L.A. Times Manages to Portray McConnell as Following Obama’s Lead on Earmarks
It’s quite a sleight of hand, to be sure. But for a paper that shills for Democrats on a daily basis, turning reality upside down is second nature:
In a surprise shift, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Monday he would support a proposal put forward by conservative Republicans to ban so-called earmark spending in the new Congress.
. . . .
. . . President Obama used his weekly address this weekend to support an earmark ban as well. He also issued a statement Monday afternoon praising McConnell’s “decision to join me and members of both parties who support cracking down on wasteful earmark spending.”
Join President Obama in fighting earmarks! He has fought them ever since, well, never. This is a guy who sought millions and millions in earmarks when he was a Senator — including, famously, “a request for $1 million in federal funding in 2006 for a new pavilion at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where his wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president at the time.”
Oddly enough, “Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.” Almost as if the administrators had an inkling that having her there might help them cash in!
It didn’t work, by the way, despite Barry’s best efforts. The earmark didn’t go through, and her salary was promptly reduced back to $273,618. And that, I suppose, must be when he suddenly decided he hated earmarks? If my wife can’t cash in, then screw everything.
This story somehow doesn’t make it into the L.A. Times article. Which then goes on to quote Obama as follows:
“I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to not only end earmark spending, but to find other ways to bring down our deficits for our children,” he said.
I have an idea for how to bring down our deficits, Mr. President. Stop spending money like it’s going out of style. Stop passing stimulus packages costing hundreds of billions of dollars that aren’t needed. Stop passing huge socialist reforms that cost a mint.
None of which is mentioned in the article either.
Oh, and just one last thing: senior White House advisor David Axelrod said on Sunday morning that Obama probably has no choice but to sign a slew of earmarks into law. Because, you know, “one of the problems is that these things come embedded in bills that have to be signed.” “Have” to be signed, he said.
That didn’t make it in the article either! Wow.
The message: a reluctant Mitch McConnell is dragged kicking and screaming into opposing earmarks by a principled Barack Obama: reformer, and deficit foe.
Makes you want to re-subscribe, doesn’t it? So you can get a fresh point of view like this every day.
To be fair, McConnell did go into this whining like a bitch. The People Speak and this guy wants to do business as usual.
But giving Obama a pass on earmarks is incredible.
And yet, so very par for the course for this rag.Patterico (c218bd) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:15 pm
Patterico, I honestly think that this weird psychosis on the Left—grinning in happiness at practically anything BHO does—isn’t about BHO at all.
It’s about how they felt about themselves when they voted for the idea of him.
And once having done so, they cannot admit they were played by a Chicago machine pol. Notice how the Left no longer carries on about Afghanistan. How about DADT? Gay marriage? Unemployment? Gitmo?
They have no choice, because they cannot say that they were played like a junior high school girl being winked at by a high school quarterback.Eric Blair (c8876d) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:33 pm
You don’t get the point.
This is how Obama will get his 2nd term. He will get credits for every “wrong move” by the Republicans.
McConnell is technically an “idiot”. HE IS RISKING THE CHANCE OF ANY REPUBLICAN NOMINEE IN 2012!
Obama’s magic is lost. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot steal or coopt the “good idea” of the right, esp. the Tea Party.
McConnell and Cornyn are giving wrong signals to the “libertarians” and “independents” who are against corruption and BAU politics in Washington.James (87e908) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:37 pm
Eric, I can tell you that on Facebook, scarcely a day goes by that one of my friends isn’t posting an article about how Obama is failing on gay rights — especially marriage and DADT. The left is indeed carrying on about it, but probably mostly amongst ourselves.
If someone on the right would actively campaign on those issues, they might peel away voters. But I don’t see any candidate doing that, do you? The conservatives who favor repeal of DADT and gay marriage generally aren’t the ones running for anything.LYT (64efba) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:38 pm
So passes Day Three with no denouncement of Glenn Reynolds from the pure classical liberal/principled conservative shrill manchild branch of the right for the sin of pragmatism as far as I noticed.daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:41 pm
I think James (#3) has hit on something important: The media have a great deal invested in BO. He and their party are down right now and 2012 is coming on fast. They have to prop him up so they can be victorious come next election. Look for them to do whatever they can to make that happen. This is just the begining. Any bill signed by BO during the upcoming congress will be hailed by the MSM as a glorious accomplishment, any uptick in unemployment witll be viewed as a triumph of BO economics, etc. You ain’t seen nothin yet.BT (74cbec) — 11/16/2010 @ 3:26 am
Just earlier one of McConnell’s allies said that it was liberals that had brainwashed people into thinking the earmarks are all bad.
So what’s the effect here? McConnell said it was a symbolic move. Does this mean no more recommendations in committee reports? No more appropriations of money? No more directing of money already appropriated? That last one is quite interesting. It’s like the tea party just voted to give Obama more control of the budget.imdw (1d1dec) — 11/16/2010 @ 4:36 am
Yes, they lie, that is their default setting, that is why all your clamoring for the endangered RINOnarciso (82637e) — 11/16/2010 @ 5:37 am
was pointless, they agitated, note the term for CFR, and in the end, they supported a candidate who chose not to abide by it, and portrayed it as principle! abandoned their standard bearer.
Yawn.Patterico (c218bd) — 11/16/2010 @ 6:18 am
Hey, Michelle got a very imortant promotion at U of C Hositals – she was promoted from Director of being-married-to-a-state-senator to Vice President of being-married-to-a-U.S.-Senator. With the promotion came a staff of 20+ flunkies (preparation for being First Lady, don’tcha know, where she has like triple the staff Laura Bush had).
And her job at U of C was SO important that they disbanded it after the 2008 election, and presumably laid off her former staff.MrJimm (6f040b) — 11/16/2010 @ 7:10 am
It’s all about the ideas with said shrill manchild, daley.Patterico (c218bd) — 11/16/2010 @ 7:31 am
The manchild quote was modified from Riehl. I substituted shrill.daleyrocks (940075) — 11/16/2010 @ 8:00 am
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/16/author-of-doj-report-targeting-nj-governor-chris-christie-has-history-of-using-position-for-political-purposes-sources-say/narciso (82637e) — 11/16/2010 @ 9:26 am
Can anyone show me the provision in the Constitution that says that the president has to sign certain legislation?Charlie Davis (c40b22) — 11/16/2010 @ 9:28 am
and her salary was promptly reduced back to $273,618.
I heard about her cushy job with big salary, and how no one replaced her when she left, but I had never heard the part about her salary being cut when the earmark didn’t go through. I’m sure they had an explanation to keep everyone out of jail, but still.MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/16/2010 @ 9:32 am
Article I, Section 7, US ConstitutionDustin (b54cdc) — 11/16/2010 @ 9:33 am
This is the stance of the entire MSM, not just the LA Times. There’s a home team in the sports pages, there’s one in the news section too.
One thing I missed this election is a true October Surprise from the MSM. It didn’t happen (from memory). Yes, there was plenty of basic dishonesty (see treatment of tea party candidates) and favoratism. But no big story that might have derailed a major candidate or group of candidates. I don’t know what’s going on but it’s surprising. Is the MSM lying low? I don’t see how it could be resources – these stories usually come from whistle blowers, which aren’t MSM employees at all. Did they see their hand as being so weak that they decided to save their powder i.e. lying low? I bet that’s it. Whatever they have wouldn’t have moved the election. But down the road it might move legislation or influence the next election. I don’t trust that these folks have actually changed because they clearly have not.East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 11/16/2010 @ 10:40 am
On DADT and gay marriage, the Democratic establishment never really did.
They have to appease their base (blacks and Union workers), a base that is either indifferent or hostile to the repeal of DADT and the enactment of same-sex marriage.Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 11/16/2010 @ 5:39 pm