Who will win? Obama or McCain?

Remove all ads!

Well, both of them look quite good for their years - Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin, I mean - so it all depends on your tastes. Cindy McCain... erm... I guess you may like her but as far as I am concerned, physically, thanks but noooo, thanks.

 

He/she is pretty ignorant regarding American politics. When he complains about "pork" he obviously is either unaware, or choses to disregard the record of Republican leadership of the last eight years. Maybe that person is unfamilar with the "Bridge to Nowhere," which is fairly representive of where the righties have taken the country since 2000.

Edit:

Now that would be an improvement in many ways. But they will only let Bill Clinton be president twice, unfortunatley.

 

Chandos, pot meet kettle. The dems have just as much pork-barrel spending as the reps, please get off your high horse.

 

I will if you will.

 

Done.
OPPS, looks like i made a mistake about the presidential candidiates :http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/pig-book.html
Acoording to this article about the new pork list hilary was tops, obama wasn't to far behind with $97 million in pork barrel & john mccain . . . . . . wait for it . . . $0.00
Just what was he thinking???

Oh here is a link to the pigbook: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homePage

I actually find a fair amount of what they list as pork by the dems & reps as actually essential funding for various projects, some of it not so much.

 

Thanks for the link, as I was able to learn that Palin's state, Alaska led the nation in "pork spending" in Congress per capita:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008

I guess this is what they use, in part, regarding their own definition of "pork:"

I'm not sure if I really agree, since the president can request for just as much "pork" as anyone else. I read once, that "When you are making out your tax return check, remember there are two Ls in Halliburton." But there is only one L in Blackwater.

 

McCain as the Senator for Arizona is of course uniquely free of pork barrel politics.

I find that hard to believe. Another narrative? I presume the only bad pork projects are those sponsored by somebody else.

Besides, a good backgrounder on pork.

 

Ragusa did you even read those before posting them? Notice that the one up as "pork barrel" is about spending in the sunshine state, that is not mccains state. Neither did the one listed as "politics" or "of" & the one in "free" isn't considered pork by any other sites so i think you just google "mccain + porkbarrel" & post whatever you find.

 

martaug,
what I wanted to tell you that there is lambasting about pork barrel politics, and then there is doing something about it. McCain didn't vote against those project he decried as wasteful. He enforced that changes be made - but did those changes change something of significance? Read Wheeler's article. He is an insider, who lost his job for the 'Mr Smith...' article (which is the one article that I cared to read in full). I really recommend reading it.

It can be argued that McCain by making himself 'pork buster' strengthened his position in the committee. His rhetoric put him in a position to extort political favours from the pork barrel bunch. The logic is quite simple: Had McCain blocked their earmarks again and again, he would have made them enemies. They will only be allies if you give them something. That he did. And when he along the way killed off the odd really foolish pork barrel project, all the better. This arrangement is, when you have presidential ambitions, an effective way to gain political allies while looking good publicly. Better, it didn't cost him a dime. The sausage McCain put his pork into was McCain, not Arizona.

 

Ragusa check out the cagw site as they are very inpartial & post everybodies dirty laundry.
The king of pork by far is the illustrious byrd from W Va. He is even proud of it.
Now as i said above. i think that a fair amount of what is listed is probably necessary, maybe even critical to the future, however a fairly large amount is questionable by both parties.

 

martaug,
thinking of it, I seriously doubt cawg's non-partisan nature and I doubt they do post everybody's dirty laundry. I really wouldn't bet on that. Have a look. They have conservative funders, like the Olin or Bradley foundations (with those two, I would have expected the Mellon-Scaife to be on board* as well). Both like to donate to the AEI, the think tank where Bush's product The Surge™ was hedged by the Kagans. Such foundations follow a funding policy. They don't hand their money around like candy. Now tell me why an institute that is funded by clearly republican leaning foundations should wash Republican dirty laundry? And with that in mind, I don' think that Phillip Morris funding has made cawg any more critical as far as tobacco lobbying is concerned.

Now how do you call such a thing like cawg in America? Astroturf front?

* That's how it's made: They donate money to an institute, and then get seat and vote to have a say in how the money is used.

 

Martaug - You are absolutely right. Pork is a politician's dream, as it makes them very popular with the voters back home. Hence the reason Byrd is proud of his pork. Neverthelss, it's the same voters who often complain about the government spending in "other places." But both sides are certainly guilty.

 

Ragusa i counted at least as many reps listed there as dems, so it seems pretty bipartisan.
Thats funny rags, you went to a liberal site to try to disprove a site. how about going to a non-partisan site please.

Definitely agree with you on that chandos


PS rags, rags, rags you have been bad http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/12

"As the liberal Village Voice commented in April 2001, “These guys come from the far side of liberal.” Seen through this dynamic duo's socialist lens, society’s major problems are capitalism in general and corporations in particular. If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it. Unless, of course, that food is vegetarian, organic, certified fair-trade, shade-grown, biodynamic, or biotech-free — in which case, the sky’s the limit! "

Yeah i'm gonns take their word on someone not being bipartisan.

 

Ok, let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. According to the CAGW site, "A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures."

So, if budgetary funds are being given for the state to allocate, or whatever the normal procedure is, it is not "pork" - but if they are assigned to a particular project, it is? It would appear that the only problem with "pork" is what it is assigned to, as it does not seem to impact the total amount of money a state receives.

 

martaug,
the funding they list for cagw is a fact, no matter whether it is a D or an R or me who speaks it out, and the obvious implications resulting from that reality don't change either. Selective, 'biased', reporting isn't false only because it is selective, 'biased'. The problem I had with your characterisation of cawg was that you called it non-partisan. I do not think so and have posted why. Now their reporting, too, isn't necessarily false only because it is selective or 'biased'. But it's not non-partisan either. That is the point I wanted to make. What is so outrageous or difficult to understand and to accept about that?

And the actual argument that I made is completely separate from the alleged bias of the site I took those facts from. You did not address that argument, but attacked my source. And it is funny that to do the latter you had to go to activistcash.com, a site run by the lobbying firm Berman & Co*. The only point I want to make here is that when professional corporate PR activities are involved, we enter the realm of spin and advertising and that is something entirely else than bias. We probably agree on that perhaps the only thing that is even less truthful than politicians is advertising. Center for Media and Democracy kindly provided an entry on themselves on sourcewatch. You might want to read the point 'critiques' there. Why didn't you try to make a case for why cagw is, despite their funding still non-partisan? That would have been interesting. And what about that argument in the post before?

And anyway, I don't want to dispel your arguments, because they're, well, more like sentiments and difficult to grasp. I want to read you think; that would be a very refreshing change. You usually post some link, and then usually say something along the line that R's and D's are alike in their vices, but that D's are worse. Awesome - all politicians suck. That's an extremely controversial and novel point of view and generally quite a stunning insight.

* a quote that is attributed to Mr. Berman is:

 

you post an opinion from a site that even liberals think can't be trusted & wonder why it isn't taken seriously?
Please

 

I think it will be very close, just like the last couple of presidential elections. There's about 48% vs. 48% of voters who are staunch Dems or Reps no matter what. It's just that tiny percentage in the middle who make up their minds at the last moment that decide elections.

Obama's Achilles ankle is that he has a lot of support from young voters and young voters are notorious for simply staying home on election day. God forbid if Guitar Hero 4 comes out the day before election day.

 

Oh yes? That' is proof of non- or bi-partisanship? How?

The site I linked had a reference that cagw had received conservative funding. That information is independent from the source. What part of that do you not understand? What you do is to say: Oh they're biased, I don't believe them! Well, here's a proposal: Before addressing the source try to deal with the information. Lets assume it is true, what would that implicate? After that, how would the result be affected by the 'bias' of the source? So tell me, why is cawg non-partisan anyway, despite its funding and origins?

 

Young voters are a volatile mass imo - less reliable, but they can come surprisingly strong as well. Frankly, I'm not sure Palin was a good pick as she undercuts some of McCain's strong points (experience, opposition to government spending), but we'll see how it plays out.

 

I hope you don't mind that I have forwarded this to Karl Rove