. Outsourcing Smear: Rep. John Larson convened a secret meeting on Saturday attended by CT-AFL/CIO's John Olson (not-so-affectionately known locally as "Jimy Olson, Cub Labor Leader" for his diminutive stature) to go really, really sleazy and desperate on Ned Lamont. Lieberman has evidently tapped local Democrats to come together on behalf of his "Kiss My Ring" party so the smear won't look like it's coming from him. Spazeboy does an elegant, effortless deconstruction of the lies in Lieberman's latest Bush imitation ads (which look like they were lifted from CTBob's YouTube, above). As the Hotline Blogometer asks, "Are negative ads what really what Lieberman needs right now? Aren't voters looking for a reason to come back to Lieberman?"
. Don't They Know He Marched in '64: Ned Lamont was greeted with warmth and enthusiasm when he spoke last week at an African-American church, and Maxine Waters is coming to town to campaign for him. Joe tried to compete by visiting the Mt. Aery Baptist Church last night with a huge entourage and a cameraman. "He was told he could worship with the congregation, but not speak, and the camera could not come in," according to a member of the church.
Maybe they're still stinging from this Lieberman quote, from the floor of the US Senate in 1995:
Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased and don't think it is fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans.
I'm sure Lieberman would rather they remember this quote, from a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus in 2000:
I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action, and I will support affirmative action because history and current reality make it necessary.
Why African Americans are not lining up to join Joe's "Kiss my Ring" party is beyond me (thanks to BarbinMD).
BREAKING -- Hell Freezes Over: Yes, I'll say it -- oh the pain, make it stop!! -- Robert Novak has a very good column up on Joey Earmarks. In his debate against Lamont, Joe was very proud of all the pork he's brought home for Connecticut. It was one of Ned's best moments.
Says Novak:
Lieberman's exasperation peaked when Lamont called the 6,241 earmarks in last year's transportation program "wrong" and suggested the senator was "part of the problem." While praising "good" earmarks for Connecticut, Lieberman added: "Of course, we were all against the bridge to nowhere." In fact, Lieberman last Oct. 20 voted against Republican Sen. Tom Coburn's amendment to defund the infamous Alaska bridge.
[]
The choice for Connecticut Democrats is no less clear on government spending than it is about intervention in Iraq. The issue was put more succinctly than is usual for politicians near the end of the July 7 debate. Asserting that spending should be authorized through the regular congressional process, Lamont confronted Lieberman: "You support the earmarks, you work with the lobbyists, and that's what needs to be changed." Lieberman replied: "The earmarks are great for Connecticut."
Novak does not, however, bring up one very salient fact -- despite the reach across the aisle he is so proud of giving to Republicans, Lieberman has been piss-poor in bringing home dollars to the state. Connecticut rates 49th out of 50 for Federal spending received per dollar of taxes paid by state. He's gotten plenty personally for his willingness to kiss up to the GOP, but relatively little for his constituents. I keep expecting this to turn up in Porkbusters, but alas, to no avail.
. The Connecticut Problem: Colin McEnroe rebuts the NYT's shallow assertion that poor, frail old Holy Joe is simply a victim of a blogger conspiracy:
One could easly add his long-running alliance with Bill Bennett to curtail the protections of the First Amendment (and his bizarro trumpeting of decency during appearances on the vulgarity-laced "Imus in the Morning" show), his stance on Terri Schiavo, his speech denouncing Bill Clinton coupled with his deafening silence on John Rowland, his praising of President Bush's Israel policies and hammering of John Kerry on same after John Kerry became the party's 2004 nominee, and most recently and quite ruinously, his flip take on Plan B emergency contraception for rape victims: "in Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."
I live in Connecticut. I report here and talk to politicians here. Let me assure the New York Times that this sentiment has been building for years. What was always sad was the timidity and fatalism of more mainstream polticians who would speak quietly about the desirability of challenging Lieberman and then -- like mice who want to hang a bell around the neck of the housecat -- admit they could not imagine pulling off such a thing.
. Let's Talk About It: Ned Lamont would love to debate Lieberman over the war, but Joe says no. Small wonder. How long will he be able to refuse if locals keep calling for it?
. Taking Heat: Meanwhile, Barbara Boxer's decision to come to Connecticut and rubber stamp Lieberman's phony progressive credentials is bringing down the ire of her constituents. It's an odd decision, particularly when so many seats are up for grabs this fall -- wouldn't that time be better spent in, Montana, say, stumping for Jon Tester instead? Why campaign for someone who has announced their intention to disrespect Democratic voters on August 9th if their decision doesn't suit his views and leave the party? Maybe she'll get her hands on Joe Biden's train schedule.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
fitz
fitz2
got a fitz O
sorry 4 bein childish :-(
Jane, I love the daily Ned! Carry on the great work….
By the way, I never knew about Lieberman’s position against affirmative action — what a tool!
Hendrik Hertzberg is critical of HoJo in this week’s New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/....._hertzberg
Hertzberg’s concluding paragraph:
“If the Bush Administration, which still has two and a half years to go before America and the world are rid of it, is to be restrained and held accountable, then it is more important for at least one branch of the national legislature to be controlled by the opposition party than it is for Connecticut to be represented by a senator who is against—or for—the Iraq war. Ned Lamont, the earnest, mild-mannered J. P. Morgan heir who is the challenger in the Democratic primary, and has pledged to support Lieberman if the latter wins on August 8th, seems to have some inkling of this. The Senator does not. A couple of weeks ago, in a reprise of his 2000 maneuver, he suddenly announced that if he loses the primary he will seek a place on the November ballot as the candidate of a new “Connecticut for Lieberman” party. “I’m a loyal Democrat,” he told reporters, “but I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” No kidding.”
But, but, Joe marched with civil rights leaders in the 1800s!
I remember hearing earlier in the campaign that there were a lot of musicians who have long memories about Lieberman’s pro-censorship work (as Howie documents.) Are they involved in the campaign at all? I would imagine certain demographics might be motivated to come out for the primary by phone calls from prominent musicians.
Mary and Blank Kluge
Left answers to your questions in the EPU zone on previous thread
I know, I know, puppethead. I can’t quite reconcile it myself. Who could imagine that in the past two hundred years he changes his tune?
I disagree that the earmark exchange was one of Ned’s finest moments in the debate or that the Novak column was very valid. First, on the Novak column, he makes it sound like Coburn was representing a Republican position that was being undone by Democrats. Almost nobody voted for the Coburn amendments. The whole situation was bizarre, and really showed how unhinged Coburn can get more than anything else. I’m not standing up for Lieberman here, I’m just saying that because you agree with one of Novak’s points doesn’t mean that he isn’t lying about the evidence or trying to come up with a way to smear Democrats at the same time. Squids will be squids.
You may have gone for Ned’s sound bite tested “ban all earmarks” line in the debate, but I found it pretty weak. You think a freshman senator has enough clout to rearrange the entire federal budgeting system? Like I said before, I’m not standing up for Lieberman, but Ned’s response made him sound like an amateur.
Not trying to pick a fight here, just offering a different perspective. I don’t recommend reading Novak again. Now that he’s got a smidgen of your respect, he’ll start to convince you to bring nuclear weapons to baby showers, just in case.
peace,
jim
Redshift 10 — I think Howie actually has some stuff coming down the road on that front, too. Very exciting.
So, Joe is:
Wrong for Connecticut on Affirmative Action
Wrong for Connecticut on Compassionate Care for Rape Victims
Wrong for Connecticut on Each Person’s Right to Die with Dignity
Wrong for Connecticut on the War in Iraq
Wrong for Connecticut on Federal Assistance to the State
Wrong for Connecticut on Access to Affordable Medications
Wrong, just Wrong, on Free Speech
AND he is to the right of every Democrat in the State.
No wonder he has to run as an independent.
lhp!!
scurries yonder…
but, but, but Joe Lieberman was out there decrying the Golden Calf and all that lascivious stuff way before Moses arrived on the scene!
Any sense of when the new polling data will be out?
Speaking of Novak, it doesn’t look like his ongoing CYA/rehabilitation campaign has worked, at least among his colleagues.
There was also some offal on (Is it Kudlow? Kirtzman?)& Kramer yesterday where Marcia kramer’s co-host goes on and on about how the WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY would be if LAmont wins the primary in Conn.
Worst thing. WOrse than having not one, but two, national elections stolen?
I believe I heard that Joe was one of the guys in the ash pit with Job.
Not meaning to nitpick, but that should be “in Montana, stumping for Jon Tester” instead of “in Minnesota”. Unless, of course, there is a huge bloc of absentee Montana voters in Minnesota.
Love the blog, and sorry for using my first comment to nitpick.
Jim Preston 13 — you’re right. Ned would have no power as a junior senator and has no place saying that earmarks are corrupt.
WTF?
oh well, the Preznit is back in the US, back in the US, back from the USSR (so to speak) — AF1 just landed at Andrews AFB.
Tester in Minnesota???
lhp,
I think that the worse thing that could happen to the Democratic party would be to retake the House and the Senate because then they would be in a position to lead the country from Congress.
OK, winning back the presidency in ‘08 would probably be even worse for the party….
;~)
Dweeze — thanks, corrected, typing faster than thinking today.
Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota!
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld.....054248.htm
some people change for the better, some change for the worse.
Joe is one of the latter and nobody should feel even a teensy bit badly about abandoning him or dumping on him– he chose the path he traveled and has met the stop sign at the end of his political career.
no more.
hiya, Jane! thanks for all you are doing for us.
Boxer could stump for Tester in Minnesota, realize no one knew who the hell he was, then travel to Montana where he’s actually running for office. Sounds like a good road trip!
Memo to Joe: the internets allow us to instantly track your comments and positions, so you need to forget everything you learned in Bush’s class on revisionist history. You cannot run from your record. You cannot run from what you’ve said. There is no place you can run to where “The Kiss” will not find you (by the way, was it you Bush was so eager to get back to? Did he have a hot date with you?).
Your reports out of CT are a daily pleasure, Jane. I love the smell of flop sweat (Eau de Joe) in the afternoon…
Joe was the one who whispered to Eve “don’t listen to that snake. Don’t bite of that apple or it will all be over. And, besides, they haven’t invented taxis yet”
wasnt it Joe Lieberman tag-teaming with Jeremiah before filibustering became uncool?
It’s okay Deeze; I was about to post this when I saw yours:
It’s an odd decision, particularly when so many seats are up for grabs this fall — wouldn’t that time be better spent in, Minnesota, say, stumping for Jon Tester instead?
The pedant in me is compelled to point out that Tester is in Montana, not Minnesota. Minnesota has Klobuchar (which always reminds me of “Young Frankenstein”).
lhp, Mary, lotus, et al:
SENT
Thanks. (now I’ll have to track LTE’s over the next few days. I don’t even read the thing anymore. But, as a high school pup (’either late ‘73/early ‘74) the previous incarnation (Daily News) ran my very rambling ‘impeach-Nixon-now’ letter. Hope I have the same luck. This is the home of the Boland Amendment.) ;->
Well, at least AF1’s Stewards 8 hour nightmare is over…
Redshift @ 10 and Jane @ 14,
Oh yeah, that stuff is cookin’ and it’s gonna be hot. ;)
Ned Lamont never suggested in the debate that he alone could end the system of earmarks. His point was that the process of siphoning off appropriations to specific projects “earmarked” by individual legislators, with no other congressional oversight, is irresponsible. That seems unassailable. It is also the foundation for much of the corruption in Congress. It doesn’t just lead to bridges to nowhere; it leads to bribes to untraceable charities, etc. The argument that “well, we get some too,” is unethical and merely contributes to the climate of corruption.
Seems to me we ought to support candidates willing to say publically that this process is corrupt and should not be supported, even if they’re the only one saying it. Good for Lamont.
Dweeze
Welcome. If you have sharp proof reading eyes, you’re gonna have a field day with me
Thanks lhp - thanked you below b4 I saw it here too. *g*
Ned as “the worst” is pretty funny. Almost up there with “how dare Democracy Alliance not give to DLC.”
Don’t the Republicans have anyone they can sacrifice to the volcano god of centrism to help balance karma when Joe loses? hehehe
Guess that would be the “worst” thing that could happen to them, eh?
boadicea
was one of my heros (I don’t like the word heroine) growing up. Not for the sacking and the killing, but for standing up for her own dignity, her daughter’s dignity and her people’s freedom.
She was not at all ladylike, but she was one hell of a warrior queen
“volcano god of centrism”
Excellent!
Yo, blank kluge, you will let us know if it gets published?
Jane,
Do you honestly think that “earmarks are corrupt”? I’m not willing to say that they are. We elect our congressmen and senators and they have the “power of the purse” from the Constitution. Earmarks are part of that power, and if they are eliminated, where do you propose to put that power? Of course, power over spending will lead to corruption and abuse, but I don’t see why it is inherently worse for elected representatives to be accountable for it. In terms of the WTF? aspect of the discussion, I try to be a realist, and I didn’t think that Ned’s “ban all earmarks” line had any teeth. Just my opinion, of course.
peace,
jim
People are sick and tired of earmarks, even when those earmarks come to their state. Why? Because people understand that if money is going to come to their state, they would prefer it be for something that can be of actual use as opposed to another museum extolling the wonders of margarine. The states are dying for help to keep up with unfunded mandates, to help with Medicaid funding, education, and a myriad of other things that have direct and important benefits in people’s lives.
No, Ned Lamont won’t be able to single-handedly change the funding structure, but he can be a voice for change. The thing about voices for change is that pretty soon, you have a chorus.
OT but cool: I bought and donated to Joe and Valerie the domain name www.ThankYouValerie.com and they just sent me back a canned (but nice) thank you note!
The call for RGJoe to debate Ned on the war probably scares hell out of Joe. It’s a loser for him and he knows it. Besides, the last debate went so well for him anyway,right?(snark)If it does happen, I certainly hope Ned would be a little more forceful with the rudeness Joe showed.tell him to STFU a little. *g*
lhp at 41 - “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” ;)
Jim Preston 43 — Earmarks are part of that power, and if they are eliminated, where do you propose to put that power?
I just do not even know where to start with that statement.
jim preston
Earmarks are just tacked onto a bill. They are not debated or considered. it’s just a senator using the federal treasury like an ATM
just pork.
lhp 42 -
Like the man in the photo last thread:
“Yee-Haw!” Hell, yeah! My pleasure, of course.
Thanks again. (less than 24 hr. turnaround…a deadline is a wonderful thing; especially for Kludges.)
;->
Well-behaved does not mean silent, passive or fearful. Eleanor Roosevelt.
Jim Preston at 43:
Of course earmarks are corrupt, by definition. It’s spending public money with no hearing, no vote.
i hear rumor that quinnepiac will have a poll out thursday. if they are looking for folk who are planning on voting in the dem primary august 8, they are more than welcome to give me a call.
i find my self concerned about slime coming from other sources than from LIE-berman. we must stay on our toes to combat the rovian tactics coming our way.
Okay, not to hijack the Ned thread, but is that a beer bottle in front of Bush in this pix on Taylor’s blog?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/arc.....p?id=24257
Anyone?
yep, i do believe it is, CHS.
Christy at 54 - I don’t know, but after looking at the expressions on both faces, I would have to wonder…LOL!
Sure looks like it, but could always be Near Beer or some equivalent. Any way to do a close-up on that detail of the photo?
sure is Christy!
I’m still curious about the difference in the transcriptions and the WaPo story as to who said that Condi needs a success while “I can just go out and talk” …
on Ned … from what I hear from my mom, the Ned messy desk ad is getting a great response and makes all the Joe negative comments look like whining.
Those tricky Russians planted it there. Putin be sneaky, very sneaky. *g*
Blank K - good for you!
ODulski’s maybe?
Redd
It looks like one, but more signifigantly, it appears not to have been part of the orginal table setting. It is in the wrong place, as if he carried it there himself from (cocktail hour?) and it is the only one I see on the table.
Is there a way to enlarge that shot?
siun, that’s a great ad. Joe is dragging himself down into the mud all alone, isn’t he?
O’Dulski’s
LMAO
ding, ding, ding! lhp @ 61
Its Rootz Beer
good for *ilson! (45)
vino or Russki brandy
FDL had a fun find a fabulous joe klein quote contest. I think it would be even funner if we had a say it ain’t so Joe version.
~~~
“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, Dec. 6, 2005
Hey, when do I get a margerine museum???
I’d even settle for a butter emporium!!!
trying to imagine Russian nearbeer … not a likely concoction somehow
BBC just announced UK evacuation begins tomorrow … sounds like Poodle is following W’s lead
OK folks, diving into the earmark debate — earmarks are not always just for margarine museums or even “just pork.” Sometimes, they go to help people who really need it. For example, I work with a group that received a significant earmark (around 6 million over 5 years) to represent young minority kids charged with crimes. That earmark came out of the DOJ’s budget and might have been spent torturing children rather than securing adequate representation for them. The original earmark was a product of the work and passions of Joe Moakley — now deceased. A fine, old time Democrat indeed. I also worked on poverty programs in Texas that were funded by earmarks won by Henry B. Gonzalez — another great American.
Certainly, there is a lot of earmark abuse in Congress, but earmarks are also a way for people in Congress to meet some of the needs of people in their districts who might have interests in something besides homeland security and police car upgrades.
Mary -
Sent. For their TwiliteZone consideration. I STILL remember Buckner ‘86 and Yogi Berra. “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
But stay tuned. and thanks.
what-the-hell — here’s the text of the note I just got from Joe and Val
nice, real nice, *ilson! kudos.
On the OT beer bottle photo:
Bush: “Where the hell’dja put that Russki beer, Vlad? I’m runnin’ low.”
Putin: “I put case under table to hide from camera.”
CNN has also noted the bombing of Christian areas of Lebanon — and some of those Christians are hardcore rightwing proudly-fascist nuts too…
Where does Ned Lamont stand on affirmative action?
He’s for it.
(I went into the spazeboy vault and uploaded this gem just for you guys)
It’s a clip from May 11, the lighting was bad so I didn’t do much with it, but I think this roughly-two-minute clip let’s Ned explain his position. He was speaking at the NAACP candidates forum, and Joe was supposed to be there too…but something came up (as things inevitably do when you’ve said shit like that statement from 1995 and you realize you’re about to walk into an NAACP event).
Spazeboy, you are doing great work — Thanks!! and keep the clips coming!
Rep. John Larson convened a secret meeting on Saturday . . .
John Larson of Hartford, who supposedly supports Murtha? If this is the same, I am aghast. It’s bad enough that Lieberman apparently has turned Rosa DeLauro and Chris Dodd into his sockpuppets. Don’t these congresscritters realize that “friendship” is one thing. Active support for Lieberman undermines their positions in at least my eyes.
http://www.house.gov/larson/
some of those Lebanese Christians would make Tom Delay seem like Dr.MLK
hello mui, long time….
On Topic:
It’s so gratifying that Lamont is taking Lieberman down, and that Jane, with her great instincts, passion, and energy, is right there for the people. Thanks, Jane. I don’t often have time to contribute much these days, but I really appreciate what you’re doing.
immanentize — sure, there are earmarks for “good causes,” but the cost of this mechanism is that while others can’t stop the good ones, neither can anyone stop the bad ones. There’s no way to impose public accountability or have any rational budget process. Should we assume that the vast majority of elected officials will be honest, above corruption and earmark only “good” projects? Or should we assume otherwise? What do the last 10 years tell us?
And the ability to do this without significant scrutiny creates the breeding ground for further corruption, as contributers/beneficiaries have strong incentives to contribute to the legislator (or his/her favority PAC/Charity, while hiding the corrupt link to the earmark/appropriation.
Hi immanentize. Fancy meeting you here.
*ilson,
I thiunk Odulskis come in green bottles. Could be a Sharpakoff, but most likely a LoneRedStar malt liquor. they’re known to enhance talking with your mouth full.
imm
It’s not often I disagree with you, but just b/c one good man used one earmark wisely, doesn’t rehabilitate the system of earmarking.
The Constitution gave Congress, as a branch of government, the power of the purse; not indivivual congresscritters
and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility by letting him open his mouth and speak.
Wasn’t someone supposed to have whisked him off for a bike ride?
LHP at 41:
Yes, when I was looking for a pseudonym for my political writing, the historical example came very easily to mind.
Particularly as she had tried accomodation with the Romans, and it was only when they broke the treaty with her tribe, flogged her, and raped her daughters that she decided to fight to the death rather than capitulate one more day.
I’ve felt that way about my country for the last several years. I hope we will prevail, I plan on us doing so.
But come what may, I will fight to the very bitter end against the corrupt, bigoted, patricians who have tormented constitutional democracy into this almost unrecognizeable form.
Because it is clear they will not stop until they are made to do so.
Does anybody know how to either enlarge or zoom in on the photo at Taylor Marsh?
BTW I clicked on “properties” on the photo and it’s jpg name is “bush_drunk”
I wonder, did taylor have a good close look at the label on the bottle?
Cantor and Hillary come out in very strong defense of Israel’s actions. (via CNN)
You go Iceni Queen!
Jane,
Is pressure building for another debate? I noticed one link to an article pushing for a debate on Iraq.
Warner reticent to speak on unconditional support for Israel– via cnn. Something is coming up on the Hill this week wrt to Lebanon/Israel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
“But come what may, I will fight to the very bitter end against the corrupt, bigoted, patricians who have tormented constitutional democracy into this almost unrecognizeable form.
Because it is clear they will not stop until they are made to do so.”
I’m with you, boadicea!
1,206 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOES ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher,
Don’t feed the trolls dear…the little gobblins take up too much a yer valuable time. Let us take ‘em down er, better still, ignor ‘em inta last week.
KEEP THE FAITH AND TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER THERE’S SOME BAD SHIT COMIN DOWN ‘CUZ THE BASTARDS ARE PISSIN’ GOD OFF BIG TIME!!!
P.S. Has anyone heard from Mrs. K 8…I’m gettin’ a bit worried?
Better to get the vote out on election day than a week later:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....153712/517
A good roundup of flawed media coverage of yesterday’s demonstration in the central plaza of Mexico city.
I tried to zoom in on the bottle but it gets too ‘pixelated’.pixels turn to squares and blot out.
-ck- says: “I’d even settle for a butter emporium!!!”
July 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Where did you see the spread about the margarine museum?
Spazeboy has a diary up at dkos. Why don’t y’all go show him some love: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/17/10383/8620
By the way, am I the only one who finds it funny that Holy Joe, the sexual scold, is holding out JFK as his exemplar of an inspiring President? Maybe if Bill Clinton had been nailing a mobster’s girlfriend or a blond movie star, HoJo would have cut him some slack. Joe, Joe, think of the children!
OT, for Ohio folks:
Boehner is really, really corrupt.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenat.....n/15101812
Hey everybody!
Two things
That photo has a digital code. It’s photoshop work, I think.
And,
I am conflicted about earmarks myself, having been able to see beneficial aspects of the process. The money goes directly to the need, bypassing local pols who would steal it for themselves. They are also an obvious way for congress to pay back the people who get them elected, including the people who did nothing but vote.
Every president I have lived under has asked for the line item veto, and everytime one does, the public’s unwillingness to trust the men they have elected to run their country prevents it coming to pass. These are the two poles we would normally be operating between, had it not been for Dick Cheney.
Ned Lamont needs to win for many reasons, but the most important is the message it sends. We are coming. Oversight will return.
“Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall.”
Norske at 95, Ms. K8 has been around, but says her offline situation keeps her from posting much at present.
looseheadprop at 89:
“Does anybody know how to either enlarge or zoom in on the photo at Taylor Marsh?”
I downloaded it and did just that, but unfortunately the pic resolution is awful so all you get is just blurred pixels even at normal resolution. Zooming in just makes it even more blurred. Sorry :-(
I am just curious — how many people have dealt with the Congressional earmark process here? They are not generally “just sllipped in” they most often have to be passed by committeees in both chambers and also passed by both houses in the final version of a bill. Then, of course, they must be signed by the President and made law. Earmarks generally account for a very very small portion of any agency’s budget. They do not come out of nowhere, but actually set aside (earmark) specific money from an already-approved budget line (like a bridge earmark will come out of the Department of Transportation’s budget). They are not quite as anti-democratic as some here portray, any more than the fact that Monrtana has two senators just like California is anti-democratic. That is, they are part of the great political sport of concession and compromise. Earmarks are part of the Congressional Record and can be discovered like any other piece of legislation. Therefore, any Senator’s innapropriate earmark activities can be discovered and used in a political campaign against them.
Yes, there are abuses, but not like people are suggesting here. In a better system, each district would be allotted some amount of discretionary funds (earmarks) for special projects. As it is, earmarks are the bellweather of partisan politics. When the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, the Republicans screamed about earmarks — it was in fact one of the primary reasons the Republicans bleated about the need for a line item veto back when. Now that the Republicans are in control, we complain bitterly about the abuse of earmarks. I am certainly not a proponent of the seniority-gets-earmarks system as ideal. And perhaps the earmark baseball bat is a useful political tool against Republican corruption right now. But I do not think earmarks are the predominent evil most of you are suggesting they are.
siun 58, the audio confirms that BLAIR said that.
Check out the back wall. There are several more of those bottles icin’ down.
nice bar, eh T? good catch.
Christy #54,
Yes, and there are two more chilling along the wall to Bush’s left. I’m sure it was brought with him for the trip, nobody else at the table had one.
Even if it’s near beer, my understanding is they still have a minor alcoholic content. Can’t imagine that’s a good thing for a dry drunk.
BarbaraB(99). I would like to use the word “ironic” to describe Hojos professed admiration for the famously randy JFK, but now that the preznit likes to use that word and I feel it has become tainted.
lhp at 86 –
I agree that one good earmark doesn’t save the corrupt aspects of the system, and it is sort of weird that I am supporting the earmark process, but, as I suggested — I have been bought off by the good my own little earmarks have accomplished. Work that otherwise would not have happened….
1,206 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOES ON AND ON…
Leslie in CA,
Thanx, I don’t get around here much anymore so please advance my good wishes…she’s one a those we can’t aford ta lose.
KEEP THE FAITH AND SEND ALL THE BASTARDS TA IRAQ…WE’D BE OUT IN 15 MINUTES!!!
http://photos1.blogger.com/blo.....king.0.jpg
for a slightly larger version (found by following the links via Taylor’s blog)
We could argue all day about whether earmarks are good or bad or both, but we are dealing with the perception among the general public that they are generally frivolous, which is not being well-tolerated these days. The truth is that the people will tune out of a wonk-y explanation of earmarks, so Joe, if he tries to go this route, is just going to look like he is defending a process the American people really don’t like - even if they should.
The fact is that there ought to be better ways to carve up the pie, and saying “earmarks should be eliminated” is one way to begin the process of identifying those ways.
Thanks, Angie and LHP. Proud to fight alongside you.
Immanentize, like signing statements, the problem is not necessarily in the function of earmarks, which have their place.
It’s in the rise in 10 years from under 1k in the 1996 budget to 14k in 2005. It’s in the sheer dollar numbers(32.7 billion in 2004) involved in a budget out of control.
When your kid abuses the atm card, you take it away from them.
When Congress uses earmarks in the same way, time to put them on a stricter allowance.
Big picture of Bush as Foster Brooks with a bottle in front of him…
Christy Hardin Smith says: “…is that a beer bottle in front of Bush in this pix on Taylor’s blog?”
July 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
At first, I thought it was a Beck’s dark beer when I looked at the picture. It could also be a Warsteiner Premium Dunkel (dark beer), but it’s hard to tell from the picture.
What’s the line that comes to mind as a possible caption for the picture? Is it “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy”?
imman — okay, but should we then separate two issues: (1) Should congress have a means to designate (”earmark”) specific appropriations for specific projects? Answer: of course, provided these designations are properly overseen through the public budget process. (2) Should that earmark/designation process be outside normal congressional budget oversight? Answer: No. No one should be allowed to slip in an earmark outside that public oversight process, and it shouldn’t matter who the party/majority is.
I always read you making a third argument: things aren’t perfect, and this is one of those greasy things that makes the system work. We should accept it. Do you mean only when the Dems are in charge? Or is that okay when the current crop of Rethugs are in charge with a Rethug President?
Well, he looks drunk as the famous skunk.