Sep 06 2008
Obama on the offensive
Barack Obama went on the offensive today, lashing out at both John McCain and Sarah Palin. The issue with Palin had to do with earmarks. Earmarks, basically, are when congressmen apply for money from the federal budget for certain projects in their districts. When Palin was the mayor of Wasilla she hired lobbyist Steve Silver to gain earmarks for her town. From 2000 to 2003 she pulled in over 27 million dollars in earmarks, twice the Alaskan state average. When she became governor however her position on earmarks changed. Although the state still took in 52 earmarks valued at 256 million dollars in her first year of office, this was actually almost 100 million less than the previous governor had spent. Now Palin, like McCain, is completely against earmarks.
Obama didn’t waste the opportunity to point out the difference today at a townhall meeting.
“She is a skillful politician. But when you [have] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person… That is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up.” Said Obama.
Obama also lashed out at McCain for saying that he will crack down on lobbyists and special interest groups.
“He says, ‘I’m going to tell those lobbyists that their days in Washington are over.’ Who’s he going to tell? Is he going to tell his campaign chairman who’s one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell all the folks who are running his campaign who are the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington?” Said Obama.
My take? It is in Obama’s best interest to go after Palin and hard. The Republican National Convention had more average viewers by day than the D.N.C. and Palin’s nomination played a big role in that. Everyone, including myself, wants to know what this woman is about. It is critical for Obama to paint the other side of Palin before people make up their minds about her.
I really hope Obama isn’t full of sh**! He seems very competent.
http://waxingpoetically.today.com
http://artfromtheoutskirts.today.com
You and me both mikey, you and me both…
Before i stick my foot in my mouth, I would like to say that the information brought forward is interesting. Considering the topic, which I have limited knowledge on why it’s so critical and important, it sounds like Palin did what she was supposed to do. She was a mayor of a town that needed money and she hired a guy who was going to go out and do that. When she came into office as Governor she recognized the fact that the state didn’t need as much from money Washington as it had previously been asking so she reduced the amount. Sounds like good policy. But at the same time, what were the issues she was facing that forced her to make these decisions. And finally, what is Obama’s stance on earmarking? He went after Palin for her position and McCain’s choices in who he hired as campaign manager…why can’t he explain his position? He has to understand that there are still people out there that haven’t made up their minds about who they are voting for just yet. Without explaining his position every time he goes on the attack of the opposition isn’t he just talking shit? I haven’t made up my mind on who I’m voting for but the fact of the matter is at least Palin has a history that can be attacked. Obama has one voting record in Congress, which needs to be understood as the most liberal voting record in the entire congress.
Taking the gloves is all well and good. But we got to get down to some issues here. Other wise you are forcing the public to make a decision based of what they “think they know” instead of “what they know they know” about the politician.
Earmarks aren’t a bad thing, in my opinion. The money in the budget is supposed to be used to improve our country. There probably could be a little more reform on them (and Palin was actually in support of that too, eventually). I’m working on a comprehensive review of Palin and what she was using earmarks for, along with some other things. All Obama was trying to do was point out that she was all about earmarks (somebody nicknamed her the “earmark queen of Alaska”) when it suited her interest and now she is condemning them.
And your little ditty about Obama having one voting record? In his six years in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama sponsored 820 pieces of legislation. In the U.S. senate he has sponsored/authored over 400 pieces of legislation. One voting record? That’s Grade-A Bullsh**, so stop spreading it!
State Senate and the US Congress…completely different kinds of voting records. His belief in bringing the war to an end by putting a time line on the process is what most concerns me. In vote 181, Obama had the to opportunity to help out many people in need by passing a legislation that would give 120 billion dollars in taxes not limited souly to the war in Iraq. Im not one who says you can’t support the troops if you don’t support the mission but his voting record on this piece of legislation concerns me. both Hillary and obama were among 14 senators who voted against it. The majority of the Democratic party was for the passing of this bill.
besides military spending the money was to go to the aid of the american people. Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”
Why did he vote against this? If it was because there wasn’t a time-line built into the bill that would call for the exodus of American troops from Iraq I seriously begin to question whether or not he is a man who is willing to compromise on his beliefs. This was a deal that was proposed for everyone’s benefit, especially the troops.
There were a few reasons that Obama opposed that bill. He didn’t like that there wasn’t a time-line for withdrawal on it but also it included a clause that would make it harder for patients to get perscriptions:
“Effective October 1, 2007; Medicaid outpatient drugs will be reimbursable only if non-electronic written prescriptions are executed on a tamper-resistant pad.”
This was a Bush proposal that despite many medical experts, the American Pharmacists Association, and the centers for Medicare and Medicaid saying was a bad idea, Bush wanted to do. Experts were concerned that too many patients wouldn’t be able to pick up perscriptions, and that changing the system would be costly and time-consuming.
Vote 181 was a newer version of a previous vote that Bush had vetoed simply because it had a time-table for withdrawal on it.
Not trying to cause to much of a fuss here but cracking down on the ease in which people can get perscription drugs isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Seeing that the majority of drug abuse these days doesn’t come from the drugs purchased on street corners but rather they are the ones you buy from the guys in the white coats.
But, I don’t have the facts to say that this is what the intention of the bill. So I will say fair enough Obama. But if it raised my eye brow then you know it will raise others.