Patterico's Pontifications

9/10/2008

Politico Hit-Piece Claims Palin Addicted To Pork Earmarks, Contrary To Her Campaign Position

Filed under: General — WLS @ 5:16 pm

[Posted by WLS]

Politico has apparently taken sides — at least Ben Smith has — he’s the author of the Politico blog covering Obama. 

This story just went up questioning Palin’s claims as a reformer, considering the long list of earmark pork that she has sought from Congress as the Governor of Alaska.

Fortunately for readers, he had the courtesy of linking to an Alaska Gov. document that sets forth a 4 page list of appropriations requests made on behalf of the state. 

Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.

It’s a position at odds with her recasting as an anti-earmarking champion, and with the tone of the biting scorn she’s employed toward the budgetary practice this week.

Palin’s earmark requests aren’t unusual, of course. Every self-respecting mayor and governor in America seeks federal dollars for local projects. And Palin has, at times, sounded a cautionary note on earmarks despite the fact that Alaska receives more earmarked federal money per capita than any other state and is unusually reliant on those funds because of its geographic isolation, massive size and extreme climate.

But the document summarizing Palin’s earmark requests… suggested a still-healthy appetite for earmarks. Soon afterward, Palin wrote an op-ed in a local newspaper outlining her not-so-reticent posture on earmarks.

“My role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can,” she wrote.

Obama‘s campaign has responded by challenging Palin’s reform credentials.

“Senator McCain said Governor Palin ‘learned that earmarks are bad’, but in 2008 alone Gov. Palin requested $256 million in earmarks for Alaska, and her state received more earmarks per person that any other state,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor. “The fact is that Governor Palin isn’t just good at getting pork projects, she’s one of the most successful pork barrel politicians in history.”

But if you look at the document that Smith links, you quickly get feel for the fact that many of the earmarks are requests for funding that are completely legitimate, and many relate to unfunded mandates imposed upon Alaska by federal legislation like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.   Several examples are set forth after the jump.

Here is the link to the document setting forth the Alaska appropriation requests.  Here are a few examples of the justification for the request:

“Meets the increased needs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for developing regional fishery coordinated databases.”

“This is an ongoing effort to collect data on the recreational hailbut fishery that is conducted by federal agencies though relying on the state for data.”

“Provides state funding for management of federal fisheries, including Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king crab and tanner crab, weathervane scallops and groundfish.”

“To meet federal obligation to enhance Sockeye salmon production, the state operates an enhancement unit at an existing hatercy and conducts fish monitoring.  The work is completed cooperatively with the Canadian government.”

“Provides ongoing funding for programs that mitigate that impacts of harvest reductions imposed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty on Alaskan fisheries and coastal communities.”

“Funds Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Northwest Treaty Indian Tribes in meeting federal obligations under Pacific Salmon Treaty.”

“Funds monitoring of ice seal populations in Native Villages, research on species delineation and genetics of harbor seals to understand the declines in population and provide for population restoration, and continues research into Stellar Sea Lion population decline.”

“Allows State of Alaska to monitor Yukon River salmon and provide information necessary to support negotiations between US and Canada under Yukon River Salmon Agreement.”

“To continue necessary airport upgrading after transfer of the Naval Air Station (Adak) to the State.”

“Continued funding to address the challenges of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) as it relates to teacher quality and student achievement.  It provides trained, full-release mentors for beginning teachers and principals.”

“Funds State of Alaska for implementation of federal obligations under Yukon River Treaty.”

“To complete a communication facility to support the 168th Air Refueling Wing’s 8 PAA KC 135 aircraft.”

Nowhere in this list do we see anything like an earmark for the employer of Palin’s spouse.   Compare this sequence of events:

Nov. 2004 — Obama elected to Senate.

Michelle Obama’s salary for the Univ. of Chicago Hospital — $121,910.

Michelle Obama’s salary in Spring of 2005 — increased to $316,962.

B. Obama’s earmark request for Univ. of Chicago Hospital Pavilion for 2006 — $1 million.

That’s a 5-1 return on the raise they gave Michelle.

But look at the list of earmarks released by Obama under prodding during the Democratic primaries.

– WLS

84 Responses to “Politico Hit-Piece Claims Palin Addicted To Pork Earmarks, Contrary To Her Campaign Position”

  1. WLS – The size of the state earmark requests prior to her administration would also be a useful measuring stick.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  2. WLS

    Please read this email sent to JeffG from UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey. Here’s the money quote

    It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska’s earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Governor Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.

    Smith has gone completely in the tank for O!

    Darleen (187edc)

  3. Alaska receives more earmarked federal money per capita than any other state

    Great talking point.

    Not.

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  4. If just about every shot fired at Palin so far didn’t fall short of her shoes, I would be worried. We’ll see.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  5. unusually reliant on those funds because of its geographic isolation, massive size and extreme climate.

    And of course, it has nothing to do with 65% of Alaska is “owned” by the federal government.

    Darleen (187edc)

  6. N. O’Brain wrote: Alaska receives more earmarked federal money per capita than any other state

    How about per square mile? Hmmmm?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  7. WLS, thanks for that. I guess you’re doing the job American journalists won’t do.

    Anna (b1a9a9)

  8. Funny that Hussein O has worked 143 days at his job in the senate and as of today they have located just short of $1 billion in earmark request by Hussein. My brain or my calculator doesn’t go that high so how much has he ‘requested’ above and beyond normal senate approprations per day (143) that he has performed the job he was elected to, and for the most part has ignored. That is ignored other than ripping off the taxpayers to repay his homies graft in Chicago.

    Scrapiron (d671ab)

  9. Am I the only guy here who remembers Andrew Sullivan being sort of like Politico when they first started up? I remember thinking Sullivan was a sensible voice. That was a long time ago. I mean like almost 10 years ago. Politico seemed sensible when it first came out. It has been on a steady decline ever since. Just like Andy. Actually, they seem to be on a steeper curve.

    ccoffer (8135af)

  10. Could someone help me understand, please?
    I thought that there were state requests for appropriations, which are usually placed in the federal budget and voted on generally. And then there are “earmarks” which are “pet projects” that the Congesspersons place in the bills without general transparency and voting.
    I know my state can’t survive without federal dollars – appropriations – and some of us wish we didn’t get the “earmarks” that generally benefit certain local political interests.
    These requests from Alaska seem to fit the category of appropriations, and the one for the U. Chicago seems to be an “earmark”.
    Am I missing something?

    Roberta (92fd54)

  11. Roberta — you make a very significant and important point.

    Its not clear from the document that is linked in the article whether or not these are truly pork “earmarks” — pet projects of legislators rolled into unrelated legislation that is likely to pass, usually without any kind of Congressional examination or oversight from a subcommittee.

    The document simply refers to them as appropriate requests, and they might very well be normal congressional appropriations to state agencies to fund the implementation of federal programs that would otherwise not move forward. In fact, several of the descriptions fit in that very category.

    I’m certain that Ben Smith didn’t go dig this document out himself, since he travels with the Obama campaign. Its much more likely that someone from Obama’s staff got the document from a source on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and fed it to Smith with a less than clear explanation of what it was.

    WLS (26b1e5)

  12. #10 Roberta:

    Am I missing something?

    Nope.

    EW1(SG) (1c0755)

  13. Thank you very much.
    Then would I be correct in assuming that the equivalent documentation from Illinois’ Gov. Blagojevich appropriations requests would be the “apples to apples” comparison? If so, does anyone know where to find it?
    And I guess the other question is: has anyone seen an actual “earmark” requested by Gov. Palin?

    Roberta (92fd54)

  14. Feel free to correct me on this, but my understanding is that any federal appropriation that has not been requested by a federal agency is considered an “earmark.” So if a state (for example) requests money and gets it, that’s an earmark.

    tgirsch (c16798)

  15. this proves that talk is cheap. To say that McCain and Palin are going to “shake things up in washington” is really crazy. McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. He voted 95 percent of the time with him last year.He basically has former lobbyists running his campaign. Sarah Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks for their states. She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. She even took that money when congress voted it down. Obama is right about one thing. “We are the ones who are going to loose in this election”.

    Tommy Tyler (c0bbd4)

  16. I don’t trust anyone at Politico. Even JMart, who is supposed to objectively cover Republicans, is a complete Obama shill and regularly just reposts Ben Smith’s attacks on Republicans.

    Cory (6b4784)

  17. Tommy, so you’ve come here to prove that you have no clue who McCain is. Great. We knew that. And if you are going to copy Obama’s campaign talking points, try to copy today’s points, not yesterday’s. Sheesh.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. re # 14 tgirsch
    I don’t think that can be correct, because Sen. McCain and a few others don’t do “earmarks”, but their states still receive federal appropriations that benefit the state and local governments and projects. But I’m not sure what the exact mechanism is, so I’m asking questions.

    Roberta (92fd54)

  19. Yes, Tammy….Obama is going to loose (sic)in this election if he doesn’t tighten up the race. And to a woman yet, but girly men are like that.

    And how much fed money is appropriated for the many lifelong welfare recipients in NOLA? Didn’t Senator Landrieu want something like half a mil for every resident? Kind of sad that many people along the Gulf coast are still living in dire straights. How many of those trailers were just dumped, never to be used?

    Regarding Alaska high rates of rapes: Does the ratio of men to women have anything to do with that? Have to wonder how Chinese men handle the fact that there is a huge surplus of males to females in that society. So isn’t the Alaska disparity like one women for every seven men. If I were a woman with a moribund social life, I’d consider Alaska. Read somewhere that DC is great for finding an excess of young women.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  20. #19 Roberta:

    because Sen. McCain and a few others don’t do “earmarks”,

    “Earmarking” funds is really nothing more than an appropriation for a particular purpose: its use as a description came into vogue, I think, as rhetorical cover for “pork,” but has since garnered the same underhanded connotation.

    In a very real sense, there isn’t anything wrong with earmarking funds, because one of the responsibilities of Congress is to determine what spending is to take place with appropriated funds.

    The problem lies in that politicians, are still politicians, even after milennia of trying to straighten them out. Like the politician they succeeded, they have found that the easiest way to reelection is to be seen as benefitting their constituents, and of course, the easiest way to do that is shower money on your home district. And that’s where the “disreputable” side of earmarking comes in.

    One thing to remember is that appropriations requests originate in the House, not at the state level. So congresscritters ask for input from their constituents, usually from the state’s governor or legislative body or whatever.

    Other than that, your own description of the process in your comment at #10 is spot on.

    EW1(SG) (1c0755)

  21. It appears Sarah Palin outsourced her campaign aircraft needs to the Brazilians as she rides on an Embraer 190 regional jet…so much for supporting the American worker…she just offshored a bunch more good paying American jobs…thanks.

    James (29cc58)

  22. Alaska is dependent on the Federal government largely because the Federal government keeps so much of the state’s resources locked up. One of Governor Palin’s next goals was to change that relationship-reduce Alaska’s dependence on Washington while opening up Alaska to responsible resource development. Drilling in ANWR would reduce our trade deficit by over $30 billion per and create at least 40,000 “direct” jobs-jobs associated with drilling and transporting the oil itself.

    I hope Governor Palin is able to get this vision across in her interviews this week.

    MartyH (928d75)

  23. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/index.html

    “..when Palin served as mayor of her hometown of Wasilla, outside Anchorage, she obtained about $27 million in federal “earmarks” during her last four years in office, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

    In a 2001 statement opposing a transportation spending bill McCain singled out for criticism about $3 million worth of those projects. McCain’s list of “objectionable” spending included a $2.5 million road project for the town that then had a population of 5,500, as well as a $450,000 appropriation for an agricultural processing plant there.”

    So in the past, McCain thought some of Palin’s earmarks were “objectionable”, but now that she’s his running mate, I’m sure all will be forgotten.

    MR (a22b58)

  24. #19 – Roberta

    Sen. McCain and a few others don’t do “earmarks”, but their states still receive federal appropriations

    – Members of the House of Representatives get to do earmarks as well, including the Representative for the Arizona district where my parents live:

    http://earmarkwatch.org/2008-house-laborhhs/sponsor/259/

    – Here’s the page for Senator Obama:

    http://earmarkwatch.org/2008-senate-laborhhs/search/?sponsor=75

    – Your tax dollars at work.

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  25. I wasn’t going to post the link for Biden’s earmarks, but since the libtards won’t shut up about Palin, here you go:

    http://earmarkwatch.org/2008-senate-laborhhs/search/?sponsor=9

    – A couple other notes for you idiots. 1) Palin significantly reduced, compared to her predecessor, the earmarks her state accepts. 2) If McCain were to not associate with someone who accepts any earmarks, he would be very lonely indeed. 3) You libtards continually vote for candidates who run on the promise of bringing home the bacon! This desperate attempt to brand Palin as more of the same, or to call McCain a hypocrite, will go nowhere.

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  26. I.T. #26
    The difference is that Obama isn’t promising to chop off everyone’s earmarks. He is talking generally and concentrating on doing things “not the GWB way”. Therefore his earmarks don’t make him sound like as much of a hypocrite.

    McCain and Palin on the other hand, to try and sell themselves as reformers, have come out against earmarks. The fact that at least Palin is obviously NOT against earmarks makes their sell in the reform category look more like a con-job than Obama’s sell.

    What they really mean of course (assuming it’s not a con job) is that they will do their best to reduce and reign in earmarks (at least in Democratic districts) and save a few cents to defray the cost of McCain’s tax breaks. It’s still reform but it doesn’t sound as good in a speech.

    I suppose all earmarks are worded to look good but the thing I noticed about Palin’s were that they all seemed pretty practical (except the stupid road but I suppose there is a good rationalization for that one somewhere. There always is.)

    EdWood (0047b0)

  27. The money requested eg. earmarks come from federal taxes we pay as individuals or from business. There is always discussions in my state of Calif. that all the money we send to fedeal government how much do we get back. In other words those taxes should be returned to state.
    The debate is about wastefull speending that could be used for other reasons. The point in my mind is what is responsible.
    The article above points out the state has needs because of the harshness of the enviroment and the importance the energy it supplies to us.

    Marie Posh (56a0a8)

  28. What I see here is a campaign to shift this nation back to the days of lynching Black Men who have the nerve to argue points of political policy or anything else for that matter! Obama has accomplished something very important in this election. He has shown a light on the hypocrisy of this nation. McCain’s campaign will not have it both ways! Not this time. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” While those like this publication argue’s that there is a difference in earmarks lets look at it for an objective point of view. Every place is different and diversity brings with it a much more complex set of challenges. Palin will not and cannot meet that chanllenge due to her idealogy. McCain never has and never will be able to so either due to his lifelong opposition to equality of all races in this nation! Back to earmarks, his own fellow senator in his state has secured earmarks and not a word is said. Talk about hypocrisy! This year the republicans have taken it to a whole new level. I hear that the McCain camp is itching for a fight no doubt to try and distract from what really is important. They might be careful about what they wish for, because they just might get one indeed. As in the words of a very wish individual who long ago said, “It is best to let a sleeping dog lie”. And the republicans must really think of Obama in those terms because how else can you explain why they wrongly keep kicking him out of spite and prejudice. They’d do well to remember that for every action there is a reaction. The entire McCain campaign is heading towards obsurdity and the time for foolishness is quickly coming to an end.

    Laurence Jones (1b1fbd)

  29. I’m curious – was that road going to connect the “Bridge to Nowhere” that she thought Stevens & Young were going to successfully earmark? It is legitimate to think that a governor isn’t going to want to pay state funds to connect a federal bridge that the state didn’t ask for. Nobody can claim that she approached S&Y about getting a bridge – her thoughts on the subject at the time are recorded.

    rhodeymark (4f2403)

  30. Wow – I’m sorry I posted after Larry. Guess I’ll go take a shower.

    rhodeymark (1aaf2a)

  31. Laurence, your comment has no relation to reality. You are just making up stuff. McCain has not opposed equality of all races – your slanders are despicable.

    Obama gets kicked because he kicks himself. What is obvious is that Obama can’t take any pressure. Obama folds like the cheap empty suit he is.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. I think Laurence is just another scripted Obama poster. He won’t be around to defend that comment.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  33. Another drive – by Troll; speaking of which:

    “…she just offshored a bunch more good paying American jobs…thanks.”

    Jamesey, does this mean your creepy and skeezy obsession with your crotch – sniffing of Palin’s uterus is over now? Did you find everything that you so desperately, desperately, needed to know? Did it satisfy your many disgusting questions, Jamesey?

    Did you use a towel afterwards, Jamesey?

    Dmac (e639cc)

  34. PLEASE, ENOUGH OF THE RIDICULOUS TALK!
    LET’S PUT OUR COUNTRY IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T LIE, STUMBLE AND STUTTER.
    DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND GO TO http://WWW.AMERICANBLOGS.COM AND YOU CAN FIND ALL THE “TRUE FACTS” COMING “RIGHT OUT OF THE PIGS MOUTH” NO LIPSTICK, JUST TRUTH FOR A CHANGE.

    Bonnie DePrimio (ae2e88)

  35. And, for those who have continued to report Obama as a Muslim to scare people, especially on the seventh anniversary of 9/11, shame on not being educated in Who are the Muslim’s in the US?
    These are the men and women who have gotten “earmarks” and tax breaks to buy and run your convenience stores. These Muslim’s own about 65% of the fast food chains in America. These Muslim’s own 69% of your hotels and lodging facilities. They aren’t always the “funny looking guys with towels on their heads or wearing costumes. They are the people who are allowed to enter your FREE LAND and be compensated greatly for being here. They are living among you everyday, preaching at your house of worship, and attending colleges and universities FREE OF CHARGE under our current establishment. All Muslims AREN’T terrorist and ALL TERRORISTS AREN’T Muslims. Who was Tim McVay?
    Obama has the intelligence to “change” this country and you people are worried that someone might say something to “offend” our new Starlet. The diversion from the truth is mind-boggling but, it is just another example of the education that is available in America under Republican rule.
    Should it be mandatory to issue an IQ test before you are allowed to pull the election lever?
    Should there be a Ten page test given before the “Average American Voter” is allowed to vote?
    One that asks questions like “Who is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
    Republican Answer: Muslim terrorists that have invaded this country under Democratic cover!
    Or, are they sort of like the “Jonas Brothers”
    If you said YES to either of these answers, PLEASE, do America a BIG favor and stay home on election day!

    Bonnie DePrimio (ae2e88)

  36. THANKS FOR YOUR SUBTLE POST BONNIE WE ALL TEND TO PAY MORE ATTENTION WHEN LETTERS ARE REALLY BIG THAT ALWAYS WINS MORE ARGUMENTS HEY WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THOSE RETHUGLICANS DO THEY ALL WANT TO KILL POOR MUSLIMS WHAT ABOUT THE 7/11′S DO YOU THINK THEY’RE TRYING TO POISON THE SLURPEE MACHINES IN ORDER TO KILL MORE MUSLIMS HEY I HEARD YOU WORK FOR CAIR?

    Dmac (e639cc)

  37. Back to business:
    Palin: “$2 million in federal monies to study crab mating habits”
    McCain:”We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,”

    huh?

    jar@my home computer (6b0755)

  38. Back to business:
    Palin: “$2 million in federal monies to study crab mating habits”
    McCain:”We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,”

    huh?

    Considering a significant part of the Alaskan economy is based around crab, this doesn’t seem TOO odd.

    Now, how about the 5-odd Million Obama got to study how to MAYEB keep a certain fish from entering Lake Michigan?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  39. Back to business:
    Palin: “$2 million in federal monies to study crab mating habits”
    McCain:”We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,”

    huh?

    Considering a significant part of the Alaskan economy is based around crab, this doesn’t seem TOO odd.

    Now, how about the 5-odd Million Obama got to study how to MAYEB keep a certain fish from entering Lake Michigan?

    Actually if it’s the fish I think it is, it was probably a good idea. The difference between other animal studies is that the great lakes are being threatened by foreign species of fish (bighead, silver and black carp for example) and foreign plants. If they get into one great lake then all of them will probably be effected.

    Who cares right?

    Well, if they wipe out important native species, many Great Lake and fresh water industires within Canada and the US could be threatened. 5 million dollars to learn more about a threat which could cost countless millions lost and job losses across the board is fair in my opinion.

    I think the argument against banning all earmarks is bad, since it cuts off a healthy way to get funding for many deserving causes (probably what Obama will argue). Many of them are used for “good,” while a few are used for stupid things(2 million for a new soccer field celebration is bad for example).

    Laws prohibiting wasteful use of earmarks etc would be a better way to approach it, but that doesn’t help in election time. What McCain and Palin are saying about what they will do and what they have done earmarks wise, doesn’t really compare with their records.

    But records don’t matter, because the majority of voters don’t listen to details or the news, they get their info second hand or from a 15 second sound bite on TV.

    That’s why the McCain/Palin ticket is doing so well.

    Blake (24197c)

  40. “What McCain and Palin are saying about what they will do and what they have done earmarks wise, doesn’t really compare with their records.”

    Blake – How so? Which of McCain’s earmarks are wasteful? Oh, that’s right, he doesn’t ask for any. OK, take a look at Palin’s. Which of her’s, when you strip out the compliance mandated ones, do you consider wasteful, Cowboy?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  41. I agree with Blake’s points. While I agree that quid pro quo earmarks should be shameful, McCain’s habit (and Proxmire’s before him), of picking out something that sounds ridiculous and putting it up to ridicule without serious investigation is something I don’t agree with. The great lakes fishing industry already took one big hit years ago when lampreys migrated up stream and destroyed the Lake Trout population.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  42. “What McCain and Palin are saying about what they will do and what they have done earmarks wise, doesn’t really compare with their records.”

    Blake – How so? Which of McCain’s earmarks are wasteful? Oh, that’s right, he doesn’t ask for any. OK, take a look at Palin’s. Which of her’s, when you strip out the compliance mandated ones, do you consider wasteful, Cowboy?

    You completely missed my point because you would rather be confrontational than actually read what I said.

    The fact is McCain doesn’t have earmarks, good for him, maybe bad for possibilities in his state.

    The fact is Palin is a big spender when it comes to earmarks, most of them are probably good projects.

    The fact is Obama is a big spender of earmarks, most of them are probably good projects.

    Now for who’s making what points:

    McCain is making the point that all earmarks are bad (even critized some earmarks of Palin’s when she was mayor) and that Palin and him have been fighters against using earmarks for a long time. McCain himself: Yes, Palin: No, McCain/Palin: Who knows they’re not in office if they even make it there.

    However, Palin has requested 197 million in earmarks for 2009. Do I think it’s bad? No, probably good for Alaska. Then again i’m not arguing earmarks are all bad am I? McCain/Palin are.

    Comming full circle, hopefully this time we all understand that the point isn’t how wasteful x earmarks are, but who’s contradicting themselves with their own arguements (That would be McCain/Palin).

    Blake (24197c)

  43. Blake – I was not being confrontational, I was asking you to explain your point. Palin obviously cannot take the position that all earmarks are bad because she requests them, but she can legitimately say has tried to eliminate the ones she considers wasteful. As WLS has pointed out, a significant portion of the STATE earmark requests coming from Palin are for compliance with federal mandates. Obama, in rhe other hand is at a run rate of about $1 of earmarks per day for his time in the Senate. Take a look at the details of his please for comparison.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  44. Million per day.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  45. #27 – EdWood

    The difference is that Obama isn’t promising to chop off everyone’s earmarks. He is talking generally and concentrating on doing things “not the GWB way”. Therefore his earmarks don’t make him sound like as much of a hypocrite.
    – That’s correct. He’s bellying up to the pork bar, plopping his barrel on the counter and saying, “Fill ‘er up, boys!” The fact that he’s not being hypocritical about it somehow makes the practice alright? That’s like saying, “He’s an honest thief.”

    McCain and Palin on the other hand, to try and sell themselves as reformers, have come out against earmarks. The fact that at least Palin is obviously NOT against earmarks makes their sell in the reform category look more like a con-job than Obama’s sell.
    – Ya know, it’s too bad, because at least one-third to one-half of the time your posts are rational and thought out. McCain has never requested an earmark; never, during 26 years in the Congress. That in itself is a rare thing, and the mark of a reform-minded politician. He has vowed to veto ALL spending bills saddled with congressional pork; no president or presidential candidate has ever done that. GWB gave it lip-service . . . McCain has made it a cornerstone of his campaign. Palin inherited the pork capital of the USA and has worked consistently to reduce both the number and dollar amounts of earmarks allocated to her state.

    What they really mean of course (assuming it’s not a con job) is that they will do their best to reduce and reign in earmarks (at least in Democratic districts) and save a few cents to defray the cost of McCain’s tax breaks. It’s still reform but it doesn’t sound as good in a speech.
    – Neither one of them has lied about this AT ALL. Neither one of them has said they are going to eliminate ALL earmarks. McCain’s specific promise is to veto bills that are full of pork — he NEVER said that he was going to veto every bill that contains even one earmark. If you extrapolate that message, that’s your problem. Further, he has promised to publish the details of all earmarks — names, amounts, and what the money is requested for — on the internet; an official government version of the site to which I linked. He’s telling the electorate, “Here is what the person you voted for is doing with your tax dollars”. From the McCain website:

    John McCain has been a tireless warrior against wasteful spending, and one of the few leaders who has the guts to challenge abusive Congressional earmarks and the pork barrel politics that grip Washington. John McCain understands that, fundamentally, wasteful spending is an issue of ethics.

    – It is qualified as “wasteful spending” and “abusive earmarks”. He has NEVER said that he is going to eliminate earmarks altogether. There is NO hypocrisy on either his or Governor Palin’s part.

    I suppose all earmarks are worded to look good but the thing I noticed about Palin’s were that they all seemed pretty practical (except the stupid road but I suppose there is a good rationalization for that one somewhere. There always is.)
    – Did you click on the links I provided? A lot of them sound good. The question is one of “Should the American taxpayer be paying for this?”

    Icy Truth (3b614c)

  46. Obama is just the shit, man. His earmarks help people, yannow. Can’t you feel it? Pay no attention to those shady people in his past they are just distractions. They don’t help put fruit or arugula on the table. There is absolutely no backscratcting going on with Obama’s earmark’s, at least none wou’ll find in writing although you can follow the money. All those housing deals and that zoning help he got for Rezko. That had absolutely nothing to do with Rezko’s campaign contributions and later help with buying Obama’s house. No sir. Michelle’s ginormous raise at the hospital? That had nothing to do with the reamark Baracky steered her way. No sir. Michelle deserved that raise, she works hard for her money.

    See how easy this is?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  47. Governor Palin’s earmarks were dissected earlier today at a HotAir link to ABC (oh wait – that’s Gibson’s network so they must have been LYING FOR HER). The “funny” and or outrageous ones were usually tied to Federal mandates from Fish & Game, DEM and the like. Basically she said, “OK, I’ll do it but not at the state taxpayers expense”. No Unfunded Mandates! That is truly the mantra of a good GOVERNOR.

    rhodeymark (4f2403)

  48. Obama is just the shit, man. His earmarks help people, yannow. Can’t you feel it? Pay no attention to those shady people in his past they are just distractions. They don’t help put fruit or arugula on the table. There is absolutely no backscratcting going on with Obama’s earmark’s, at least none wou’ll find in writing although you can follow the money. All those housing deals and that zoning help he got for Rezko. That had absolutely nothing to do with Rezko’s campaign contributions and later help with buying Obama’s house. No sir. Michelle’s ginormous raise at the hospital? That had nothing to do with the reamark Baracky steered her way. No sir. Michelle deserved that raise, she works hard for her money.

    See how easy this is?

    Actually one thing about the Rezko thing. From a point of view of someone who works in the land titles business as a land titles searcher (not sure how it is in the States). What Rezko/Obama did is really simple and happens all the time here with buildiers. I bet you Rezko has done the same thing with countless people to devleop land. I have been thinking of doing the same thing myself (If I was smart), but I don’t have the money.

    That is find a vacant lot (old railway easements, turned vacant and now owned by cities work wonders), buy it cheap, develop it, then sell it. Or find someone to sever a lot (usually a farm, but in Obama’s case, a vacant abutting lot in a rich neighborhood) and sell you the vacant severed part.

    That’s basically what Obama offered Rezko’s wife (Rezko’s were well known in the land business and wasn’t known to be crooked back then). No sense in paying 300K for something you don’t want, might as well sell it to someone else and make 300K.

    I even had one similar a week ago, a local builder bought a lot in a million dollar home neighborhood for 286K. I almost didn’t close the deal, because I didn’t have keys thinking it was a house lot since vacants usually go 10-40 thousand. Had to call up the firm and found out it was a vacant lot and then noticed what neighborhood it was in.

    Anyways back to earmarks. :p

    Blake (24197c)

  49. Blake – All that is about is allocated value between the two parcels of land to get the seller the total value they wanted, not magic involving titles. If you have Rezko “overpay” for the vacant parcel, it suddenly makes the developed parcel more affordable for the Obama’s and makes the appraisal a lot easier to get a loan against, although Obama seems to have gotten a sweetheart deal on the loan anyway.

    Obama’s work in the state legislature was to the great benefit of his slumlord friends such as Rezko. I’m sure there was no quid pro quo in terms of campaign contributions or anything. I think I must have missed the MSM episode or vetting on this part of his background. Can you tell me when it will be rerun?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  50. I.T. #46 I’m confused by this part of your response

    EdWood “The fact that at least Palin is obviously NOT against earmarks

    I.T. “McCain has never requested an earmark; never,”

    I didn’t say McCain was for earmarks, I am saying that Gov. Palin is. Gov. Palin suddenly saying that she is against earmarks contradicts the ticket’s message. That makes it appear like they are trying to run a con.

    Notice I said “appears”. Are they running a con? Who knows?

    This message seems smarter.
    “Palin inherited the pork capital of the USA and has worked consistently to reduce both the number and dollar amounts of earmarks allocated to her state.”

    As for “wasteful” spending… well…that’s a vague term isn’t it? Some questions in that regard are:
    1: Will John McCain appoint a group of advisers who are smart enough to understand things like: money for research on how to keep lampreys and non-native species of carp out of Lake Michigan is an investment in the health of the local fishing industry. Those fish, which are exotic invasive species, cause commercial fish stocks to decline in a dramatic way (especially lampreys).

    2: Does John McCain have sufficient independence from his party and lobbyists to be fair with his veto power or will he be influenced to use it in a political way so that all “wasteful” earmarks just happen to (mostly) be those requested by Democratic Congressmen or by a Democratic Governor?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  51. There is a major point not yet made in this discussion. Earmarks, as usually understood, are spending allocations that ARE NOT IN THE BILL. They are added in conference after the appropriation is debated and voted upon. Submitting a list of projects before the bill is passed is not “asking for earmarks.” It is asking for an appropriation. Earmarks are different because they are NOT in the law. That is why there was a suggestion that Bush simply not spend the money. Nixon did this in the 70s and Congress passed a law that appropriated money had to be spent. However, the earmarks are not in the law so they could be sequestered, the term Nixon used in the 70s.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  52. money for research on how to keep lampreys and non-native species of carp out of Lake Michigan is an investment in the health of the local fishing industry

    Anyone who eats ANYTHING that comes out of Lake Michigan deserves the dysentary they end up with. Seriously, it is NOT a body of water from which I would knowingly eat fish…

    Does John McCain have sufficient independence from his party and lobbyists to be fair with his veto power or will he be influenced to use it in a political way so that all “wasteful” earmarks just happen to (mostly) be those requested by Democratic Congressmen or by a Democratic Governor?

    Considering he actively worked to block court appointments, I’d say yes… Yes he does…

    He’s one of the lowest ranked “with party” voters in the senate (if you exclude the nearly 50 “timeline for withdrawal” bills he voted against).

    Seriously, the last couple of years he’s ranked safely into the bottom half. Obama is at the VERY top though… 97% with party last time… I would be concerned about HIS independence…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  53. “Palin inherited the pork capital of the USA and has worked consistently to reduce both the number and dollar amounts of earmarks allocated to her state.”

    Also, you have to understand that Alaska requires a LOT of infrastructure, and the maintaining of that is FAR more expensive than here in the lower 48. Damn near EVERYTHING has to be shipped in.

    the VAST distances roads travel makes things harder to keep up, and the ROADS have to be kept up.

    Trust me, there’s a reason cigarettes were NTC prices when I visited Alaska…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  54. To daleyrocks:

    I didn’t, the MSM went after him about of month trying to find stuff during the primaries before the Ferraro then Wright issue errupted. Basically if there were any illegal dealings, Obama would be going to court since it would make anyones career. Any shady dealings would have been uncovered by now by Blogs/Fox. Just like Fox News/blogs failed to uncover videos/evidence of Obama’s possible connection to extreme views in relation to Wright (except the two videos that surfaced).

    I think you can actually argue that Rezko (His wife actually, but local builder’s use their wive’s names for deeds a lot) didn’t overpay for it, although it does help with the mortgage, that’s the whole point on Obama’s side.

    Also it’s much easier to get a loan/mortgage when you’re well known, trust me. It’s all about whether the bank thinks/knows they will get their money back with interest. Being a state legistlature means better loans period. Preferential treatment, go figure. :)

    Like I said, I had a vacant lot that went for 286K in a similar neighborhood here in town. All of us thought it wasn’t overpaying at the time for what you could build on it and sell it for.

    As for his legistlation benefitting a slum lord, I know one and he’s not a bad guy, not great either though. They’re basically in it for the money by buying/selling. Although they keep the ecomony of the city going, you always wish they would sell it to someone who can do more with the land.

    As for the earmarks, just to not go too off topic, I agree with EdWood/Post 51. and feel his questions are quite fair to be asking.

    Blake (24197c)

  55. Scott – Lake Michigan is pretty good now. Zebra mussels have made the water very clear. Fresh caught perch are great. Trout, salmon, walleye and white fish are very tasty. The Chicago River is where I might remain a little cautious. You never know who or what the carp are eating down there.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  56. EdWood —

    I didn’t say McCain was for earmarks, I am saying that Gov. Palin is. Gov. Palin suddenly saying that she is against earmarks contradicts the ticket’s message. That makes it appear like they are trying to run a con.
    – 1) I never accused you of saying that McCain was for earmarks. You are the one that referenced McCain in your previous sentence: McCain and Palin on the other hand, to try and sell themselves as reformers, have come out against earmarks. You mentioned them as a team, therefore I responded by describing what both of them have said and done on this issue. 2) Your assertion that she is “suddenly saying that she is against earmarks” is FALSE! She is neither calling for the elimination of all earmarks, nor claiming that she is or always has been against all earmarks. That is a false claim made by her ideological opponents, and others who don’t pay attention.

    Will John McCain appoint a group of advisers who are smart enough to understand things like … [?]
    – I believe he will. What indication do you have that he will not.

    Does John McCain have sufficient independence from his party and lobbyists to be fair with his veto power … [?]
    – Again, I believe so. And he definitely will be more fair than Obama, unless you view allowing every earmark to go through as being the ultimate expression of fairness.

    Icy Truth (b28aae)

  57. Blake – Ed’s comments on the earmarks are worth asking. Other commenters have raised the points I was making about Palin and the earmarks Alaska asks for merely to comply with federal laws or programs. Hopefully you now understand that point. Those are not the nature of Obama’s earmarks to my knowledge.

    Rezko’s public housing deals in Chicago, how he steered legal work related to them, and how it required work in the legislature is a very complicated subject. I’m not sure why you would automatically assume Fox news would look at it other than a biased opinion of the network. Some local bloggers have produced pieces, but they haven’t caught on. It’s a big circle jerk of back scratching which just demonstrates that Obama is not a reformer, rather another machine politician. It’s no surprise to those who know anything about Chicago politics.

    On the house, I have not checked into how the vacant lot is zoned. Have you? Is it buildable? That’s one question I have not heard asked or answered. From the location, I cannot imagine the Obama’s wanting anything constructed there, which gives it so much of an appearance of convenience sale. Have you looked at it Blake?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  58. daleyrocks – Do you think Blake really cares?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  59. To EdWood, Blake, et al -

    State of the State Address, Governor Sarah Palin, PRESENTED TO THE 25th Alaska Legislature, Second Regular Session, January 15, 2008:
    We can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks. Instead, let us power up and produce for Alaska and America. We can do this – we’re 50 years old now, and it’s time!

    From the March, 2008 edition of Governor Palin’s “Putting Alaska First” newsletter; within a Q&A with John Katz, Director, Washington D.C. Office of the Governor:
    This year, President Bush and the Congressional leadership have said that the total dollar amount and number of earmarks must be reduced significantly. Recognizing the Constitutional authority of Congress to formulate the federal budget, Governor Palin has responded to this direction by reducing the total number of State earmark requests from 54 last year to 31 and from $550 million to less than $200 million.

    – There is no “con job” going on here; she talks the talk and walks the walk. She NEVER NEVER NEVER said that she wants all earmarks, every last one of them, eliminated. She has said that they need to be reduced AND she has worked to make that happen — period. No lies, no hypocrisy. They (Palin and McCain) are pledged to making things better. They don’t throw out pie-in-the-sky “we can make things perfect,” platitudes the way that Obama bin Biden do.

    Icy Truth (b28aae)

  60. daleyrocks – Do you think Blake really cares?

    JD – Not really.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  61. On the house, I have not checked into how the vacant lot is zoned. Have you? Is it buildable? That’s one question I have not heard asked or answered. From the location, I cannot imagine the Obama’s wanting anything constructed there, which gives it so much of an appearance of convenience sale. Have you looked at it Blake?

    Nope, there’s probably little Obama could do to limit how the property is used, unless a bylaw or an existing restrictive covenant, agreement, easement etc exists on the land. It’s obviously in a residential area that looked fairly old, so a lot of that stuff would have expired.

    If Obama had severed the lot, neighbors should have been allowed to voice their opinions about it etc, but it seems like a lot+abuutting lot/part lot situation, meaning city planning already allows building. I thought the true thing you could have probably got Obama on with his house was America’s version (if it’s similar to Canada’s) planning act, which basically governs how you can sever, sell and join lots and part lots.

    If Obama/Rezko’s acting lawyers in the deal (if the State’s even use lawyers) didn’t abide by the “planning laws” in the way they sold the lots, then maybe like here, the previous title becomes “indefeasible,” meaning basically the previous owner (Obama or the people who owned land before him, whoever old who the lot) would still “own” the land and any mortgages on it from the “current” owner are pretty much useless, thus the banks/owner just lost a lot of money and someone is going to get sued unless something is worked out. That’s assuming planning is anything like up here.

    I guess I should stop posting about the Rezko stuff though since it isn’t the topic.

    To Icy Truth/Post 60.

    All that’s fine, but when McCain/Palin in their recent stump speeches go into this rant about how they’re going to stop every last earmark/pork barrel spending and name every single person using them in shame, it certainly sounds like McCain’s against all earmarks. Does Palin endorse that idea? We shall see, but she’s obviously found use from them and stands right next to McCain making the proclamations.

    McCain on the other hand is not hypocritical on the issue when it comes to his own record personally on earmarks, since a good while he hasn’t used them. More power to him. It’s just trying to copy/paste his experiences, record and past onto Palin’s past, while heading inconsistencies, is what I don’t like.

    McCain should be more honest generally in his speeches.

    Blake (24197c)

  62. #62 – Blake

    when McCain/Palin in their recent stump speeches go into this rant about how they’re going to stop every last earmark/pork barrel spending and name every single person using them in shame, it certainly sounds like McCain’s against all earmarks

    – Report from The New York Observer of a McCain stump speech from yesterday:
    McCain whipped out a pen and declared that “the first pork barrel-laden, big-spending earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it! You will know their names and I will make them famous and we will stop this corruption!”
    – He uses specific language, precise adjectives: “laden”, “big-spending”.

    Look, we’re at the point — right now — where I’m going to tell you, “that dog don’t hunt”. Either provide some proof that either one of them has said that “they’re going to stop every last earmark,” or else let it drop . . . or, even better, concede and acknowledge the truth.

    Icy Truth (b28aae)

  63. Look, we’re at the point — right now — where I’m going to tell you, “that dog don’t hunt”. Either provide some proof that either one of them has said that “they’re going to stop every last earmark,” or else let it drop . . . or, even better, concede and acknowledge the truth.

    There’s the proof right there, in addition to the way he aggressively says it. Politics is always about saying something without saying it. The fact is McCain’s basic message to people is “All Earmarks are bad, I never use earmarks, Palin my VP is against them, anyone for earmarks is bad, earmarks equal curruption. Obama equals curruption” That’s the thought process he’s trying to get going.

    However if you start asking questions like: What if it’s pork laden and big-spending, but is a really good cause when you get into the details? Will he veto it then? Would it be curruption to try and fund such a worthy project? Would it be up to only McCain to decide whether or not something is true pork barrell spending?

    If McCain’s message is what you say, just against wasteful spending, wouldn’t it be more responsible to say something like:

    “I will move forward bipartisanly on laws to eliminate excess pork barrel spending, to make sure that the taxpayers aren’t funding unworthy causes etc.”

    Instead of angrly and highly simplistic:

    “The first pork barrel-laden, big-spending earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it! You will know their names and I will make them famous and we will stop this corruption!”

    However, the latter line gains votes with people thinking “He’s completely against earmarks, that’s good. Others using earmarks, bad.” The former, unfortunately, doesn’t get votes. So I understand why McCain would like to be perceived as being so against earmarks.

    Maybe this is just my opinion about zingers vs. reality. Very easy to say something, but harder to be responsible for the message that’s perceived. McCain is not very responsible about his message.

    Blake (24197c)

  64. Blake @62 – It would have been a lot simpler and honest for you to say I have not checked into that property and I do not know anything about Chicago zoning or land use restrictions so I don’t want to guess about the answer to that question. I can understand why you didn’t want to do that though.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  65. Blake @62 – It would have been a lot simpler and honest for you to say I have not checked into that property and I do not know anything about Chicago zoning or land use restrictions so I don’t want to guess about the answer to that question. I can understand why you didn’t want to do that though.

    I too proud of my job one one, I guess that’s one of my flaws (lol :) ). Second of all I thought I would give you some insight into how it zoning and planning kind of works. Thirdly, I hate simplicity, since nothing is too simple.

    However, my first line of my last “Rezko” post did simplify exactly that with the word “Nope.” :)

    Blake (24197c)

  66. “Second of all I thought I would give you some insight into how it zoning and planning kind of works.”

    Blake – Thanks, but I’m familiar with it and the title business.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  67. Blake -

    There’s the proof right there, in addition to the way he aggressively says it. Politics is always about saying something without saying it. The fact is McCain’s basic message to people is “All Earmarks are bad, I never use earmarks, Palin my VP is against them, anyone for earmarks is bad, earmarks equal curruption. Obama equals curruption” That’s the thought process he’s trying to get going.
    – That’s fascinating. Where is the lie? Look, either you are accusing McCain of lying, in which case I challenge you to prove it, OR you are characterizing the average voter as being too stupid to tell the difference . . . so gullible that they don’t pay attention to the precise language used. Either way, you are insulting someone, and the only thing you have proved is how cynical you are.

    However if you start asking questions like: What if it’s pork laden and big-spending, but is a really good cause when you get into the details? Will he veto it then?
    – YES. He has already made that pledge; and the Congress will have to respond by either removing the pork or overriding the veto. Since historically less than 10% of presidential vetoes have been overridden, the legislators will be under immediate pressure to trim the pork.

    Would it be curruption to try and fund such a worthy project? Would it be up to only McCain to decide whether or not something is true pork barrell spending?
    – First of all, enough already with “curruption”! It’s “corruption”. And YES, it is up to the president to decide whether or not it’s pork-barrel (there’s another tricky word) spending. There exists a definition of what an earmark is, but the bottom line is: the president gets to decide if a particular piece of legislation is laden with pork or not. That’s it for your basic civics “checks and balances” lesson for the day.

    If McCain’s message is what you say, just against wasteful spending, wouldn’t it be more responsible to say something like:
    “I will move forward bipartisanly on laws to eliminate excess pork barrel spending, to make sure that the taxpayers aren’t funding unworthy causes etc.”

    – Why? Do you want him to turn into Obama?

    Instead of angrly [sic] and highly simplistic …
    – Direct, to the point, and highly effective. This issue is not above his pay grade.

    However, the latter line gains votes with people thinking “He’s completely against earmarks, that’s good. Others using earmarks, bad.” The former, unfortunately, doesn’t get votes. So I understand why McCain would like to be perceived as being so against earmarks.
    – That’s right. And HE IS NOT LYING AT ALL.

    Maybe this is just my opinion about zingers vs. reality. Very easy to say something, but harder to be responsible for the message that’s perceived. McCain is not very responsible about his message.
    – It is just your opinion. And I completely disagree with your opinion that he is not being “responsible” about his message. Again, it sounds to me like you have a fairly low opinion as regards the intelligence of the average voter.

    Icy Truth (0b82c2)

  68. Blake – Thanks, but I’m familiar with it and the title business.

    You should have mentioned that sooner, but I guess it’s ok that people reading this blog can get an idea that it’s not uncommon for people to sell off unwanted land from their titles. In the end, that’s pretty much what Obama did. Was there anything wrong or illegal done during or after that? Well after 20 months of people digging up (successfully and unsuccessfully) stuff on Obama, I think we would definately know by now if there was.

    Ok now that’s the last post on Rezko here (plus I’m hitting the sack soon)

    – It is just your opinion. And I completely disagree with your opinion that he is not being “responsible” about his message. Again, it sounds to me like you have a fairly low opinion as regards the intelligence of the average voter.

    And I disagree with the first part (of course)and agree with the second part, I do have a low opinion of the average voter. The fact is the average voter doesn’t listen truly to policy or detail, they listen to 15 second pieces of info, their “expert friend’s” second hand info, or none of the above and go into a voting booth without any knowledge on election day. I see it in all forms of elections and of all sizes and everyone here probably sees it as well. They’re usually the first to say “Who made this bad decision in the first place?” (actually I’m wrong there, the first people to say that are people who didn’t even vote) and I’m usually one of those people who laugh and say “Well, we did.” :)

    There’s a line that I heard once that went basically this: “An individual is smart, but people are stupid.” Is the average voter dumb? No, many are intelligent and many are dumb. Does the average voter make knowledgable and wise decisions, by informing themselves? Nope.

    Everyone posting here is not an average voter and that’s a good thing.

    But on the point of honesty about messages:

    McCain hasn’t been responsible with his message with taxation for example. His whole convention and him included kept hammering home on one point “Obama will raise your taxes” flat out. Palin actually went farther in her convention speech and went on to talk about the average joe getting higher taxes under Obama. Is that true? Of course not. Does it win votes? Of course it does.

    50% of the American electorate now thinks that Obama will raise their taxes. The fact is people under $250,000 income will get pretty sizable tax cuts, much better than McCain’s, people around 250K-400K will get a tax increase (small businesses excempt) around 12 dollars and people with 600K+ will get a huge tax increase of about 100K+ (compared to McCain giving them a tax break).

    If McCain was honest about his message, he would concede that Obama wants to lower your taxes, but the tax increase on the 600K+ income people will hurt more than it helps. I don’t doubt he will argue that in a debate, since the “Obama will raise your taxes” doesn’t fly.

    He would also concede that Obama’s record is pretty good, but it just doesn’t compare to his. Instead he goes after him as “just being a community organizer,just ignore all of that other national/state senate stuff over 12 years” message.

    Also that paygrade stuff, anyone who watched and has an ounce of critical thinking and knowledge of what Saddleback was about, the paygrade remark was Obama basically saying “Only God knows,” but no it’s an “elitist remark.”

    Closest I have seen Obama not being honest about his message in regards to McCain is when it comes to McCain equaling Bush. He does back it up with statistics of how many times he voted in relation to Bush’s policies the same, but not the specifics of what those decisions were.

    I guess I’m just sick of simplistic to the point polticians. Sure my heart wants to believe exactly what they say will work out, but my brain tells me otherwise. The fact is the loudest and most definitive people seem to be the same people who make the most mistakes.

    That’s why this year I will probably vote in my own elections conservative again, because the liberal leader and his definitive statements are not only wrong, but dumb and counter productive.

    It’s the same reason why I would vote for Obama next to the issues, because he treats people like an adult even when they don’t act like them. :)

    Blake (24197c)

  69. He said it without saying it !!!!!!!!!!! Code words !!!!!!!!!!! This way, Blake can take any actual words, impute meaning and motive not there, and say that you said something that you did not. This is tactic 2.1 in the liberal playbook.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  70. and went on to talk about the average joe getting higher taxes under Obama. Is that true? Of course not.

    Show us in Baracky’s votes and actual record where he has been an advocate for lowering taxes. He may claim to be in favor of doing so during the election, much like Clinton, but nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch in his record suggest that lower taxes is on his actual agenda.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  71. Also that paygrade stuff, anyone who watched and has an ounce of critical thinking and knowledge of what Saddleback was about, the paygrade remark was Obama basically saying “Only God knows,” but no it’s an “elitist remark.”

    Baracky was asked about Baracky’s positon on that issue, not God’s position on that issue. Thinking for himself is above his pay grade.

    He would also concede that Obama’s record is pretty good,

    The only record to speak of is winning elections.

    Closest I have seen Obama not being honest about his message in regards to McCain

    100 years of war? Indefinite war?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  72. Blake @ 49 — Obama was a US Senator at the time. What you are describing, and what has been alleged to be the case, would be classified as a “gift” by Rezko to Obama under Senate Ethics Rules. Obama would have been prohibited from accepting Rezko’s financial assistance.

    That is why neither Obama or Rezko have EVER admitted that Rezko overpaid for the vacant parcel so that Obama could get the house for $300,000 less than the listing price.

    WLS (26b1e5)

  73. Obama gets a sweetheart deal for property from a crook like Rezko, and works on getting earmarks for the hospital where his wife works, and Blake wants to defend that.

    How amusing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  74. Blake -

    I do have a low opinion of the average voter. The fact is the average voter doesn’t listen truly to policy or detail, they listen to 15 second pieces of info, their “expert friend’s” second hand info, or none of the above and go into a voting booth without any knowledge on election day.
    – I think the average voter is a bit more engaged than how you describe it here.

    There’s a line that I heard once that went basically this: “An individual is smart, but people are stupid.” Is the average voter dumb? No, many are intelligent and many are dumb. Does the average voter make knowledgable and wise decisions, by informing themselves? Nope.
    – Do you think they make knowledgeable and wise decisions regardless of the process?

    If McCain was honest about his message, he would concede that Obama wants to lower your taxes
    – It isn’t McCain’s job to instruct the public on his opponent’s platform, or vice versa.

    He would also concede that Obama’s record is pretty good, but it just doesn’t compare to his.
    – Who says that it’s pretty good? Just being in public life doesn’t give you a pass.

    Also that paygrade stuff, anyone who watched and has an ounce of critical thinking and knowledge of what Saddleback was about, the paygrade remark was Obama basically saying “Only God knows,” but no it’s an “elitist remark.”
    – His remark was imprecise, equivocal and indecisive. If he meant “Only God knows,” why didn’t he just say that?

    Closest I have seen Obama not being honest about his message in regards to McCain is when it comes to McCain equaling Bush. He does back it up with statistics of how many times he voted in relation to Bush’s policies the same, but not the specifics of what those decisions were.
    – And doesn’t note that he voted with Bush 40% of the time, and therefore disagrees with McCain at most 60% of the time.

    I guess I’m just sick of simplistic to the point polticians.
    – Being direct and straightforward shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a detriment.

    Sure my heart wants to believe exactly what they say will work out, but my brain tells me otherwise. The fact is the loudest and most definitive people seem to be the same people who make the most mistakes.
    – Frankly, that’s a generalization that doesn’t mean very much.

    That’s why this year I will probably vote in my own elections conservative again, because the liberal leader and his definitive statements are not only wrong, but dumb and counter productive.
    – As long as you vote conservative, it’s all good. ;-)

    It’s the same reason why I would vote for Obama next to the issues, because he treats people like an adult even when they don’t act like them.
    – Bad policies are bad policies, no matter how they are presented. You could drop a lump of shit in a Christmas stocking, but who would keep it?

    Icy Truth (a38535)

  75. Blake @ 49 — Obama was a US Senator at the time. What you are describing, and what has been alleged to be the case, would be classified as a “gift” by Rezko to Obama under Senate Ethics Rules. Obama would have been prohibited from accepting Rezko’s financial assistance.

    That is why neither Obama or Rezko have EVER admitted that Rezko overpaid for the vacant parcel so that Obama could get the house for $300,000 less than the listing price.

    Missing the point, it’s not a gift if he bought vacant land legaly from Obama. From my past experience with Canadian prices of land (which are lower much than America’s save for larger cities), 300K Vacant land in a million dollar plus neighborhood, isn’t overpaying.

    Baracky was asked about Baracky’s positon on that issue, not God’s position on that issue. Thinking for himself is above his pay grade.

    Well he did actually, he said in the debate he didn’t like abortion, but governing wise he thought choice was best. Up here in Canada, that’s a very common stance on the issue (having it both ways of course). But then again, not too many politicians have firm stances in minority governments. :p

    Obama gets a sweetheart deal for property from a crook like Rezko, and works on getting earmarks for the hospital where his wife works, and Blake wants to defend that.

    Again about the Rezko deal, look directly above. As for the Hospital, I could see some favouratism there. However, Obama isn’t the one arguing earmarks are bad or unhealthy, McCain is. :)

    He said it without saying it !!!!!!!!!!! Code words !!!!!!!!!!! This way, Blake can take any actual words, impute meaning and motive not there, and say that you said something that you did not. This is tactic 2.1 in the liberal playbook.

    Of course I’m a liberal, I’m Canadian ain’t I? eh. Our Conservative government is pretty much the Democrats. :)

    However there’s a difference to imputing meaning that’s not there and discussing how people may take something because of the way it was said, not what was said.

    Show us in Baracky’s votes and actual record where he has been an advocate for lowering taxes. He may claim to be in favor of doing so during the election, much like Clinton, but nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch in his record suggest that lower taxes is on his actual agenda.

    Well that’s not the issue is it? Even McCain has said he may not cut taxes and may have to raise them as the need arises. you don’t see Obama saying “McCain wants to raise your taxes” do you? It’s about not playing the divination game about your opponent’s policies and actually attacking them factually based upon what’s put on the table.

    100 years of war? Indefinite war?

    I concede on those, I can’t believe I forgot about them and your right it’s not completely honest. Funny how we forget about things that don’t fit our point of view? I could sit here and argue well “McCain did say that didn’t he?” However, that would be against my own point wouldn’t it and we would be switching positions. The fact is it goes to my point of saying something that’s not completely honest, playing on peoples lack of knowledge of the actual comment.

    But like I said, I vote on issues first, then who treats the public in a more mature/intelligent fashion second. Pfft so much for conceding on a point, I tried. :)

    I will let the discussion progress about earmarks, rather than me blabbering on about other issues. I have work in 7 hours, but I thought I would post one more time tonight.

    Blake (24197c)

  76. Check out this earmark from Obama.

    In 2006, Obama requested $2.5 million the University of Illinois College of ACES Illinois Program for Integrated Sustainable Agriculture. The Illinois Program for Integrated Sustainable Agriculture will research and develop an integrated livestock and corn-soybean production system which will recycle valuable nutrients from the animal waste stream in an effort to improve agricultural productivity and reduce the emission of livestock wastes into the environment.

    Barry requested $2.5 million dollars to study bullshit spreading techniques!
    Money well spent in his case.

    papertiger (4fe729)

  77. earmarks per capita

    Alaska #1

    nick (04803c)

  78. A-holes per last post: 1

    Icy Truth (7b38bb)

  79. The federal government owns 60% of Alaska. Given this high rate of ownership, shouldn’t the feds be sending Alaska more than the average amount of money?
    There are a lot of western states where the biggest land owner is the federal government. If the feds are going to own the land, what compensation do these states get?

    Note that this is not an endorsement for spending, Robert Byrd style. I’d like to see spending reduced, particularly with discretionary spending. But I’d like to see the Feds cede more land back to these states.

    Half Canadian (8c8f68)

  80. half candadian can you say anything that is not stupid?

    money for Tunday?

    you are a insanely dumb

    nick (04803c)

  81. nick calling someone else insanely dumb is the dictionary definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Racists.

    JD (41e64f)

  82. ARE YOU BLACK\YOU FUCKING MORON

    nick (04803c)

  83. I don’t take anyones word for it. So I went and found the correct information myself. Here is the report I made of it:

    *The following information was gathered from .gov web sites only (Unless otherwise noted)No spin, no lies, no misleading, only facts.

    In 2005. Earmarks in Alaska were up 62% from 2003 (http://inside.ffis.org/ff/EarmarksFY05.pdf)

    Alaska appropriated $690,639,000 in 353 total earmarks
    Which is $1,031.71 per capita.

    This is over 1150% higher than the average of all other 49 states.
    In 2005, Alaska was #1 in earmarks by over 3 times that of the next highest state of Hawaii.
    But of course, Palin was not governor in 2005. This just shows the culture of earmarks in the state she had to work with.

    Then I looked at 2008 data.

    Alaska appropriated $154,865,000 in 119 total earmarks.
    Which is $226.58 per capita.

    This is 550% higher than the average of all other 49 states.
    Obviously still #1.

    But from 03’ to 04’ to 05’ Earmarks in Alaska had grown by +62% (http://inside.ffis.org/ff/EarmarksFY05.pdf)
    But from 06’ to 07’ to 08’ Earmarks in Alaska had shrunk by -78%
    To be fair, all other states in the union except 3, (Minnesota”My state”, Arkansas, and Louisiana) reduced earmarks in the same time frame.
    But no other state in the union even comes close to this kind of Maverick earmark reduction.

    What else has happened to earmarks in Alaska during the Palin administration?
    The number of earmarks was reduced 66% from 353 to 119.
    The size of each earmark was reduced by 34% from $1.956M to $1.301M
    Alaska reduced its earmarks under Palin more than the next 4 states in line, combined.

    Alaska still is #1, but at this rate of reductions it’s gaining more ground than any other state by leaps and bounds. This is most likely the greatest reduction in earmarks in American history? But I don’t have a way of measuring that yet.

    Even McCain’s state of Arizona is making incredible ground, slashing the number of earmarks in half.
    Moving from 34th to 49th on the list of per capita earmarks, only beat by Florida.

    This compared to Obama’s Illinois that is losing ground from 43rd in earmarks in 2005 to 31st in 2008.
    And Biden’s Delaware slipped from 22nd in earmarks in 2005 to 14th in 2008

    Also note from the provided links:
    “Note that the number of earmarks across all States is less than the total number of earmarks by individual State because some earmarks have recipients in multiple States.”

    Since both Alaska and Hawaii are not bordered by any other state, it is the most likely that the least of the $7,134,260,000 in earmarks not in the 2008 budget and the $1,530,274,000 in 2005 budget that are not counted went to Alaska or Hawaii. Meaning the incredible reductions above by Alaska is almost certainly drastically more than reported.

    Sources:
    2005 Earmarks appropriations by state, not including interstate beneficiaries
    http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/by-state/summary.html

    2008 Earmarks appropriations by state, not including interstate beneficiaries
    http://earmarks.omb.gov/2008-appropriations-by-state/summary.html

    Census from July 1st 2005 and July 1st 2007
    http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

    Mr. Kelly (e8b488)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6143 secs.