Have you noticed that the media keeps saying Obama promised to end all earmarks? He didn't

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903060002?f=h_top

Media figures advance false claim that Obama is breaking campaign promise of no earmarks

Summary: Media figures have advanced the false claim that President Obama promised during his campaign to stop earmark spending and is breaking that promise by signing the omnibus spending bill currently being considered in the Senate. In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending.

[ErinBerin84]

1. yes

and I'm sick of all the talk about McCain "calling him out on it". And It's one thing to argue that these projects cannot take priority right now, but McCain shows a willful ignorance of what these programs are, with his stupid twits "Fish management. How does one manage a fish?" The media just seems desperate to prop him (McCain) up again.

[jody]

2. OK, I'll settle for "Obama promised to . . . cut wasteful spending." Enough already, just do it! n/t

[90-percent]

3. Earmarks

Didn't Rachel say recently that these fucking earmarks compromise ONE FUCKING PERCENT of this recovery bill?

Republicans are bitching and moaning about one fucking percent of this plan?

Aren't they missing the 99% they should be looking at?

Don't their priorities seem wayyyy out of balance to the point of irrational?


If you are at a doctors and he says:" There's a one percent chance it could be this and a 99% chance it could be this."

Would you then say: "All righty, Doc, throw everything you got against that one percent thing!"

Anybody making such a statement would be 'committing suicide by Doctor"!

-90% Jimmy

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Right. I think that was the loser who made that promise. No matter. It was said by someone.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Someone Needs To Read A Constitution

The Executive has NOTHING to do with earmarks or pork barrel or whatever you want to call it. The GOOP could have easily elimianted this "scourge" during their 6 years of absolute control. If this was so evil and awful, then why didn't they? Or even better, why did they turn the earmark into such a mess? It's cause the GOOP abused this privilidge, not Democrats. But now that Democrats are in control of the purse, now the rushpublicans are "concerned" about all this spending (which is a piss in the large budget ocean).

The Congress is the one that grants earmarks and can take it away. The President can promise all sorts of things about this, but it's Congress that has the authority. And it's one that every Congresscritter holds dear...and in these times, so do many constituents.

Earmarks bring jobs to a district, earmarks can bring extra and special services as well. Its what Congresscritters live on...their way of showing the folks at home they're doing something..."bringing home the bacon". Yep, the rushpublicans are "concerned" that those dollars now aren't going to their corporate welfare system but to people and districts that need them.

The corporate media's concern trolling is nothing but yet another GOOP talking point that has been faxed blasted through the beltway drinkie-drinkie party set. It's another big lie that when said by enough people enough times, it's assumed its important or the truth. Yep, it's terrible to increase funding for a local building project or service...they want that money to go to the corporates...like the banks.