RSS Feeds
In a sweep (71-29), Senators opposed stopping earmarks for one year.
Not so surprising, three of those in favor of abandoning earmarks were none other than the three presidential hopefuls (John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton).
Putting earmarks on hold was proposed so that the Senate could have time to come up with new reforms for earmarking to try to get it under control.
Out of the three nominees, Clinton was in the top 10 of senators who garnered the most money for earmarks, according to the Los Angeles Times. The same story says McCain sought no earmarks.
What the story fails to point out is how good it makes nominees look to support this type of measure, even though only one of them actually supported it before. Where's the part about how Clinton is two-faced (shocking, I know)?
I think they left out the most important issue: nominees will vote based on how they think it will make them look to voters, not on what they have done in the past. That should be the lead of these stories.
What they say when they are stumping or debating is rhetoric and needs to be examined closely. What they do (like Clinton getting $342 million in earmarks) is easier to interpret.
And one last thing: I'm not judging earmarks (they have positive and negative values, in my opinion).
Posted by
Laurie Perini
Putting earmarks on hold was proposed so that the Senate could have time to come up with new reforms for earmarking to try to get it under control.
Out of the three nominees, Clinton was in the top 10 of senators who garnered the most money for earmarks, according to the Los Angeles Times. The same story says McCain sought no earmarks.
What the story fails to point out is how good it makes nominees look to support this type of measure, even though only one of them actually supported it before. Where's the part about how Clinton is two-faced (shocking, I know)?
I think they left out the most important issue: nominees will vote based on how they think it will make them look to voters, not on what they have done in the past. That should be the lead of these stories.
What they say when they are stumping or debating is rhetoric and needs to be examined closely. What they do (like Clinton getting $342 million in earmarks) is easier to interpret.
And one last thing: I'm not judging earmarks (they have positive and negative values, in my opinion).
Posted by
Laurie Perini
posted by The Phoenix Files at
1:20 PM
2 Comments:
Hillary will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. I am disgusted at the latest attack on her opponent, Barack Obama. His pastor is not running for president. To continue to play on the 911 fears of uneducated voters as she paints this candidate as anti-American is disgusting. To disrespect his candidacy so much you start offering him a vice presidential slot is a low blow. To pull the race card AND the religion card on Barack shows what slime Hillary and Bill are made of
As much as I would like to have seen a woman president AND a Democratic president, if she wins the nomination I'm going with John McCain.
Laurie Have you done any research on the nominees or our you going by the what the media says. Yes, I know your in the media and we all know that the media likes to twist words around to support their opinion or to make a so-called good story.
Post a Comment
<< Home