« Modern Media | Main | I'm Guessing This Is a Lot Like the Rumor That The Post Office Was Going To Start Taxing eMail »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

His rating is over 60% because far too many sheeple believe the BS he peddles.

"We'll stop earmarks... right after this bill. Oh, and I inherited this earmark laden bill from Bush. "

The Bill was introduced on Feb 23, 2009.

Change? What a crock.

First of all, it takes a year to write a budget bill, so he's not far off the mark on it being an old bill.

Secondly, i don't believe that Obama ever said he'd end earmarks. I think that was McCain. I believe Obama said, in reaction to McCain's assertion that earmarks should end, that the earmark process needed to be reformed. Earmarks are not all wasteful spending.

Finally, the 2005 budget -- developed and passed when Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House -- had the most earmarks, more than 13,000. So I'm sure you'll credit Democrats with setting the process in the right direction, even before President Obama took office. I'm sure.

Yes, by golly, there it is: Obama in the first debate with Senator McCain:

"Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up… But let's go back to the original point. John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

That's not a pledge to end all earmarks. Perhaps you can find something else, but I'd say reacting as above to Senator McCain's assertion that earmarking should be banned is pretty clearly not pledging to ban all earmarks.

Perhaps there's confusion about his January statement that he would "ban earmarks" from the stimulus bill, which has been misquoted as a pledge to ban earmarks in all bills by conservative talkingheads, including, notably, Bill O'Reilly.

I think conservatives are, once again, going nutty about something that didn't happen.

Hear no evil, see no evil when it comes to King Barry.

From the first presidential debate " "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Do you honestly believe he did that?

No. But I also believe that what you said was that he said he would stop earmarks, which he clearly didn't say.

Here's the logical problem: You say he did something blatantly dishonest, and his blind and stupid followers went along with it even though it's so obvious But upon examination of fact, what he did was not blatant -- he didn't, after all, say he'd ban earmarks and then allow earmarks. That means the level of blindness and stupidity of his followers, as well as the venality of the president himself, are considerably less than originally outraged you. So you should, logically, be less outraged. Which, I'm guessing, you're not.

The President lacks the power to go line-by-line through the budget. There is no line-item veto. The only way to affect the budget line-by-line is to be involved in the writing of the budget, which President Obama clearly was not. The budgeting process started last summer.

What are you outraged by again?

I'll ask again... do you honestly think Barry lived up to that statement with this bill? A simple yes or no will suffice.

And thanks for proving my point about his poll numbers.

Outraged? Sorry, you are assigning an emotion to me that simply isn't present.

You mentioned Barry's poll numbers and then gyrated your way into excusing his failure to live up to the change he campaigned on.
While doing so you proved my point about his high poll numbers. I believe your words were "blind and stupid followers". Stupid may be a bit harsh, but blind certainly fits.

Even if the bill was started last year... it was proposed in the House on Feb 29. I must have missed His Eminence's public protestations that the earmarks be removed during congressional hearings. Plenty of other amendments were proposed and voted on. He COULD have made a difference. He chose not to.

As for the president not having a line item veto, or the ability to go line by line through spending bills. Take it up with Barry. After all, he's the one who said he would do exactly that. Not me.

To a great extent, we have returned to a pre-9/11 version of the relationship between Congress and the President. President Bush's first term was marked by an unwillingness by even the opposition party to appear as if they were not supporting the President. President Obama, however, does not even have the unwavering support of all Democrats in Congress and the Rpublicans appear willing to adhere to a "just say no" policy. This state of affairs will be reflected in ALL legislation that gets passed and signed. You can call any bill you wish, Barry's alone, but the reality is that anything passed will be a melange of input from the non-homogeneous Democratic Congress, the White House and to a lesser extent, the Republicans

Steve, what I honestly believe is the the reformation of the Congressional budgeting process will take more than 50 days. And, since the other great Republican talking point is that Obama is doing too many things, I think it's nice that he didn't veto the bill -- the president's only recourse -- and blow up the entire governmental process to make a relatively small point.

I also believe that nothing Obama is going to do will inspire in you anything but scorn.

Finally, I believe that the Republican Party would be better off if Republicans spent more time worrying about things that aren't figments of the Republican imagination. This whole thing started, remember, with you sneering that the President had openly reneged on a promise -- a promise, it turns out, he never made. But certainly: don't let that stop you.

"a promise, it turns out, he never made" - Tom

"when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." - Obama

Yup, must be my imagination.

You initial assertion was that he said he'd stop earmarks, not that he would make sure they weren't wasteful.

The comments to this entry are closed.