’)
McCain: Yeah, well ok, she wasn’t for it initially – she was for it – but then she was against it, although she was for it after when we say she was against it.
LOOK OVER THERE!
Breaking News
CBO Report: Health Care Reform Reduces Deficit By $1 Trillion
I’ve read that the real question is : since Palin still got the money for the Bridge, what did she spend it on ?
About the best I can figure is that Palin is using the Bridge money to build an access road that leads up to nada, nothing.
Would this be the same bridge project that Obama and Biden voted for TWICE?
Now I get it. Palin refused to build it, that wretched ingrate. How DARE she defy her betters in the Senate?
It all makes sense now.
J.
Being prompted by the fact that Gov Palin, during her campaign for governor, supported the bridge, and then opposed it when it became toxic, I looked into Senator Obama and Biden’s votes on the issue. Of course they both voted for it initially. However, they were given a second chance when an amendment to the original bill was put up which would redirect the funding from Alaska to help with Katrina recovery. How did they vote? They opposed the amendment.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/262/
So, thanks to the Democratic Party, I learned that Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge to Nowhere not once, but twice. AND at the expense of the people of the Gulf Coast post-Katrina.
I’d said in comments on another post that whatever Palin’s flaws are, they’re ones which, by trying to attack, Obama/Biden do nothing but hurt themselves. Do they really want to attack Palin for changing her mind about an unpopular and expensive project when they voted for that same project twice?
Funny how all the cons got the same talking point at the same time. Also pretty funny that you all got it wrong- Sarah Palin claimed she said “thanks, but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere, not Joe Biden, not Barack Obama. It’s not the bridge, it’s the lying.
Umm, Obama and Biden aren’t touting themselves as anti-earmark purists a la McCain/Palin. Again, with Republicans, it’s the rank hypocrisy. If you tell people not to do something (pork-barrel spending, teenage fucking, etc) and then do or allow it to happen around you, you are a hypocrite.
In Palin and McCain’s case, they’re also liars and flip-floppers. Remember how Kerry was such a bad man for flip-flopping on Iraq? Yeah, McCain and Palin are even worse.
I’d love to hear Obama come out with a spirited defense of earmarks. Especially those million-dollar ones delivered to his wife’s employer, right after it more than doubles her salary. And those for projects more vital to America than recovering from Katrina.
Palin might be late to the realization that earmarks are a very corrupting factor in politics, but at least ehe’s on the right side of it now. Obama and Biden still love ‘em.
So much for Hope for Change… an Obama/Biden administration would be just thrilled with More Of The Same from Congress.
J.
“Palin might be late to the realization”
Just like John Kerry was “late to the realization” that giving Bush authority to invade and occupy Iraq would be a disaster?
Nice to know you were so circumspect about his change of heart back in 2004. You never called him a flip-flopper, right?
No, Jaim, I called him a flip-flopper when he proudly proclaimed “I actually did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it.”
But back to the point, Jaim, I take it you’re arguing in favor of earmarks? Especially ones where a Senator sends a million dollars to his wife’s employer that just more than doubled her salary?
For the uninitiated, I’m referring to Michelle Obama getting a 120% raise shortly after Barack Obama was elected to the Senate — and then Barack steering a cool million to the hospital where she worked.
All a wild coincidence, I’m sure…
J.
“I take it you’re arguing in favor of earmarks”
Uh, no. I’m arguing against the hypocrisy of callilng Palin an anti-earmark crusader when she is, in fact, pretty typical of most politicians when it comes to steering money to their state, city, etc.
This ties into the larger fact that from 2000-2006, McCain did nothing to change “business as usual” in Washington. He supported Bush 90% of the time, and in those six years the size and intrusiveness of the Federal government mushroomed, even if you take out the outrageous amount of money we’re spending in Iraq. (I happen to support the mission in Afghanistan, but that’s been pretty well botched as well. We still haven’t caught Bin Laden.)
But, once again, thanks for playing.
McCain’s refused to ever request an earmark. He’s fought against them consistently.
In his brief tenure in office, Obama has racked up about three quarters of a BILLION dollars in earmarks, including the one to his wife’s employer.
Palin has moved from seeking earmarks as a mayor, to rejecting them as a governor — almost as if she’s come to the conclusion that they’re bad.
Biden has steered over three million dollars in earmarks to the clients of his lobbyist son.
So it seems pretty clear that the Obama ticket loves earmarks, and the McCain ticket doesn’t.
Vote for Obama/Biden, and you vote for continuing the corrupt earmarking process.
Vote for McCain/Palin, and you just MIGHT put a dent in that process.
At least with McCain/Palin, you can HOPE that things will CHANGE.
J.
Umm, Palin was happy to eat out of the Fed’s trough. She lobbied for the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” She is not a reformer. McCain? Sure, I’ll give him some credit for being against ear-marks. But by making Palin his choice for veep he’s pretty much sending a signal that they’ll be OK if he gets his own administration.
I mean, if you were running for president as an anti-pork reformer, what message does it send when you pick a pro-porker for your right-hand person? Americans would sure like to know.
Beyond this, please explain: You say Palin has “learned” to be against pork and therefore deserves credit. But when Kerry did some hard thinking about Iraq, you guys smeared him as a “flip-flopper.”
Truly, IOKIYAR. Among your many sins, my least favorite is logical inconsistency. Your whole party is _based_ on it.
Palin turned against the bridge long before she was tapped by McCain. She said she had come to realize just how corrupting earmarks are. Kerry — along with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden — just quietly reversed themselves, and never bothered to explain just what had changed.
I always found the most fervent — and convincing — advocates to be those who had once supported what they now denounce (and vice versa). Is there anyone more irritating than the evangelical ex-smoker? Is there a more compelling speaker about drunk driving than the guy who killed someone doing it?
As I said, repeatedly, if you look at the issue of earmarks and whether or not they are good, one side has a fair-to-middling record on opposing them, the other side wholeheartedly and unabashedly embraces them. So you have to ask yourself — do you support earmarks, or are you willing to tolerate them because you find other things about your candidates more important?
If you really want Change in how the government finances things, then you have no business supporting Obama and Biden, two men who have found earmarks so endearing that they make certain they end up in the pockets of those who pay their family members. If you want the slightest Hope that it’ll end, then at least with McCain and Palin there’s a chance they might do something about it.
But, as noted, that doesn’t exactly help Michelle Obama’s children — as it helps Momma bring home the bacon.
J.
Ever heard of Ted Stevens, the king of Alaskan pork? Please spare me the argument than Palin isn’t connected with him. Sure, she’s “found religion,” but by your own logic, you should be opposed to the Iraq war since Kerry “came around” and his arguments are now more convincing.
Yeesh. You’re making less sense than usual.
(And btw, how is voting in lock-step with a president less popular than Carter a “vote for change”? It’s cute how you’re trying to co-opt Obama’s message, but it ain’t going to work. McCain = Bush = idiotic foreign policy and weak economy.)
Would that be the same Ted Stevens who Palin endorsed in his last race? Whoops, that’s right — she endorsed and campaigned for his rival. Unsuccessfully, unfortunately, but she tried.
And go ahead and cite that 90% Bush – McCain correlation. I’ll simply point out Obama’s 100% agreement with the congressional leadership, which currently has approval ratings around 9%. Talk about marching in lockstep with failures…
But you STILL won’t address whether earmarks are good or bad, will you, Jaim? Or if you think Obama and Biden funneling millions to the people who pay their family members is inappropriate… why, it’s almost as if you don’t want to admit that your idols, Obama and Biden, might be just as corrupt as the Democratic congressional leadership they are joined at the hip to…
J.
“Obama’s 100% agreement with the congressional leadership”
Since 2006. He ain’t a Bush clone like McCain. Government spending at the Federal level has been out of control under Bush II, who’s only vetoed — I forget off-hand — two bills? One? And this is McCain’s best friend.
And since when did I call Obama or Biden my “idol”? I think government spending needs to be restrained. I’d start with ending the 3 billion / week going to Iraq. Politicians like Palin are always going to feed at the Federal trough when they have the opportunity, so sure, let’s look into some reform. It didn’t happen under the Republican leadership with the White House and Congress. Real change would be putting Dems into the White House and seeing them get to work on some real change, not military give-aways like the occupation of Iraq (which is esentially a gift to Iran, anwways).
But not much is going to come of this thread. We’ll find out in November I guess. I’m optimistic the American people will vote for real change, but no doubt it’s going to be close.
Sorry Jay, your talking points aren’t going to work, as usual.
The original topic of this thread was the infamous “bridge to nowhere,” which McCain opposed all along, Obama and Biden supporrted even above aid to rebuilding after Katrina, and Palin supported initially, then worked to kill.
The “bridge to nowhere” became the symbol of the corrupt power of earmarking, because it was Ted Stevens who fought so hard for it — with the able assistance of Obama and Biden, among others.
If you don’t like talking about earmarks, Jaim, then that’s fine. Just say so. But it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that Palin’s evolution as an opponent of them is somehow some heinous offense, while not mentioning Obama and Biden’s whole-hearted (and whole-handed) embracing of them, especially when those earmarks end up putting money in their family’s pockets.
J.
Jay Tea: “And go ahead and cite that 90% Bush – McCain correlation. I’ll simply point out Obama’s 100% agreement with the congressional leadership, which currently has approval ratings around 9%. Talk about marching in lockstep with failures…”
Wrong. So wrong that I can only assume you are lying.
The congress as a whole has 9% approval. The congressional leadership has much higher approval ratings.
But you have to know that. So you must be lying, because the only other explanation is that you are completely stupid.
“The original topic of this thread was the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere,’…
Do you work hard being this fucking stupid?
The original topic was Palin lying.
YOU are the one trying to change the topic.
Personally, I have nothing against earmarks. They are a key way to get federal tax dollars back into the community. Some are worse than others, like the Bridge to Nowhere. The problem, which JT doesn’t want to address, is that Palin is LYING. JT is a POS so he will never get to this, but I’m posting this so that lurkers understand what the real issue is here.
CSS said
“But you have to know that. So you must be lying, because the only other explanation is that you are completely stupid.”
Again, I implore you, it can’t be both?
“Again, I implore you, it can’t be both?”
That is the safest assumption at this point.
The congress as a whole has 9% approval. The congressional leadership has much higher approval ratings.
What like, 20%?
JT: Kerry — along with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden — just quietly reversed themselves, and never bothered to explain just what had changed.
No true. But the right (and you, in comments near the top of this thread) keep quoting only the “for it before I was against it” sentence and refuse to understand teh point/explanation actually trying to be made. Exactly what you object to when folks “quote” McCain saying he’s wants 100 years in Iraq.
I thought we’d agreed to stop doing that.
JT: I always found the most fervent — and convincing — advocates to be those who had once supported what they now denounce (and vice versa). Is there anyone more irritating than the evangelical ex-smoker? Is there a more compelling speaker about drunk driving than the guy who killed someone doing it?
Or the soldier who speaks out against the war he signed up to fight in twice?
CSS: The congress as a whole has 9% approval. The congressional leadership has much higher approval ratings.
JT: What like, 20%?
JT: demonstrating he has no idea where his numbers come from.
Sean. 20% comment was not JT. And I was merely being facetious.
To be honest, I’m not sure a poll exists that measures the performance of the “congressional leadership.”
There’s a joke to be made somewhere in the vein of “If Congress actually had leadership, they wouldn’t be at 9%”, but I’m not that talented a writer.
I’d still like to hear Obama defend his million-dollar earmark for his wife’s employer.
Or Biden defend his multi-million-dollar earmark to his lobbyist son’s client.
Or either of them defend their votes for the Bridge To Nowhere earmark, especially the second one, where they voted to keep it instead of giving the money to Katrina relief and reconstruction.
J.
“There’s a joke to be made somewhere in the vein of “If Congress actually had leadership, they wouldn’t be at 9%”, but I’m not that talented a writer.”
I agree with you there. If the Dems had balls and stood up to Bush, they would have an approval rating at least 50%, maybe more than 60%.
Jay: Sean. 20% comment was not JT.
Damn. My bad. And I usually try to be so good at telling you guys apart. Sorry, JT.
CSS: I agree with you there. If the Dems had balls and stood up to Bush, they would have an approval rating at least 50%, maybe more than 60%.
Absolutely. The most frustrating thing is that the Dems run scared from doing anything they see as unpopular, and end up more popular because of it.
The tragedy is that despite all the evidence that this is obvious, they still don’t seem to see it.
JT: I’d still like to hear Obama defend his million-dollar earmark for his wife’s employer.
I’d still like to see a fair comment from you on the Palin’s tendency to lie, the original topic of this thread.
Ever heard of Ted Stevens, the king of Alaskan pork?
“He’s under indictment, you know.”
-Sarah Palin, Sunday
She was instrumental in killing the project. She could have fought for the restoration of the Washington funding, she could have asked the state legislature to fund it, instead she pronounced it dead.
I think what really keeps Obama and his proxies and surrogates bringing it up is because he feels slighted because he and Biden voted for it twice — they take it as a personal affront that she turned into such an ingrate.
J.
She was instrumental in killing the project. She could have fought for the restoration of the Washington funding, she could have asked the state legislature to fund it, instead she pronounced it dead.
And took the money anyways.
JT: She was instrumental in killing the project.
Instrumental? By most unbiased reports the project was already very unpopular and essentially dead a year before she was even governor.
With fixed italic tags:
JT: She was instrumental in killing the project.
Instrumental? By most unbiased reports the project was already very unpopular and essentially dead a year before she was even governor.
Is “essentially dead” anything like being “mostly dead”? Cause if it is, then all it would have taken was a pill from Billy Crystal and the Bridge to Nowhere would have been up and stumbling from the bed to confront Prince Humperdink within a couple hours.
For the uninitiated, I’m referring to Michelle Obama getting a 120% raise shortly after Barack Obama was elected to the Senate — and then Barack steering a cool million to the hospital where she worked.
Dammit, Jay Tea, quit lying.
It was a 160 percent raise. From $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 in 2005.