Republicans Defend Palin's Earmark History, Say She's Changed

Hatuey · 09-03-08, 11:20 PM

Republicans Defend Palin's Earmark History, Say She's Changed - Yahoo! News

Quote:

When her nomination was announced Aug. 29, Palin declared that she had "told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere" -- a reference to the nearly $400 million appropriation for a bridge project to connect an island of 50 people to the mainland in Alaska, which became the focus of national ridicule and prompted a renewed congressional soul-searching about the propriety of earmarks. But, in fact, Palin supported the project as a candidate for governor and only turned against it after she took office, by which point it was no longer politically viable.

In addition, Palin sought millions of dollars worth of federal earmarks when she was mayor of Wasilla, and had that city of 7,000 hire a lobbyist to go after the federal funds, and as recently as this February requested almost $200 million worth of new funding for Alaska projects, according to The Washington Post.

Republican lawmakers asserted that Palin, like so many other Republicans in public office, had seen the flaws in the earmark process and come around to supporting a moratorium -- a policy change that several dubbed courageous.

"All of us here, I think, would consider ourselves recovering earmarkers," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the chief deputy GOP whip in the House.

The Republican lawmakers pointed out that the 2008 GOP platform, which delegates adopted Monday, called for "an immediate moratorium on the earmarking system" until the appropriations process could be reformed "through full transparency."

"In picking Gov. Palin, Sen. McCain has said he is going to take on the Washington establishment," said Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. "He is going to fight the status quo whether it be in the Republican Party or in the Democratic Party."

But Democrats slammed Palin as a slick politician and questioned McCain's judgement in picking someone who had so short a public resume.

"You can praise her as someone who played the inside Washington game well, but you cannot present her as someone who is a reformer on earmarks," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the chairman of the party's House campaign operation, who's in St. Paul this week to offer the party's spin on the convention. "The facts just tell a different story . . . What we're seeing here is the consequences of a rush to judgement and a rash decision by John McCain. I think it tells you an awful lot about the way he makes decisions on the fly."

I have to wonder how does one go from supporting ridiculous earmarks for your state in February to being a 'pork barrelers nightmare' in August.

Joby · 09-03-08, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I have to wonder how does one go from supporting ridiculous earmarks for your state in February to being a 'pork barrelers nightmare' in August.

Easy. Start running on the Presidential ticket.

It's not like she's going to have to convince the most intelligent people in the world.

danarhea · 09-04-08, 12:38 AM

Changed?

OK, so why is she in this picture with indicted Senator Tubes Stevens? Could it be because she was a director of Stevens' 527? Yup, it sure is because of that. LOL.

Captain America · 09-04-08, 12:54 AM

Dude, if the federal government waved a billion dollars in front of my state and my governor didn't pick up on it, I'd never vote for him/her again.

She was representing ALASKA then. Not the US. It was her job to look out for the interest of her state and bring in as much revenue as she can. I am sure that, as VP, she would look out for the interests of the US just as diligently as she looked out for the interests of Alaska.

RightinNYC · 09-04-08, 01:01 AM

Asking for earmarks is one of the main ways in which small towns get funding. If she hadn't asked for earmarks when she was mayor, she wouldn't have been doing her job.

Now, she's in a position where her job description doesn't include asking for earmarks. It's perfectly normal to expect that her position on the issue would change.

A defense attorney might think a criminal is guilty as sin, but they're bound to provide them the best representation that they can, however they can. If that attorney later becomes a judge and cracks down on procedural maneuvering by defense attorneys that is designed to slow down the docket, is that person suddenly a hypocrite?

Hatuey · 09-04-08, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Asking for earmarks is one of the main ways in which small towns get funding. If she hadn't asked for earmarks when she was mayor, she wouldn't have been doing her job.

She said she opposed the bridge to nowhere BEFORE she became VP pick.

Quote:

Now, she's in a position where her job description doesn't include asking for earmarks. It's perfectly normal to expect that her position on the issue would change.

In other words it's okay for her to support earmarks and then oppose them.

Quote:

A defense attorney might think a criminal is guilty as sin, but they're bound to provide them the best representation that they can, however they can. If that attorney later becomes a judge and cracks down on procedural maneuvering by defense attorneys that is designed to slow down the docket, is that person suddenly a hypocrite?

English?

Captain America · 09-04-08, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

She said she opposed the bridge to nowhere BEFORE she became VP pick.

In other words it's okay for her to support earmarks and then oppose them.

English?

C'mon Hatuey. RightNYC made perfect sense. That's very easy to understand bro. What part didn't you understand? Maybe I can help.

RightinNYC · 09-04-08, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

She said she opposed the bridge to nowhere BEFORE she became VP pick.

How does that weaken my point?

Quote:

In other words it's okay for her to support earmarks and then oppose them.

It's okay to advocate for two different sets of constituents at two different times.

When Obama was a state senator, he was representing his district's interest against those of the other districts in IL. When Obama became a Senator, he was suddenly representing his whole state's interests against those of the other states. Those IL districts which he had previously worked against didn't hold his past actions against him, because now he represented them as well. Now he's running for president, and seeking to represent the entire country's interests. The other states which he's worked against aren't holding it against him, simply because he advocated for IL over IN or OH as a Senator.

Quote:

English?

She was just doing her job.

rathi · 09-04-08, 01:44 AM

Lobbying for federal money that is wasted on so few people is not doing her Job. She took money that should have gone to other states, and now she should have to answer to those states. If you want to be vice president of the U.S., enriching your town at the expense of the nation is unacceptable.

RightinNYC · 09-04-08, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Lobbying for federal money that is wasted on so few people is not doing her Job

How do you define "wasted?" What makes you the arbiter of where things should go? Don't you think...Congress is in charge of that?

Quote:

She took money that should have gone to other states, and now she should have to answer to those states.

How do you determine what "should" have gone elsewhere?

Quote:

If you want to be vice president of the U.S., enriching your town at the expense of the nation is unacceptable.

I don't think she was planning on running for VP when she was the mayor of Wasilla. That's part of her appeal.