McCain's Earmark Lie
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-15-2008 - 9:19pm |

McCain's Earmark Lie: Palin actually grubs $1 mil/day as Gov. by Kagro X
Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM PDT
Last week, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, hadn't sought earmarks or special-interest spending from Congress, presenting her as a fiscal conservative. But state records show Gov. Palin has asked U.S. taxpayers to fund $453 million in specific Alaska projects over the past two years.
It's been 652 days since Earmark Queen Sarah Palin took office as Governor of Alaska.
In that time, she's hustled for $453,000,000 in federal lipstick pork.
That's $694,785.28 a day. Six hundred ninetey-four thousand, seven hundred and eight five dollars and twenty-eight cents. Every day. Even Sundays!
Palin was grubbing six hundred ninetey-four thousand, seven hundred and eight five dollars and twenty-eight cents out of the federal trough on the very day when John McCain looked America in the eye and said she was taking zero.
And she took it again today, too.
And she took it on every one of the 312 nights she spent at home and billed the Alaskan taxpayers for it.
So why say it's a million dollars a day? Well, first, let me show you what Slick Sarah Palin is telling people:
On the campaign trail, Gov. Palin has repeatedly attacked Sen. Obama on earmarks. "Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in three years. That's about a million for every working day," she said at a rally in Albuquerque, N.M.
Ohhhh, this feels like it's going to get embarrassing in a second....
And, behold! Look what "The Math" says!
It is difficult to compare Sen. Obama's earmark record with Gov. Palin's -- their states differ in size, for instance, and the two candidates play different roles in the process. But using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama.
Not only is Palin taking much more, but oh my word if the million dollar figure doesn't actually fit her sooooo much better than the person she's trying to use it against! What a surprise!
So that's almost a million dollars a day, whether she showed up at the office or not. A million bucks, plus $60 in her pocket for defrosting one of her own mooseburgers for lunch.
And really, Palin must be asking herself, why not chisel the Alaska state government a little bit? After all:
The state's earmark requests stand out in part because its state government is among the wealthiest in the U.S. Flush with oil and gas royalties, it doesn't impose income or sales taxes. In fact, money flows the other way: Every man, woman and child this year got a check for $3,200.
Gosh, but they're such rugged individualists up there! They're gonna launch themselves into orbit with those bootstraps, don'tcha know?
A million dollars a day. From you and me. Plus $3,200 in the bank for each one of 'em. And $60 in Sarah's pocket for every lunch at home. (Like every working mom, of course!)
It's the new fiscal responsibility, in John McCain's seven house-owning, $5 million middle class living world!

Pages
What do you call a group of people that never see their own faults or if they do, they ignore them and continue to do what they have always done, yet, they point out other people's flaws that are smaller or just like theirs or make up flaws that don't even exist?
delusional.
How else could John McCain and Sarah Palin say the things that they say even though the two of them are doing the opposite? Pointing out the competition's flaws always draws attention to your own. We can verify earmarks John and Sarah. lol.
<<< "Agree with her on policy issues or not, I'm just really shocked that there are so many women here who support the attacks against Palin. Talk about a slippery slope."
*** What do you mean by this statement? My interpretation of your comment is that you think women should support her simply because she is a woman. Or women should be nicer to her because she is a woman. And what is the 'slippery slope' you are referring to?
Both…there are both political and gender issues here for women, just as there are both political and racial issues for blacks concerning Obama, and I personally think it's appropriate to have a care for all of the social issues in play here.
Now it’s fine to disagree with Palin or Obama on the issues, but the attacks on Palin haven’t been limited to the issues…they’ve been attacks on her looks, her family, her parenting and even whether she should run at all as a mother with children…and many of these are from so-called “feminists.”
With every personal attack, these “feminists” are cutting their own throats and the throats of “professional” women everywhere…and that’s the slippery slope. Think of the damage they’re doing to the perception of working women. They’re essentially saying that “women belong in the home raising the children.” And what happens when the next liberal “mom with kids” steps into the picture? When these hags try to support her (because she fits their ideology) all of these attacks will resurface and the hypocrisy will be staring them right in the face…to the detriment of their cause and the achievement of women.
Well I'm new here so maybe if I trolled though the post history I would know but since I don't want to spend hours doing that maybe you can answer this question? Were you equally outraged at the personal attacks that Hillary Clinton faced both from women and from men? Or is your outrage that more women than men seem to be criticizing Sarah P?
I don't think it is a slippery slope at all - women, and working mothers in particular, have always had a delicate balancing act. Unfortunately the so called moral majority specifically has often been especially harsh on working women and now suddenly it seems a bit hypocritical that they are suddenly behind a previously unknown woman in a show of support for a working mother with some 'family issues'. Many women resent that 'liberal' women have felt their scorn for years and now suddenly they are for this woman who does not represent so many of of them.
Women are not 'one size fits all' they don't have to support Mrs. Palin just because she is a woman, It counts that the first time a woman reaches the top she is someone who has 'paid her dues' and does not have the appearance of being 'window dressing' or the achievement is minimized. I don't think men understand that having held the power for so long. Mrs. Palin has simply not been 'in the trenches' as it were in the same way that Hillary was, or that many other women have been.
*** Were you equally outraged at the personal attacks that Hillary Clinton faced both from women and from men? Or is your outrage that more women than men seem to be criticizing Sarah P?
I recall charges of “sexism” being leveled by the Clinton campaign, but I didn’t see these kind of personal gender/mom/appearance/family attacks thrown at Hillary, and certainly not by other women.
*** I don't think it is a slippery slope at all - women, and working mothers in particular, have always had a delicate balancing act.
The actual circumstances may be a “balancing act,” but the societal premise was that “women should be able to do it all.”
*** Unfortunately the so called moral majority specifically has often been especially harsh on working women and now suddenly it seems a bit hypocritical that they are suddenly behind a previously unknown woman in a show of support for a working mother with some 'family issues'.
Why wouldn’t they support Palin? She shares their values and despite the propaganda, not everyone in the “moral majority” things “women belong in the home.” The hypocrisy lies with the feminists who intentionally set back the “cause” of women because Palin doesn’t share their liberal ideology.
*** Many women resent that 'liberal' women have felt their scorn for years and now suddenly they are for this woman who does not represent so many of of them.
Not every woman is as hung up on abortion rights as those on the far left. Palin represents them as a woman and as a working mom. Sometimes you have to choose your battles and take the victories that are offered to you.
*** Women are not 'one size fits all' they don't have to support Mrs. Palin just because she is a woman,
And yet, these feminazis think that every women…in a one-size-fits-all” block…should be against Palin because she doesn’t believe in abortion. It’s hypocritical.
*** It counts that the first time a woman reaches the top she is someone who has 'paid her dues' and does not have the appearance of being 'window dressing' or the achievement is minimized.
Odd that black folks don’t have the same reaction when an inexperienced community organizer is running for President. I guess you don’t have to “pay your dues’ if you’re a (black) man.
But as far as Palin is concerned, what kind of “dues” is she supposed to pay? She’s accomplished the American dream…small town hockey-mom joins the PTA…then City Council…then becomes Mayor…then is elected Governor…all with a record of working for the people and with a HUGE approval rating…and then she’s tapped to run for the VP of the US. I don’t know what other “dues” you need.
*** I don't think men understand that having held the power for so long. Mrs. Palin has simply not been 'in the trenches' as it were in the same way that Hillary was, or that many other women have been.
Are you serious? “Hillary’s been “in the trenches?” Hillary’s big accomplishment was being married to a former President! Her big “healthcare” initiative was a complete failure, and she only won her Senate seat because…AGAIN…she was Bill’s wife. When did she, or Obama for that matter, ever RUN anything? Palin, on the other hand has run a town and a state…experience that’s leaps and bounds over Clinton or Obama.
Well I don't know how black people feel about it since I am not black and that is actually beside the point since the question I asked referred to Palin and women.
Holy Christ, that post was unquestionably the best laugh I've had in weeks, taken as a whole.
However, I'm genuinely confused about your "grammar police" rant. Not that it wasn't a significant part of the hilarity, in a "call the waaaaaahmbulance" sort of way, but - did you misspell something in your previous post? Because that sure wasn't what I was talking about. You spelled "recognize" correctly, as far as I remember....and I don't tend to point out spelling mistakes for no reason, as lord knows I've certainly made syntax mistakes in my own posts: I'm often under the gun, time-wise, and sometimes (on re-reading), find out I've left out whole words, or double-typed others. So unless the spelling mistake is particularly relevant to the discussion (which isn't often), I tend not to mention it, on the "everybody makes misteaks" principle.
Sometimes - rarely - errors are both obviously NOT simple typos, but genuine gaps in basic knowledge AND relevant to the discussion. For example, if someone were to say "I just think it's so bias to call Republicans stupid or uneducated," I might feel constrained to act as the prestidigitating hand of cruel reality by drawing our membership's attention to the gut-busting irony of a sentence which objects to the inaccurate and mean-spirited practice of calling Republicans stupid and/or uneducated, but which also omits the "ed" (obviously not just a typo) from the word "biased."
'Cuz....you know....that'd be sorta funny and stuff. ;o)
Anyhoo....in re: have I been discussing politics long? I'm not going to bother to ask you to reveal intimate personal details of your private life - nor do I intend to share mine....but let's just say I can pretty much guarantee that one correct answer would be "longer than you have," LOL. But regardless of the accuracy of that statement, I noticed a distinct lack of links in your, ah, "refutation" of my point that Democrats had significantly reduced earmarks from the previous reigns of their Republican counterparts. Your "explanation" (that'd be the one with no links supporting it) was that "the standard practice of politicians is to simply reclassify their bloated budgets into other areas." If that's a "standard practice of politicians," than can anyone tell me whether it would therefore logically follow that Republicans would be as likely to do it as Democrats? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
If you answered "why, yes....yes they would," then go to the head of the class! If you answered "oh, no, the Republicans never try such budgetary shell-games or chicanery to hide their own overspending and waste," you get to stay after class and clean the erasers....and write a two-page paper on the topic: "Iraq War: Supplemental, off-budget Appropriations Requested by Republican Congress and Administration For."
Not that I would ever say anyone answering the latter was stupid. Just likely either misinformed or mendacious....or perhaps, simply, WRONG. Next canard!
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
this was in the Washington Post
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Oh, cripes:
Or how 'bout:
Wait, you wanted a woman doing it. How 'bout Maureen Dowd?:
Or this one:
Yeah....no personal stuff in any of THAT.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
I found
Pages