Glasnost and Detente
There was a vote yesterday on an amendment to the 2009 budget, which would have placed a moratorium on Senators’ earmark spending for one year. It failed 29 - 71. From CNN:
Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor of the amendment.
“We’re disappointed that only 29 members of the U.S. Senate understand that the American people want us to stop this practice, which has led to corruption,” McCain said.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Earlier, Obama made public his requests for earmarks, after McCain challenged him and Clinton on the spending measures.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they’ve asked for and turn back the money that hasn’t been spent yet.
Part of what attracts me to Obama and his campaign is the call for transparency and openness. That’s why he’s released his tax returns, and why he immediately released, in great detail, a list of earmarks he’s requested during his three years in the Senate. This way, people can pick through them and determine what he’s done for his district, but also whether he’s granted special favors to donors or friends.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the Earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained that earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker’s seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects “fail to address the real needs of our country.”
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Clinton, to her credit, released hers late last night, as well.
Also, Obama approached Clinton on the floor of the Senate to discuss the tone of the campaigns of late. Specifically, things like Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro, and yesterday, Mark Penn testing a “if not Hillary, then not Obama” strategy, which the Obama camp mocked the crap out of here.
transparent and open? Obamamanlove, explain this: Says:March 14th, 2008 at 7:26 am
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vkjmPWtGong
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Looks like a very poorly written and researched hit piece. (i before e, except after c. One who advised your campaign is an “aide”, not an “aid”. “In fact” is two words.) Usually, negative pieces like this have the decency to cite facts alleged therein. I’d love to see a cite to where Obama spoke out “against universal health care”.
Also, example:
The scroll makes it seem as if he received millions from Exelon. The actual amount is just over $222,000. “Millions” sounds better than “over 220 thousand”.
I’m sure if you tried harder, you could find an attack “ad” that at least was structured in some way and used proper spelling?
Fran Says:March 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Why can’t people accept Barack Obama for who he is? The time has come for change in Washington. The time has come for Barack Obama. He is the JFK of our time. We don’t have to be embarrassed as Americans anymore to be proud of our country once Barack is President.
Barack doesn’t take money from special interests. I don’t think America has a future without him.
LC Scotty Says:March 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
I’m curious for your take on this, BP.
When it was a lapel pin, I said “So What?”
When it was his folded hands during the national anthem, I said “meh”
When it was Michelle Obama telling us she’d never been proud of her country, I chalked it up to a poorly worded rhetorical flourish.
When I see his pastor, a person whose words he has repeatedly defended and embraced, saying things like God Damn America (because the government drugs our black men and then imprisons them for being high), or that we deserved 9/11, it starts to get difficult to ignore. I realize that Obama didn’t compose Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, but he has gone on record supporting him. How would you react if you were sitting in church and heard that sermon. Would nod and say Amen, or would you get up and walk the fuck out? It’s starting to look like the Obama’s are nod and smile types.
So, we have McCain with the endorsement of Homophobic scumbag Hagee, and Obama with the endorsement of America-hating Wright. Fanfuckingtastic.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I obviously disagree strenuously with those statements, and think they’re silly. I don’t know if I’d get up and walk the fuck out, but I know for a fact I wouldn’t nod and say Amen, and there’s no evidence that Obama was present for the sermons at issue, much less that they nodded and smiled.
I don’t think that every Catholic thinks homosexuals are sinners, I don’t think that every Muslim is anti-Western, I don’t think that every Calvinist is hard-working, and I don’t think that every Jewish person keeps Kosher. So, pinning the beliefs or pronouncements of a religious leader on all his flock is, I think, a bit of a reach.
I will suggest, however, that religious leaders held in high regard by the right have said things just as infuriating (if not more so) in their public pronouncements. Yet Republican candidates seldom condemn them. Instead, they embrace them.
So, if McCain was to go after Obama for the words of Obama’s pastor, then McCain is very vulnerable indeed for the words of the people whom he counts as religious advisors.
Russell Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
With Obama and Wright, it’s not just an endorsement. This is a man he admires, views as a mentor, and said he considers like a part of his family. Personally, I have left a church for comments that did not go nearly as far as Wright’s and I stopped all financial support as well. Furthermore, I would never associate myself with any organization that even thought of honoring Farrakhan. Maybe that’s just because I don’t have the courage and character Obama must have to just sit there and tacitly support these statements and actions. It must take a real man to not stand up for what you say you believe in.
And Fran, I really hope those last two sentences were just tongue-in-cheek.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Russell, since you have all the answers to everything, and your decisions are always above reproach, I recommend that you immediately seek the nomination of your party for President of the United States.
I know there are loads of people who remain members of the Catholic Church in spite of its leadership’s decades-long cover-ups, (which some would term a tacit support), of pedophilia. Are you saying that anyone now still a member of the Catholic Church’s Boston Diocese, for example, is a tacit supporter of pedophilia with no courage or character?
Because you just said that someone who remains a member of a church led by a Pastor who sometimes says and does outrageous things is just that.
minterests Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am
A comment about the vote of 27 - 71 - Is it possible McCain, Obama and Clinton voted this way because they knew there were not enough votes to pass the amendment? I am not attacking anyone, and I would like Earmarks better controlled but I was just wondering!
LC Scotty Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:43 am
There is no question that guys like Hagee, Robertson, Falwell and a whole host of others are reprehensible scumbags of the first order, and that these guys have considerable traction on the right. Russell very aptly points out the difference.
If Jeremiah Wright was just some pastor that endorsed Obama and said those things, this would not even be on my radar. But he’s not-he’s Obama’s pastor. We don’t know if the Obamas were present on those particular days, but is it safe to think that this sort of rhetoric was typical. If I were to sell copies of, say my blog posts, I would use those that I was most proud of, and that best outlined my positions. I would argue that the same is true of Jeremiah Wright. In view of the fact that these are the sermons that Wright has selected for sale, it seems reasonable to suppose that this sort of rhetoric was commonplace. By putting those sermons up for sale, it seems like that’s the stuff Wright is most proud of, so it seems safe to assume that those sentiments and statements would be somewhat commonplace.
I really thought the lapel pin/hand on heart nonsense was pretty weak tea, but this really concerns me.
LC Scotty Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Minterests,
I don’t know about Clinton, but McCain and Obama both have decent track records on earmarks (Obama has disclosed all of his, and co-sponsored the Obama/Coburn deal creating an earmark database) so I don’t think those two were playing games-they probably voted their on their principles.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I honestly don’t think that Obama is going around thinking, “yeah, God Damn America” or embracing Farrakhan. He seems to be a guy who doesn’t get caught up in the trappings, but the substance of patriotism. If the guy hated America, he wouldn’t be running to lead it.
Russell Says:March 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
BP, there is a difference between the Church and a church. People in the US regularly change which church they attend based at least in part on the leadership of that congregation or a particular preacher. Changing religions is a different matter. I don’t think every single person that belongs to a particular religion believes absolutely everything that religion says, even more so with the less hierarchical religions. But I do think you can understand a whole lot about a person by whoever their specific spiritual leader is. If a person tells me their preacher is Farrakhan, it’s pretty safe to imagine some of what that person believes, just as if someone had told me Rav Kahane was their Rabbi. If a person points to someone as their mentor and spiritual leader, they must really respect and admire what that person says and does.
As for your example, I think anyone that continued to support a specific church that still had a priest there that was a pedophile and supported that priest, I would think they’re tacitly supporting what he did, yes. You don’t agree?
I don’t think I’m above reproach and I think it’s a very sad commentary on the current state of society if you think that my standing up for what I believed in and doing something about it makes me the best candidate for President. I’ve never said I have all the answers, but I know I have some. Obviously you think you have plenty yourself. Isn’t that why you ran for office and run this site?
I also think that when someone tells you you should expect more from him and hold him to a higher standard, it’s pretty bad when he can’t even rise above some of the lowest standards.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I’m wondering whether you have heard every sermon that Mr. Wright has ever given.
I personally think it goes beyond the individual perpetrator, and that the cancer had spread upwards to the people who enabled their misdeeds by shifting pedophilic priests from parish to parish. In those cases, there were actual, human victims. In Wright’s example, there are no victims.
No, I’m poking fun at you for always knowing what’s right and best. You can be quite sanctimonious and preachy.
Yep. But I seldom tell people what I “would” and wouldn’t do in order to make the point that it is the only reasonable or acceptable way to do it. I’m a bit more open-minded than that, just as I’m open-minded enough to realize that the angry words of an angry preacher as depicted on Fox News might not necessarily be the same opinions held by any particular member of his flock. I realize that there are simpler people who cannot see the nuance or distinction there, and that’s why Obama should come up with a way to nip this whole nonsense in the bud.
Huh?
Russell Says:March 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The fact that after months of this story circling around leads me to believe that Obama cannot nip it in the bud. And there’s probably good reason why.
No, I haven’t heard everything Mr. Wright has said. I haven’t even heard everything the people I hold in that esteem have said, but LC put it best. These are some excerpts on what Mr. Wright himself is using to peddle himself. It sure seems like Mr. Wright is saying these are among his best. These do appear to give a darn good glimpse into what Mr. Wright believes and preaches and their not just on FoxNews because I cannot even tell you when the last time was I had that channel on. I know I did hear them today on NBC. ABC and CNN.
Have you heard everything Farrakhan has ever said? Are you so open-minded to dilute yourself into thinking those are just angry words and his followers don’t believe those things? You’re so quick to condemn so many preachers and their followers on the fringes of the right. Why are you always so selective with your judgments? I guess your mind only opens on the left side of things.
If you go beyond the individuals to hold the whole leadership accountable, then you must agree with me that people supporting the individual have to be at least tacitly supporting the actions. No other conclusion is possible from that point you offer. That blows your whole argument.
And is that the measure? Should we honor Farrkhan because no human was directly victimized by his words? I heard on NBC this morning someone making the point that Mr. Wright’s word about 9/11 victimized the victims and their families again. There, are you happy now? You have some vicitms. Besides, you’re an attorney. You don’t think that words have power or consequences?
And my examples usually aren’t what I “would” do. They’re things I have done to show that I’m not just blowing hot air. I’ve never said these are the only things that can be done. I’m just saying I’ve done it and someone like Obama should be able to do so much more.
And to your “Huh?” Obama has been telling us for months now that he’s different and we should expect more from all our politicians and especially from him, yet I’ve never seen any actions from him to back that up. I have seen plenty of opportunities for him, but never any actions. He sure seems like any other politician to me, just a little less accomplished at that level.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You’re right. Vote McCain. After all, he’s got the support of an anti-gay, anti-Catholic, anti-black, anti-Jewish preacher, and there is no - zero - outcry on the right demanding that McCain so much as repudiate Hagee’s beliefs, much less denounce or reject them.
That’s the standard, right? Whether or not the candidate repudiates the crazy preachers with whom they’re associated?
LC Scotty Says:March 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
BP,
I need more time to think about this. I don’t think that the analogy between Wright’s church and the Catholic church holds, but I am having trouble forming a decent counter-argument.
Maybe it’s the scale? There’s probably 200 Catholic churches in the Boston area, making the scandal sort of distant. In other words, it happened in other parishes, or if it was our priest, he was only one of several. I’m also pretty sure that the parishioners, while still embracing catholicism in general, were disgusted by the actions of the individuals (perps and enablers alike) With the Obamas, there’s not that distance or scale-in this case the person being reprehensible is not from another parish, or far up the food chain, but he’s the guy that the Obamas see nearly every Sunday.
I’m also not trying to assert that I think Obama swallows everything this guy tosses out. I’m pretty sure his mindset isn’t God-Damn America, but I am starting to doubt that it’s really God Bless America. Is it somewhere in between? Or is this an area that he disagrees with Wright on?
For the record (if it even needs to be stated) I completely reject the notion of Obama as some sort of Manchurian candidate for any anti-American group.
Maybe I’m just reading too much into this? Maybe I’m just too eager to see the presumptive Democratic nominee fall flat? That could be why I’m leaning towards thinking that this is how the Senator thinks. I wish he’d come out and address this in a forthright manner.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I’m sure there are loads of people who are rightfully concerned about this, and Obama does need to address it more strongly and unequivocally. I’m sure they’re working on it as we speak. Meantime, Limbaugh and his ilk are merely re-confirming that they won’t be voting for Obama in the general.
I am loath to ascribe the beliefs or words of one person on another. No matter how tight the bond.
eac Says:March 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
well, you know it’s bad when even James Carville is claiming he’s had enough of the resignation-calling stupidity.
Can we get away from “who’s got the most bigoted friends/supporters/advisors/etc” to “which candidate is gonna fix this place better and faster?” Seems more worthy of debate, somehow.
LC Scotty Says:March 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
BP,
Since I spend most of time studiously ignoring turds like Hagee, I’m not very familiar with his bloviations. The anti-gay/catholic/jewish stuff is fairly typical of evangelical Christian preachers-do you have an example of anti-black?
Russell Says:March 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
BP, LC put it well and I’m glad you finally acknowledged it. I think people should be concerned that it has already taken this long for him to address it.
Try to remember that the point was that this is his spiritual guide, not just some preacher that endorsed him. Even if you don’t think that bond or distinction matters, plenty of people do.
And seriously, you need to get over this childish response all the time that this thing might be bad, but it’s not as bad as what your candidate did or said. If your guy is as good as you say and as different as he claims, he should be able to stand on his own, not just in relation to others’ shortcomings. Obama claims to be opposed to that kind of campaigning anyway.
Buffalopundit Says:March 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Of course LC put it well.
Russell Says:March 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Yep, and you easily get caught up in messenger over message, so he was able to cut through that, too. It’s another sign of your open-mindedness.
Pauldub Says:March 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Actually I prefer eac’s take. Neither Hagee nor Wright are running for office.