It's those damn lefties at the Wall Street Journal again, nitpicking poor John McCain. Just because McCain said that the Governor hadn't sought any earmarks or special interest spending for her state:
Last week, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, hadn't sought earmarks or special-interest spending from Congress, presenting her as a fiscal conservative. But state records show Gov. Palin has asked U.S. taxpayers to fund $453 million in specific Alaska projects over the past two years.These projects include more than $130 million in federal funds that would benefit Alaska's fishing industry and an additional $9 million to help Alaska oil companies. She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.
[snip]
During an appearance Friday on ABC's "The View," Sen. McCain said Gov. Palin shared his views, and hasn't sought congressional earmarks. "Not as governor she hasn't," he said.
In fact, in the current fiscal year, she is seeking $197 million for 31 projects, the records show. In the prior year, her first year in office, she sought $256 million for dozens more projects ranging from research on rockfish and harbor-seal genetics to rural sanitation and obesity prevention. By comparison, her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, sought more than $350 million in his last year in office. (Wall Street Journal)
Again caught with his hand in the lying jar, the McCain campaign said that the Senator gave the wrong impression it wasn't intentional. Hahahaha. What was it then? A series of tongue slips making a sentence?
Maybe it was McCain who got a mistaken impression? Maybe he just took Governor Palin's word for it, without vetting the facts first. Hahahahaha. Maybe it's because Governor Palin has been saying that Senator Obama has asked for $1 billion in earmarks in his Senate career. That's almost true. It was $860 million, according to the WSJ source, but none this last year and, well, let's face it, Alaska isn't exactly Illinois in population. Alaska is in fact much richer than Illinois and doesn't need any earmarks, much less $453 million. The WSJ continues:
. . . using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama. (Wall Street Journal)
So it's not just Governor Palin's Bridge to Nowhere. She actually has an Airport from Nowhere:
She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.
Thanks. But no thanks.
- Log in to post comments
Long as I can recall the name of the game in presidential politics has been: My team is different from those Washington guys that are responsible for the mess we are currently in.
Only this year the mess is particularly messy and the need for Washington insider McCain to distance himself particularly urgent. Thank goodness the candidate on the other side has the wrong skin color; else this race would be over by now. I have an idea: Lets nominate a clueless but photogenic WOMAN for the vice presidency. Well pretend that she is an unspoiled outsider and make up some stuff, like; she is a true maverick, fiscally responsible and has never sought to waste taxpayer money. The gullible U.S. public will buy it and we can resume driving the country into the ground. Sounds like a plan. Unfortunately the facts are otherwise.
Thanks for the post.
Gee Revere, I would have thought you would have done your homework a bit better.... The airport in question is Adak Alaska. That airport serves the military and the USGS for the better part. The improvements are so they can land in crappy weather to investigate volcanoes that have been popping as of late (Okmok, Cleveland, and a few others) and to serve the new BMD sites out there. If you knew what stuff really cost at an airport this isnt a lot of money even though it only serves 85 people mostly military people and public service types.
But that would just be the facts rather than a crappy WSJ article. Really cool radar site with a monster X-band running inside of a dome. One of a kind and I can guarantee it has a Russian torpedo or micro-nuke with its name on it. But that is for defense and crap, Obama says we dont need any of that stuff. How strong is that radar site? If it was in Denver they could detect a flying baseball as it was hit out of the park in Moscow or Beijing. Wont go much beyond saying that. It has other features too. Even better than the baseball.
Rural sanitation? Well you have posted on the Chesapeake being loaded with crap from leaky septic tanks and overflows from sewage treatment. Shit flows downhill and that same program is funded by the EPA annually as part of its budget unless there is....an earmark. I can see spending money to keep untreated sewage out of the Gulf of Alaska... but that would just be me. Bit of an about face isnt it?
Then there are those rockfish and harbor seal genetics projects. The Harbour Seal has not to date been genetically tested to see if there are multples of species or just one in Alaska. Its not a load of money that they are requesting for it either. Its a fair request but I would have thought that would have come from a lefty eco-nut. Cripe.. you cant win if you do something ecologically or environmentally friendly if you are a conservative... Must be a loaded request. There must be oil up the butts of Rockfish and Harbour Seals. Drill now, drill deep.
Both were requests and made to be part of the actual budget. It DID become a earmark request, but the idea is to get rid of all earmarks because they are off budget items....If this is the system that we have and its the only way to get the money then you use the system thats in front of you. Then when you can you change it. This is the reason the budget is out of control. Pet projects that are tagged on without any real review. But she does have a bit of a credibility gap here. I like to think that they will do something about this stuff. Hey, did you know Barry sponsored Darfur legislation that spent more money than all of this combined? Then we gave it to the UN and they in turn spent it but cant account for more than a third.
I know Obama would in my opinion expand earmarks. Then when the mop flops and the music stops, we are saddled with high interest rates and high taxes... Instant economy killer.
Barry H. Obama requested 854 million and got it for his state as senator as earmarks he got every bit of it. Most of it was for rehabilitations of housing that was to be used for the poor.... that property belonged to someone else and is boarded up now.
How about funneling money to an anti Israel group.....associated with the PLO. WE know what PLO stands for...Push Leon Over (the side of the ship).
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-funneled-cash-to-former…
And lets talk about factcheck... you know the Annenberg deal you are quick to jump to...
http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-ayers-funnel-funds-to…
I think that funneling money to an avowed terrorist is not the best idea... but this was his wifes idea.
How about that 800,000 payment to ACORN?
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/22/acorn-watch-pt-ii-obama-hid-800000…
How about forced servitude to the state? Yep, wants to make sure that kids are forced to do community service as part of their "education". Nice but thats what we have prisoners for that are in for DUI's and littering.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.
That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." -Barack Obama
This guy is even more scary than being in the military with Jimmy Carter at the wheel.
Both have issues Revere...... But is this a battle between Obama and Palin or is it McCain and Obama? I think he is confused.... Palin is the McCain lightning rod and they wil be elected because Barry aint answering the questions.
Claim: McCain claimed Palin didn't seek earmarks.
Claim debunked, as earmarks were sought by Palin.
MRK's objection: Obama sought earmarks too.
To which I would note: irrelevant.
The point is that a statement was made, and that statement was shown to be false. And, in fact, this was just one more in a series of such "false statements" (AKA: lies). A continuing pattern of lies from McCain-Palin camp.
You can argue policies, records, résumés, all day and all the night, but that was not the point. Once more, with emphasis: The McCain-Palin no-earmarks claim was a LIE.
In my opinion, lying is on a different level than disagreements, or opinions, or claims, etc., and pretty much kills all discourse of any kind. Because really, what's the point in talking to someone for whom reality does not matter?
Obama hasn't gone by the nickname "Barry" since he was about eighteen or nineteen, his first years in college. He decided to go by his formal, given name of Barack early in his college days. I've seen a lot of McCain supporters using the nickname "Barry" and it seems really crass to me. MRK, why do you insist on it?
You must realize that it comes across as a rather insulting euphemism, that it detracts from any seriousness with which one might regard your comments. I realize you disagree with Obama's politics, but can't you discuss that without constantly resorting to belittling him based on his name? Is it because his name is Muslim you don't want to use it? Or you think it's funny because it highlights the disdain you have for him that you can't even use his real name? It seems petty and immature to me. Can't we stick to discussing policy, character, experience, issues, etc?
Lastly, and I realize this may only be my interpretation and not what is intended (by MRK, at least, though certainly by some), but the use of "Barry" hearkens back to the very common practice in the South when black men were simply referred to as "boy" by whites. Again, I'm not accusing MRK or anyone in particular of deliberately imitating this practice, but it is clearly something that comes to mind when I see someone referring to Obama as "Barry," his childhood name. I guess it's just a way of talking down to a man that whites used to use towards blacks and is still used in any situation when someone wants to talk down to someone. Still, I can't help but make the connection.
Revere(s), sorry this is off topic, but it's been bothering me lately and I haven't seen any discussion of it.
Whats to discuss Sleeve? His teachers called him Barry, his mom too. But you would have to take up your attempt at putting the word "boy" into it with them. You make the connection on your own.
I call Obama Barack Obombme as well. Why? Because he lied and said that US troops were strafing and killing Iraqi citizens to get himself elected. I call him other things too. Like the citizen that never was. Or Mr. Wright-Aid as money has been funneled to Rev. Wright and to the the foundation that Ayers runs. I wont even talk about Risko except to say these people got rich on the backs of the poor and government handouts.
Now if you think I am talking down about the Messiah then think again. This is your hang up and not mine and perhaps you should quit walking around with the racial chip on your shoulder and daring people to knock it off.
Also, Obama is a public figure and he signs on for these things when he runs for public office. Revere does a pretty good job at smearing the right, so its only natural to have the right go after the left. Most of the time though I do try to keep it civil, most people here dont.
Kathleen if you want to be specific about "earmarks" they are off budget but in the also funded list of the budget each year. They have gotten completely out of control in the last four years. Dems and Reps alike have been sucking us dry. Did Alaska get earmark money for the bridge to nowhere? I honestly can only find the actual budget reference to the bridge money. That money required that they put up about a third but due to the way the law is written the state can take the money and use it for transportation related projects instead. It looks to me as if they did just that. Couldnt give it back if they wanted too.
So when is something a lie? In politics its whatever the disagreeing party says it is. Even Waxman and his oversight committee got millions for his district and that is what they all have done ever since the first public project started. I think what scared them off was the annual maintenance of the bridge. As I understand it, the thing was going to be nearly as big as the Throgs bridge in NY and thats one big mother. Could run a ferry for several hundred years on the money that was spent and I agree. But it doesnt change the fact that neither Barack or McCain are going to change this without pissing some seriously important people off.
Does this mean I agree with you about the "lies"? Not on your life because its really varying degrees of half truths on both sides. Obama isnt going to be President and I think that its because the kid hasnt got enough experience and to a much, much lesser degree because he is black. I think his religious background has much more to do with this than anything else and the mis-steps going into round 2 and 3 have done him in. Sitting in a church where a Catholic priest and a clearly racial reverend are spouting off about the US of A that he is trying to be elected to the highest office tells me that he isnt a very bright bulb. He hasnt really done anything that I can see except to be elected, funnel money to people of questionable backgrounds, and above all had a real issue with putting out anything that is tangible on how he plans to do all the stuff he says he is.
I am always amenable to changing my mind on who to vote for but he isnt fooling a lot of people anymore. They want to see the pants on the straw man, so do I. Believe me when I say I have serious, serious issues with McCain, less with Palin. About the same with Hillary, but if it came down to a Republican Hillary and a Democrat Obama then Hillary it would be.
Kathleen... here are a few you might want to check out before you call something a lie. In fact I honestly cant tell what went on except to say that when the political climate changed, she killed the projects.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/palin-defends-her-initial_n_12…
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116208&srvc=2…
I particularly draw your attention to the wikipedia entry on the Knik bridge which was another bridge to nowhere. Palin clearly killed that and very likely killed the Gravina bridge too in the process. The words seeking ear mark money and seeking federal funding are two different things. Once it became clear that the state was going to have to pay for it then it was a dead issue. The State of Alaska doesnt have a roads tax per se, they impose taxes to produce a direct result for projects. Besides I cant find any place and feel free to provide one that says she was out lobbying or had a hired lobbyist trying to get the money. Seems that Ted Stevens was the major proponent and drew the ire of Palin when he tried to put her on the hot seat for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knik_Arm_Bridge
she killed the projects.
Interesting. Do you happen to know what happened to the money afterwards?
Yup Phila. Unlike federal budget money if its voted on for a project which would have to be returned the state kept the earmark bucks.
Earmark money is different from on budget and line item money. Once its earmarked, its a giveaway. Pelosi for instance had a huge amount for her friends at Dole and creating "job opportunities" out in Guam and other places. Well it was used on the equivalent of state projects there.... gone with not one bit of accountability except how they spent it. Dont have to give any to the feds an accounting because its all back door money. They can also give the earmark money out as direct contracts to specific entities... Does Blackwater do bridges would be both yours and my question?
Here is the thing and I think its fully valid and that is that earmarks need to go in entirety. Its either on the budget or its not. Not unlike the unfunded mandates, they are using us as their bank....all of them. UF mandates were breaking the federal budget, this is breaking it because its not included in anything you or I have input to... Its all smoke filled backroom stuff.
Alaska is a bit different in how they tax for their projects. They dont have a road and bridge tax, nor do they pay for roads and public projects in the way we do. Its all specific taxes for specific things... Need a new road okay, here is the tax for that kind of thing. Strange but I can see it. They have a population of that of Tennessee but easily 20 times the acreage. Their house and senate come game days are probably like a town hall meeting.
I believe that they did use the earmark money for the road projects, but once an earmark is given to a state...they can do anything they want with it. Now there's the real rub here but I can see how they would be trying to get the money from the government for the other projects. Like that airport. Thats an FAA budgetary thing as a rule and CIP funds.
In regards to that airport... I would have extended it out to 15,000 feet and 300 feet wide, put in ILS/GPS, new landing pad for helicopters and a new terminal if it supported that radar site. Easily a billion or so bucks.....if it were necessary. That radar might just save our lives someday if its fully integrated with all of the systems we have. But, this is the problem and Revere doesnt address it and Palin didnt cover it well enough. It should be obvious that a 4.5 million dollar shot to an airport for 85 people didnt make sense...Its either pork or for a reason... I give her a full blown pass on that part of it. Not sure about the seals, or rockfish. The bridge money was voted on by Congress not Sarah Palin. When they figured out that they were going to have to pay for a bridge the size of the Golden Gate maintenance and come up with some matching money....the numbers weighed in. She still got the earmark, if it had been federal budget money it would have automatically been pulled back.
I dont give any one of them a pass on that. Earmarks are a disaster and we got gamed in the 90's when it was put in. No one noticed it and assumed it was on budget stuff. Get this... since 94, almost 1 trillion dollars in earmarks. Health care, roads, gimme projects like Obamas friend Risko and the bridge to nowhere.
Jezuz.....
Randy: I don't think it is true that funds for projects that don't go forward can be kept unless the appropriating subcommittee says it's OK. Care to guess who the Chair of that committee was?
Doesnt matter...There shouldnt be earmarks and Sarah Palin wasnt the chairman.
I rank that comment along with the others but if you want to point fingers then lets see who has been in charge of the Senate and House Banking Committees for two years. Also lets see how much money Obama's campaign along with Dodd, Schumer and others got from Freddie and Fannie.
Even you would be disgusted. How many Senators do you know that have taken a bank down by mentioning them in a press conference? Schumer did. He started a run on the bank the next day... The interesting part is that they didnt contribute his campaign this time around. Now he is under investigation. Earmarks, contributions etc. all need to go so that this playing field levels off for both sides. Probably would go a long way towards ending the animosity between the two parties?