands that this is now a time for a grand agenda, not just a “grand bargain”? 

ALAN: It remains to be seen. It’s just too early to say. I couldn’t tell from watching the campaign. I couldn’t tell from his [victory] speech. I just don’t know. I don’t know if the President is going to try to fight for the Middle Class, fight to make America more equal, fight for the 99%, or whether the President is just going to try to play checkers with the other side, and see how that works out.

ELIOT: There is enormous pressure, even though the public doesn’t appreciate this, enormous pressure within the Beltway to reach a compromise, to play nice, and not to say things that sometimes need to be said, but are not comfortable for people to hear. And so, I sense, and the reason I am so excited about your going back to Washington is that you will push the White House, and hold them accountable if they cave too quickly. What should the President’s first offer to John Boehner be? 

ALAN: Or if they cave [at all]. Wait a minute. Why talk about caving at all? The Democrats won the election. And I’ll tell you this-- I’m upset by the idea that we would try to make our fiscal policy somehow more sound at the expense of our seniors. I don’t understand why we want to do that. Why are we taking from the people who have nothing, in order to feed the rich? I just don’t get that. I don’t understand why. I’m against cuts in benefits for Social Security-- period. I’m against cuts in benefits in Medicare-- period. We’re just going to find another way to solve the deficit problem. We have to, because it is not fair to the seniors. We’re not going to throw Grandma from the train, as long as I’m going to have anything to say about it.

ELIOT: Which means that you are going to propose, you and those who agree with you (and I’m one of them) a tax policy, a tax plan that will take us in a more progressive direction, that will close the loopholes. Will you actually lay out for the White House, you and colleagues say, “Here in the Progressive Caucus, here is the plan, the alternative plan that will get us where we need to go?” And when would you do that for us?

ALAN: Yes, every year the Progressive Caucus has proposed an alternative budget. This goes back for a long, long time. And the alternative budget is based, in part, upon progressive taxation: The idea that Mitt Romney should not be paying less in taxes than the secretary who works for Warren Buffet or anybody else. The idea that the rich should pay their fair share... We [should] go back to the principle that a dollar is a dollar, and just because you are rich and you get it through capital gains doesn’t mean you get some sort of special tax break, or if you get it through qualified dividends you get some special tax break. If we go back to the [common] sense that a dollar is a dollar, that they’re all green, [so] let’s tax them equally, that itself would go substantially to reduce the deficit. That tax break alone is over $100 billion a year. 

ELIOT: Well the notion of saying, as you just did, capital gains income is the same thing as ordinary income, taxing them in an equal way, it was actually in Simpson-Bowles, [but] of course people want to ignore that. And a critical report just came out from the Congressional Research Service saying that the premise of the entire Republican tax policy, which is that lowering tax rates on capital increases investment, is wrong. And it seems to me if you argue that point to the public, they will understand that what you’re proposing is the right way to go, both on equity grounds and on economic development grounds.

ALAN: Yes, and let’s stop stealing from the poor. They just don’t have any money left.

Is There An Alternative To The Toxic Austerity Agenda The Ruling Elites Are Demanding?

Monday we took a look at what a real jobs agenda to put America back to work would look like and how this has to be handled politically by independent-minded progressives like Norman Solomon. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is a progressive but she's hardly independent-minded. When push comes to shove she's always a shill for the Democratic Establishment... but at least she pushes them in the right direction before taking one for the team. Her jobs bill is exactly what Obama should be embracing rather than the slightly-- ever so slightly-- kinder, gentler Austerity agenda the Republicans are clamoring for... you know, the one causing the collapse of social cohesion in England now.

Schakowsky sounds a toug note as though she were ready to take on Obama, something she's never done and never will. But it sounds good:

"If we want to create jobs, then create jobs. I’m not talking about “incentivizing” companies in the hopes they’ll hire someone, or cutting taxes for the so-called job creators who have done nothing of the sort. My plan creates actual new jobs. The worst deficit this country faces, isn’t the budget deficit. It’s the jobs deficit. We need to get our people and our economy moving again."

Her jobs bill would create over 2 million new jobs at a cost of $113.5 billion over each of two years, paid for entirely by creating a slightly higher tax bracket for millionaires and billionaires. These are the specifics:

• The School Improvement Corps would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs by funding positions created by public school districts to do needed school rehabilitation improvements.

• The Park Improvement Corps would create 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 16 and 25 through new funding to the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service’s Public Lands Corps Act. Young people would work on conservation projects on public lands include restoration and rehabilitation of natural, cultural, and historic resources.

• The Student Jobs Corps would creates 250,000 more part-time, work study jobs for eligible college students through new funding for the Federal Work Study Program.

• The Neighborhood Heroes Corps would hire 300,000 teachers, 40,000 new police officers, and 12,000 firefighters.

• The Health Corps would hire at least 40,000 health care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and health care workers to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas.

• The Child Care Corps would create 100,000 jobs in early childhood care and education through additional funding for Early Head Start.

• The Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in our communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.

Not the profound policy sea-change in manufacturing and trade policies we were advocating Monday... but a decent step in the right direction, at least for the short run. And, lo and behold, the NY Times editorial board has taken note... approvingly.

In what can only be described as a triumph of bad policy and craven politics, Congress and the Obama administration have spent the year focused on budget cuts, as the economy has faltered and unemployment has worsened. Official unemployment is 9.1 percent, but it would be 16.1 percent, or 25.1 million people, if it included those who can only find part-time jobs and those who have given up looking for work.

...By a large margin, Americans have told pollsters that job creation is more important than budget cuts. Yet Republican leaders are wedded to austerity and appear to think that high unemployment will hurt President Obama politically more than it will hurt them, so they will likely resist efforts to create jobs, no matter how great the need.

...Mr. Obama has begun to talk more about jobs, but his agenda is thin. Its main components-- extending federal unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut beyond their expiration at the end of this year-- are vitally important, but their extension will only maintain the status quo. His idea for an infrastructure bank to finance large-scale building projects is also good, but would take time, and would not address the immediate need for jobs. Ditto his push for patent reform and trade agreements.

There are other ideas worth fighting for. Take, for example, Fix America’s Schools Today, or FAST, an idea that has been incorporated into a House proposal to be introduced this fall by Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois. Public school buildings in the United States are on average over 40 years old and in need of an estimated $500 billion in repairs and upgrades. A $50 billion school renovation program would employ 500,000 workers (1.5 million construction workers are currently unemployed) and could be easily scaled up. The money could be disbursed through existing federal formulas to all 16,000 public school districts. The initial cost could be largely offset over 10 years by ending tax breaks for fossil fuels, as called for in Mr. Obama’s 2012 budget.

Other programs in the Schakowsky bill could employ an estimated one million young people for projects in federal parks, community centers and on college campuses, as well as 350,000 laid-off teachers, police officers, firefighters and health care providers.

Washington, in thrall to austerity, has abandoned one of the most immediate and powerful tools for supporting growth and jobs, namely, borrowing at today’s low rates to provide direct fiscal aid to states. But Mr. Obama can and should make the case for targeted new jobs today, to be paid for over time by closing tax loopholes.

Republicans are sure to howl that new programs will undo the debt ceiling deal, but it is surely possible over a 10-year period to tackle near-term action on jobs and long-term action on deficit reduction. The alternative is even slower growth and higher unemployment.

Our friend Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) explained how important government efforts can be in an OpEd he did yesterday for the Arizona Daily Star reminding his entrepreneurially-minded constituents that "no one creates jobs without investing upfront, and the federal government can help make that possible for many small businesses. Federally guaranteed loans, which cost taxpayers nothing and help businesses around the country expand and hire new employees, are a proven way for federal agencies to help our economy."

You may have heard recently about two large federally guaranteed loans for solar projects in Southern Arizona. Abengoa Solar recently finalized a $1.45 billion loan guaranteed by the Department of Energy to help build a new solar plant near Gila Bend, and Agua Caliente Solar finalized a similar $967 million DOE-backed loan on Aug. 5 to build a new plant in Yuma County. I was happy to support them both. These projects, made possible by the Recovery Act, don't cost taxpayers a dime, and they aren't alone.

How do these loans work? The DOE Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) was initially created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to make it possible for emerging technologies to help grow and create jobs. The Recovery Act temporarily expanded the LGP's authority to guarantee loans for certain renewable energy, power transmission and biofuel projects. In all, since the Recovery Act became law, Arizona has received approximately $2.8 billion in federally guaranteed loans, helping to create about 2,400 new jobs.

It bears repeating: None of this has cost taxpayers a dime. A loan guarantee is an agreement between a federal government agency, the borrower, and a private creditor-- usually a bank-- in which the agency will cover the borrower's debt in the highly unlikely event of default. This allows the federal government to reduce the financial risks of projects that employ new technologies by partnering with companies that have established their financial stability.

And this morning in Slate Eliot Spitzer calls for Obama to work up an inner FDR moment in terms of housing and unemployment-- starting with doing something. "President Obama should heed the famous wisdom of FDR: 'Above all, try something.' Being passive in the face of rising anxiety breeds discontent, doubt, and ultimately, contempt."

He should act dramatically to help the American homeowner. There is a continuing and incendiary crisis in the housing market, with about 20 percent of all homes underwater (that is, the mortgage owed on the house is greater than the value of the house). This is dragging down our economy, creating a downward spiral of foreclosures and abandonment. The lack of mortgage reform also reminds every homeowner of the unfairness attached to the bailouts: The banks, in their moment of insolvency and need, got hundreds of billions of direct cash payments, guarantees, and transfers in the form of artificially low interest rates, all of which have led to a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers and savers to the banks. Yet homeowners who have seen their primary asset drop in value have been given nothing at all by the banks and nothing meaningful by the president.

The administration, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, should insist that banks, in return for all the taxpayer subsidies they have gotten and continue to receive, reduce any mortgage that exceeds the value of the house. Once it is established that the homeowner is underwater, other variables can be considered to determine how much the mortgage should be reduced: the income of the borrower, the year the mortgage was issued, the behavior of the bank in recommending the mortgage, or the culpability of the borrower in misrepresenting income levels.

... Second, the president should do more to help the American worker. He should establish a jobs program. Do the simple math: We are spending more than $110 billion annually in Afghanistan. Stop it. Or scale it back to the sort of covert operations and drone war that is warranted. Savings? Perhaps about $100 billion-- per year. Use that money to create up to 5 million jobs at $20,000 each. With the unemployment among those aged 16 to 19 at anastonishing 25 percent, and unemployment among black people at 15.9 percent, there is no question that the crisis of unemployment is destroying the fabric of our nation. Those who refuse to work get denied all other benefits... Get the dollars flowing back into the economy to help pull us out of the Great Recession. And when the unemployment rate dips below an agreed upon number, indicating that the labor market is healthy again, phase out the program.

And for the practical-minded let me leave you with a prescription laid out today by the Alliance for American Manufacturing on how President Obama can jumpstart our nation's industrial sector and generate new jobs... And how to do it cost-effectively and NOW:

• Expedite small business loans through the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department to help firms expand, retool and hire.

• Convene a multilateral meeting to address global imbalances and in particular Chinese mercantilism. If China doesn't agree to participate, designate it a currency manipulator. (China ships fully one-third of its exports to the U.S. and finances less than 10 percent of our public debt, so we have more leverage than some might suggest.)

• On the heels of the landmark agreement with automakers on fuel economy standards, secure an additional agreement from all foreign and domestic car companies to increase their levels of domestic content by at least 10 percent over the next three years.

• Direct the Department of Defense to leverage existing procurement to contractors that commit to increasing their domestic content of our military equipment, technology and supplies.

• Approve additional applications for renewable and traditional energy projects, contingent on the use of American materials in construction.

• Kick any CEO off of federal advisory boards or jobs councils who has: (1) not created net new American jobs over the past five years, or (2) is expanding the company's foreign workforce at a faster rate than its domestic workforce. Replace them with CEOs who are committed to investing in America. Shame is a good motivator.

I Have A Feeling Rand Paul Will Be Back On CNN With Elliot Spitzer Just About The Same Time He's Back On MSNBC With Rachel Maddow

Elliot Spitzer might wind up being the best TV journalist out there. (It's too bad that saddled him with the ridiculous turd he shares the show with.) Today he had Rand Paul-- in a nicely done up or, perhaps, a new wig-- to talk about the budget cuts Paul thinks will help balance the budget. He couldn't come up with any, although in a short exchange not captured in the clip above, Spitzer followed up his anti-earmark tirade with a question about Kentucky earmarks and Paul backed away so fast I thought he was come to come to in New Jersey!