Barack Obama has requested the equivalent of $1 million in new pork-barrel spending for every working day he’s been in the U.S. Senate, while John McCain has never once asked for an earmark, and Gov. Palin has vetoed hundreds of millions in government spending including killing the infamous ‘Bridge to Nowhere’,” Bounds wrote in an email response. “Just like so many other issues Barack Obama is all talk, has no record to back it up and isn’t ready to make change.”
And here’s what McCain spokesman didn’t say:
Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to Nowhere!!
Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.
However, Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.
Let’s look at this a second time
However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.
Obama and Biden preferred the bridge to nowhere to Katrina releief?

Can NBC check this story?

Now Can you define “hypocrite”?

According to Merriam-Webster:

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

With that in mind, let us tune in to Barack Obama’s attack against John McCain today:

“Don’t be fooled,” Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. “John McCain’s party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge” for nearly eight years.

“I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she’s change, and that’s great,” Obama said. “She’s a skillful politician. But, you know, when you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it’s convenient, and then suddenly you’re the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can’t just make stuff up.”

First of all, if words REALLY mean something, maybe we should consider some of the words that are directly linked to Barack Obama. I think the words, “G-d America!” should mean something, too.

But that aside, let us consider Obama’s earmark record. According to The Hill:

Obama has released all the earmark requests he offered since being elected to the Senate in 2004, which totaled roughly $740 million over three years.

That same article concludes with this wonderful sentence:

Last year, Obama took in $91 million while McCain earned nothing because he did not request any projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Here is a list of Obama’s earmarks, in his own “But it was all for worthy causes” words.

I wrote an article about Sarah Palin and earmark spending. To put it is a single sentence, Sarah Palin is a Governor who reduced her state’s earmarks by 63%, nearly 2/3rds, since taking office. It’s still high in Alaska (for reasons the article describes), but it is only a third of what it used to be. To portray her as a “pork queen” when she has cut pork like no other governor, is beneath the level of cheap. She has done everything she reasonably could do – and much more than any other governor – to cut a vicious cycle of pork that has characterized Alaska for decades. She has often found herself on the other side of her own party in the process. And if she can do it in Alaska, she can do it anywhere.

What’s wrong with earmarks? The very idea of earmarks represents everything that’s wrong with Washington insider politics. They are requested and awarded purely on the basis of special interests. They are inherently tainted with fraud, waste, abuse, and quid pro quo political patronage. They are tacked on to other, legitimate issues without review and are funded entirely by deficit spending.

John McCain has always opposed them; Sarah Palin has a documented history of fighting them tooth and nail in her own state, and has been painstakingly winning the battle. Meanwhile, the guy who has benefited from $740 million dollars is talking smack while studiously ignoring the log in his own eye.

Barack Obama – the same guy who asked for $740 million dollars as a politician in one office, has asked for zero dollars since announcing his candidacy for another office. Maybe you see that as a radical conversion; I view it as radical pandering.
Published By Michael Eden

Let me tell a true story about our local school board.

We had a police officer on the board who really REALLY wanted random drug testing of all extra-curricular activities students.
This was just after a US Supreme Court decision that said you could.
6 months in the process despite all the outrage from parents he still was adamant. The kids needed protecting despite their parents wishes.

Then the final proposal was handed to him which included a 6 month ban from any extra-curricular activity with no challenge to the medical result allowed.

His response?
“There is no way I can vote for this!!!
How the hell is a 6 month ban on activities anonymous? We may as well hang a druggie sign on the kid!
And no challenge?
I am a police officer. Remember?
False positives come in ALL the time when you have large enough numbers.
I want Random Drug testing … but not THIS Random Drug testing plan!

In other words
He was FOR random drug testing BEFORE
he saw the fine print and realized he was AGAINST it.

What was in the fine print on the bridge to nowhere?

*BTW – This example is just as valid for positions Obama switches on.
He THOUGHT XXXX was a good idea. Then when he saw the fine details … woops! Not THIS plan!”

Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark — or stipulation — that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.

The state took much of that for other projects, and Palin on Friday said the Ketchikan project was $329 million short of full funding.

“It’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Palin said.

“Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened,” she said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20908207/

Only after requesting and receiving millions of dollars in earmarks.

Gee, what a reformer!