Will It Matter
Apparently both Mr Obama and Mr Biden voted for the bill and down a revision which which was aimed at the removal of Mr Stevens “bridge to nowhere”. Mrs Palin, whom the Obama campaign targeted as “for earmarks before she was against them” of course has absolutely nothing to do with earmarks … unlike the Senators. Because, as we all know, Legislation (and earmarks) are enacted by Congress … not governors. So I guess Mr Obama and Mr Biden where, uhm, substantially for the earmarks in question but are now actually (perhaps) against them, now that that position is politically convenient.
Mr Obama different, how? Perhaps he’s dropped the “Change Change Change” mantra because its becoming increasingly clear that he is emphatically not a change. Why do his supporters think that he’s going to be not just a less experienced replay of Jimmy Carter in office is beyond me. If I was a little more cynical, I think I might start supporting him. If he wins, it will take decades for the Democratic party to recover the damage that I think he will do.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Oh please, politifact has already said McCain’s claim that Obama and Biden supported the bridge is “barely true” They signed a budget that included the bridge to nowhere, when the bridge was significant for an earmark, but barely noticeable in the budget. 96 senators approved the budget which shows that it was not a highly disputed budget. The other bill that would have shifted dollars to Louisiana Obama voted against because, as he stated, it was unfair to single out this earmark for Alaska and not other states’ earmarks as well.
Biden also hasn’t been claiming that he was against the earmark, as Palin has, and hasn’t been claiming to stand against earmarks, as Palin has, so he can throw all the rocks he can against a hypocrite and a liar.
dj j-jay,
Uhm, Mrs Palin was a governor. Governors have nothing to do with earmarks, as earmarks are a Congressional matter. Mr Obama and Mr Biden voted down an amendment striking down the earmark in question and that excuse doesn’t sound particularly convincing for a guy who is attacking another who has no connection to earmarks.