Earmark queen

[Rich]

Okay, we can't agree on the family stuff, or even whether it should be discussed. How about the Paul Kane article on the Post's front page today showing that the picture of Palin as McCain's soul mate in fighting earmarks is total malarkey. Can we agree that that is evidence that McCain is either an incompetent vetter or a major liar?

[jsteele]

Yes. Not only is she the Earmark Queen, but was a director of Ted Stevens' 527 committee. She was endorsed by Stevens and Don Young. Those guys are corrupt (Stevens will be tried this month on corruption charges) and the main forces behind the "Bridge to Nowhere". Stevens had a video endorsement on Palin's website that was recently scrubbed.

She is a past member of the Alaska Independence Party that supports Alaska's withdrawing from the US.

She is under investigation for abuse of power in firing the State Public Safety Commissioner. She previously fired a guy who had an affair with the estranged wife of one of Todd Palin's friends. As mayor, she fired the Police Chief and Librarian because they supported her opponent.

The idea that Palin is a maverick reformer is ludicrous.

Got to hand it to McCain. Nobody is talking about Obama's speech anymore.

[Anonymous]

Agree on all points. Wanted to add that that librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, is quoted by former Wasilla mayor John Stein as saying that then-Mayor Palin asked her "'how she could go about banning books,' he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them." (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html)

Just one more terrifying aspect to mull...

[Anonymous]

What has me interested is the fact that the nasty comments, and the in-depth criticism is coming from the Obama supporters, NOT the McCain supporters. What do you care WHO McCain picks as VP? Don't you have the Golden Boy Obama? If you believe Barack Obama is so great then what does it matter if McCain picks a one-eyed sled dog as his running mate?

I think all this posting and critical "read this link, read that link" kvetching is because the Obama supporters are furious that John McCain stole their "Martin Luther King Moment" and no one is worshipfully following the annointed duo of Obama/Biden around on their rust belt odyssey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What has me interested is the fact that the nasty comments, and the in-depth criticism is coming from the Obama supporters, NOT the McCain supporters. What do you care WHO McCain picks as VP? Don't you have the Golden Boy Obama? If you believe Barack Obama is so great then what does it matter if McCain picks a one-eyed sled dog as his running mate?

I think all this posting and critical "read this link, read that link" kvetching is because the Obama supporters are furious that John McCain stole their "Martin Luther King Moment" and no one is worshipfully following the annointed duo of Obama/Biden around on their rust belt odyssey.

I am an Obama supporter who cares because if this Hail Mary pass succeeds and we end up with McCain/Palin in the White House, I fear for the future of this country. We won't be saying "God Bless America." We'll be saying "God Save America."

[Anonymous]

Rich wrote:Okay, we can't agree on the family stuff, or even whether it should be discussed. How about the Paul Kane article on the Post's front page today showing that the picture of Palin as McCain's soul mate in fighting earmarks is total malarkey. Can we agree that that is evidence that McCain is either an incompetent vetter or a major liar?

In addition to all the earmarks she solicited and took over time, in regards to the Bridge to Nowhere -- not only did she support it before she opposed it, her opposition came about when the feds reduced the amount of money they'd give Alaska for it, and Alaska would have to foot part of the bill. So, it's like: Great. I'll take it if you give it all to me. But if you ask me to pitch in, then it's "Thanks, but no thanks."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What has me interested is the fact that the nasty comments, and the in-depth criticism is coming from the Obama supporters, NOT the McCain supporters. What do you care WHO McCain picks as VP? Don't you have the Golden Boy Obama? If you believe Barack Obama is so great then what does it matter if McCain picks a one-eyed sled dog as his running mate?

I think all this posting and critical "read this link, read that link" kvetching is because the Obama supporters are furious that John McCain stole their "Martin Luther King Moment" and no one is worshipfully following the annointed duo of Obama/Biden around on their rust belt odyssey.

I am an Obama supporter who cares because if this Hail Mary pass succeeds and we end up with McCain/Palin in the White House, I fear for the future of this country. We won't be saying "God Bless America." We'll be saying "God Save America."

Then you better be praying for a sunny day with light traffic because your demographic isn't much on getting up and getting out otherwise.

[Anonymous]

You guys understand that traditionally it's the job of a governor to seek earmarks, or federal funding for state projects, right? The standard use of the term more typically relates to an elected official such as a senator seeking federal appropriations in a bill within his or her house of the legislature. Since governors are not voting on legislation that contains funding for their states, the taint of earmarks typically doesn't apply to them, the Post story notwithstanding. Palin seeking federal funds for Alaska as governor is different than, say, Robert Byrd seeking and voting on millions of dollars in earmarks for West Virginia.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You guys understand that traditionally it's the job of a governor to seek earmarks, or federal funding for state projects, right?

Well, then said governor should not say this when being introduced as a VP candidate:

"I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that "Bridge to Nowhere." If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

Far from championing reform, she was eager to gain more earmarks. I linked to an article yesterday showing how she reduced the earmarks she sought due to the anti-earmark climate in Congress rather than due to any desire for reform. I also documented yesterday how she was a supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere and that part of the quote above is an outright lie.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys understand that traditionally it's the job of a governor to seek earmarks, or federal funding for state projects, right?

Well, then said governor should not say this when being introduced as a VP candidate:

"I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that "Bridge to Nowhere." If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

Far from championing reform, she was eager to gain more earmarks. I linked to an article yesterday showing how she reduced the earmarks she sought due to the anti-earmark climate in Congress rather than due to any desire for reform. I also documented yesterday how she was a supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere and that part of the quote above is an outright lie.

She certainly changed her mind on the bridge. And Obama changed his mind on FISA. It happens, you know. And she's overstating her role in "opposing earmarks." But Obama overstates his role in legislation, as you are aware.

My point is that there is a difference in what governors are supposed to do -- seek funding -- and what legislators ought not to do, IMO, which is authorize massive funding for their states/districts. Byrd is by far the most flagrant example of this. I thought she was speaking of legislative earmarks other than the bridge thing, but I may be wrong. Nonetheless, be careful what you characterize as "an outright lie." Obama's record in this respect is not ideal, as you know. He's got his own problem lurking with the Illinois born alive legislation, and you yourself were disappointed in his FISA vote. He had promised to fillibuster FISA. Did he lie? Or did he change his mind?

[Rich]

Anonymous wrote:You guys understand that traditionally it's the job of a governor to seek earmarks, or federal funding for state projects, right? The standard use of the term more typically relates to an elected official such as a senator seeking federal appropriations in a bill within his or her house of the legislature. Since governors are not voting on legislation that contains funding for their states, the taint of earmarks typically doesn't apply to them, the Post story notwithstanding. Palin seeking federal funds for Alaska as governor is different than, say, Robert Byrd seeking and voting on millions of dollars in earmarks for West Virginia.

Obviously Byrd disagrees about why West Virginians elected him, but I'll stipulate whatever you want about Palin and Byrd. How about addressing my actual question: Was McCain ignorant of her record or lying about it?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
She certainly changed her mind on the bridge. And Obama changed his mind on FISA. It happens, you know. And she's overstating her role in "opposing earmarks." But Obama overstates his role in legislation, as you are aware.

My point is that there is a difference in what governors are supposed to do -- seek funding -- and what legislators ought not to do, IMO, which is authorize massive funding for their states/districts. Byrd is by far the most flagrant example of this. I thought she was speaking of legislative earmarks other than the bridge thing, but I may be wrong. Nonetheless, be careful what you characterize as "an outright lie." Obama's record in this respect is not ideal, as you know. He's got his own problem lurking with the Illinois born alive legislation, and you yourself were disappointed in his FISA vote. He had promised to fillibuster FISA. Did he lie? Or did he change his mind?

I really don't understand your dislike for Obama. It makes your otherwise interesting posts somewhat tedious. Obama changed his mind about FISA. He doesn't dispute that and I don't dispute that. Palin never changed her mind regarding federal funding for the Bridge to Nowhere. She rejected the project because Alaska would have to spend more than 300 million dollars on it. She directed that the Federal funds earmarked for the bridge be spent on other Alaskan projects. At no point did she say "no thanks" to the Federal funds.

Let me summarize. Palin kept the funds, but says that she said "no thanks". Do you see the difference between that and Obama's FISA vote?

I have MSNBC on and stories about Palin are rolling out left and right. A myth was constructed about this woman -- a myth that you appear to very much want to believe. I'm sorry, but the myth is unravelling.

BTW, according to this list:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/30/eve...ws/main3559471.shtml

Ted Stevens is a bigger earmarker than Byrd. Again, I don't understand you eagerness to bash Dems, but I'm sure you realize that Palin was a director of Stevens' 529 and was endorsed by him for Governor. Do you really believe that Stevens (sometimes called the King of Earmarks) would support someone who opposed earmarks?

[Anonymous]

I can't stand Ted Stevens. It seems as though he's not only an earmarker, but a criminal. But there are plenty of data points indicating that Byrd is the king of Senate earmarks. He has also routinely opposed changing earmark practices.

I can't possibly know if McCain was ignorant or lying. How could I?

I dislike what I would characterize as Obama's flexibility on certain key positions or his tendency to shape what he says to satisfy his audience. FISA is a major example of either a change of mind or dissembling. You can't possibly think he all of a sudden decided it's a good bill. So he either changed his mind out of political expediency or he fudged his intent when he said he would fillibuster it. Another example is his support for the farm bill. I love his views on food in general and he initially opposed the farm bill. But then he voted for it, probably due to one thing: ethanol. I realize senators vote for their states' perceived interests, but ethanol is not in anyone's interests and if he seeks to be president he needs to vote according to principle. Same thing on the energy bill. And I hate that he told a friend of mine he was strongly considering HRC for VP but apparently didn't consider her at all. He either lied or shaded the truth to get this person to come on board with him. I don't like those things, okay? I wouldn't like them regardless of who did them. But he touts his principles and judgment and then does stuff like this, and it bothers me.

I don't believe in any Palin myth, but the media feeding frenzy disgusts me. I am pretty sure it disgusts you too. The Post spent more than a year refusing to run stories on Rezko and Wright, but Palin gets that kind of story on day two out of the box. There's a double standard here, and you surely realize it.