what a sharpie

[dalakhani]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5932587.story

Three times in recent years, the Arizona senator's lists of 'objectionable' pork spending have included earmarks requested by his new running mate.
By Tom Hamburger, Richard Simon and Janet Hook | Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 3, 2008
WASILLA, ALASKA - For much of his long career in Washington, John McCain has been throwing darts at the special spending system known as earmarking, through which powerful members of Congress can deliver federal cash for pet projects back home with little or no public scrutiny. He's even gone so far as to publish "pork lists" detailing these financial favors.

Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.

Now, McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has chosen Palin as his running mate, touting her as a reformer just like him.

McCain has made opposition to pork-barrel spending a central theme of his 2008 campaign. "Earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress," McCain has said.



records show that Palin -- first as mayor of Wasilla and recently as governor of Alaska -- was far from shy about pursuing tens of millions in earmarks for her town, her region and her state.

This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.

In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.

McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. The results of this spending are very apparent today. (The town also benefited from $15 million in federal funds to promote regional rail transportation.)

The community transit center is a landmark: a one-story, tile-fronted building with a drive-through garage. Its fleet of 10 buses provides service throughout the region. Mat-Su Community Transit Agency officials say the building was made possible with a combination of federal money and matching gifts from a private foundation.

Taylor Griffin, a McCain campaign spokesman, said that when Palin became mayor in 1996, "she faced a system that was broken. Small towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs. . . . That was something that Gov. Palin was alarmed about and was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

Palin, he said, was "disgusted" that small towns like hers were dependent on earmarks.

Public records paint a different picture:

Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.

Steven Silver was a former chief of staff for Stevens. After he was hired, Wasilla obtained funding for several projects in 2002, including an additional $600,000 in transportation funding.

That year, a local water and sewer project received $1.5 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which combs federal spending measures to identify projects inserted by congressional members.

When Palin spoke after McCain introduced her as his running mate at a rally in Ohio last week, she made fun of earmarking. She said she had rejected $223 million in federal funds for a bridge linking Ketchikan to an island with an airport and 50 residents, referring to it by its derogatory label: the "bridge to nowhere."

In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "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."

However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.

This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."

[timmgirvan]

Wow!....the LA slimes and the Chicago Trib....what bastions of truth and Liberty!

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Loyality is probably his biggest flaw.
The friends he put in so many places
that were incompetent, or liars, or both.

He probably still has a fondness for Putin.

You forget that the Conservative Base of the GOP still loves GWB. I know from the DEM's viewpoint he is a fucl< up and from many others...but the reality is not everyone thinks he is "bad" and many in the Conservative wing are still loyal to him and his policies.

If he had showed at the RNC - he would have been well received by many in the hall.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by geeker2

You forget that the Conservative Base of the GOP still loves GWB. I know from the DEM's viewpoint he is a fucl< up and from many others...but the reality is not everyone thinks he is "bad" and many in the Conservative wing are still loyal to him and his policies.

If he had showed at the RNC - he would have been well received by many in the hall.

True classical conservatives HATE Bush and have since the beginning of his first term. There is this misconception that Bush is somehow a conservative and he isnt. Far from it.

The "conservatives" that you speak of that love Bush are predominantly social conversatives. Yep...NRA, anti abortion, no evolution types.

I agree...Bush would have been well recieved at the convention but thats not the reason he didnt show. The battle for this election isnt going to be won with the Bush followers. Many of those people would just as soon vote for Osama than Obama anyway. The battle will be for those middle states that feel fooled by Bush (twice no less) and want a change. That is why McCain is seperating from Bush and that is why he is going on this ridiculous "change" rant.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

True classical conservatives HATE Bush and have since the beginning of his first term. There is this misconception that Bush is somehow a conservative and he isnt. Far from it.

The "conservatives" that you speak of that love Bush are predominantly social conversatives. Yep...NRA, anti abortion, no evolution types.

I agree...Bush would have been well recieved at the convention but thats not the reason he didnt show. The battle for this election isnt going to be won with the Bush followers. Many of those people would just as soon vote for Osama than Obama anyway. The battle will be for those middle states that feel fooled by Bush (twice no less) and want a change. That is why McCain is seperating from Bush and that is why he is going on this ridiculous "change" rant.

I think we both said the same thing..but just in a different way

The word "ridiculous" will be applied only if it doesn't work - otherwise if it does it will be a

[Antitrust32]

For some reason I thought Bush spoke on Tuesday night at the RNC... am I wrong? I did not watch it tho.. just Palin and McCain.

[timmgirvan]

By remote feed, I believe....

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by geeker2

I think we both said the same thing..but just in a different way

The word "ridiculous" will be applied only if it doesn't work - otherwise if it does it will be a :tro:

Touche...its looking like its actually working.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

That makes one person.

No it doesn't.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Is that because GPK doesn't count as a person, or you feel as though he is lying? Either way, I'm leaving.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5932587.story

Three times in recent years, the Arizona senator's lists of 'objectionable' pork spending have included earmarks requested by his new running mate.


"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."

This criticism I don't quite understand - but I do understand the political value of the criticism.


Isn't it her responsibility to try and get these earmarks if they are available. I mean if these earmarks were available to the City of San Diego and the Mayor didn't do his utmost to try and get the funds for the City I would be pissed...and if these earmarks are available to the State of California and Arnold did not try and put the state in line to get this pork - I'd say he isn't doing his job .

Now if it is the responsibility of the Congress to control all this pork barrel and they don't ...shouldn't the blame actually go on Congress for approving this crap?

...and I don't know where Obama stands on the issue - but the idea that come Jan 2009 the public would know what the pork is and who is voting to approve it - appeals to me as a tax payer.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Is that because GPK doesn't count as a person, or you feel as though he is lying? Either way, I'm leaving.

I think it's both.


I'm leaving,too.

[Mortimer]

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Can you really blame anyone for viewing him as a fucl< up? I'm not trying to give you crap, but how can anyone that has been awake in the last 8 years not view him for what he is?

What is Bush's approval rating something like 30%? My point is -it's not 0.0.

So like it or not some people still support him and his policies.

Sometimes reality is a bitch!

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Wanna go to Naples?

!!!!OOOOOOOOOO!!!!





























NO!

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Yeah, you're right. I just wish I knew who the people were, because i have a bridge to sell them.

[Mortimer]

Dannie should be coming back with her pole dancing routine at any moment.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by geeker2

This criticism I don't quite understand - but I do understand the political value of the criticism.


Isn't it her responsibility to try and get these earmarks if they are available. I mean if these earmarks were available to the City of San Diego and the Mayor didn't do his utmost to try and get the funds for the City I would be pissed...and if these earmarks are available to the State of California and Arnold did not try and put the state in line to get this pork - I'd say he isn't doing his job .

Now if it is the responsibility of the Congress to control all this pork barrel and they don't ...shouldn't the blame actually go on Congress for approving this crap?

...and I don't know where Obama stands on the issue - but the idea that come Jan 2009 the public would know what the pork is and who is voting to approve it - appeals to me as a tax payer.

Actually, Geeker, the reason i posted this was NOT to show that she is some reckless spender. Rather, it is to point out how she deceives and lies. She is trying to come across as some type of reformer of earmarks when in less than two years she has earmarked 400 million dollars for a state with a population a tenth the size as Illinois.

See my point? In just two weeks, this woman has told more lies than both candidates combined.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Yeah, you're right. I just wish I knew who the people were, because i have a bridge to sell them.

So did Palin until she ran out of money.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Actually, Geeker, the reason i posted this was NOT to show that she is some reckless spender. Rather, it is to point out how she deceives and lies. She is trying to come across as some type of reformer of earmarks when in less than two years she has earmarked 400 million dollars for a state with a population a tenth the size as Illinois.

See my point? In just two weeks, this woman has told more lies than both candidates combined.

A politcian that DECEIVES AND LIES!?!?! I don't believe it