John McCain, of course, asks for no "earmarks". Until the 1990's, "earmarks" (prsonal additions to the budget by individual lawmakers, put in spending bills with little o no scrutiny), these were pretty mnor items.
In the Clinton Administration, but with a REpublican House, "earmarks" took off as an incumbent protection program. Republicans dedied they liked them (what else is new?), and earmarks continued to expand under the Bush Administration. Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, campaigned in 2006 partially on a basis of "reform" of earmarks. It did not happen, except with minoir, cosmetic changes.
Since he has been in the Senate, BArack "World" Obama has claimed more than 800 million dollars in earmarks. For fiscal year 2009 alone, Joe Biden is claiming some 330 million--celarly more than a qarter of a billion dollars. Multiply this by 535 lawmakers, and you get an idea of the problem.
John McCain has "walked the walk" on this, and not merely "talked the talk". Now this year Obama is evidently claiming no earmarks, but he is running for President. This is consistent with everything Obama has done: "Listen to what I say, running for President, and not to what I have done (before running for President).
The media, on the other hand, has been engaging in this disgraceful campaign to destroy Sarah Palin. That campaign, as chronicled in this blog, has been one of the dirtiest, most dishonest poltical campaigns (yes, the mainstream media is conduction a political campaign) ever conducted against an inidvidual in this country.
"Earmarks" is just a further example of the campaign aganist Sarah Palin. The media keeps trying to say that Sarah Palin is "dishoenst" (talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!!) in claiming to be a reformer against "earmarks". In the process, the mainstream media has developed a Big Lie about the Bridge to Nowhere: that Palin did not stop it. Palin did stop it. She just was not against it from the beginning. For a Democrat like Obama, the mainstream media would regard this as "seeing the light" (before she was running for Vice President, as distinguished from changes n Obama after he began running for President). For the media, the fact that Palin was not always against the Bridge to Nowhere means that she might as well have never killed it. She was already "tainted"
It is the same with the mainstream media accusation that Palin is dishonest because she requested earmarks in Alaska. It turns out that she reduced earmark requests from her predecessor in her first year, and reduced them again for the current year (before, again, being chosen as the VP nominee). She has never asked for as much in earmarks as Biden for FY 2009.
Considering how difficult it is for a politician to turn down money from the Federal Government, Palin's record comes across as pretty darn good. The mainstream media attempt to "spin" it otherwise is just part of their despiecable attempt to destroy her without looking farily at the record.
Of course, the records thar are really not being ooked at are those of Biden and Obama--especially the truly cynical effort by Obama (as with quitting smoking) to "clean up" for running for President.
P.S. You dind't know Obama was a smoker? Of course he was, although the media pretty much downplayed it. He did not quit until publicity started to surface during his campaign for the nominatioin. In combination with his admitted "hard drug" use as a youth, you could make a claim that Obama has shown an "addictive personality". If Sarah Palin, or even John McCain, hasd the same pattern of conduct, that--and worse--would be said.
No comments:
Post a Comment