Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge to nowhere

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 



Originally posted by SectionEight
Or how about the one defending gang members from ever having to face the death penalty for murdering in the gangs name? That is one I would just love to see him try to defend in the Ohio swingstate during a debate.


Those type of questions would most likely come up in an open Town Hall type of debate, the type that Obama will not agree to. Most likely, all the debates will be moderated, and the questions depend on who the moderator is.


reply to post by maybereal11
 


Originally posted by maybereal11


It's strange that something McCain opposed strongly...he didn't show up to cast a vote?


Do we know why McCain didn't show up to vote on it? Maybe he was out of the country? He has visited Iraq a number of times, for example.




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The bridge to nowhere was slid into section 186 of an appropriation bill for the Dept. of Transportation, Treasury & Urban Development. This bill covered almost every salary and expense of every major area in our government! It also provides money for the Office of Civil Rights, new headquarter buildings for the Dept. of Transportation & the FAA, for Alaskan railroads(passenger operations) & our railroads in general, our highways, harbor maintenance, maritime security, merchant marine academy, ship disposal, hazardous materials safety, pipeline safety/oil spill fund, emergency preparedness fund, financial crimes enforcement network, U.S Mint, community development, IRS, tax law enforcement, by-pass bridge at Hoover Dam, driving safety, child safety education, public housing, homeless assistance, housing for elderly & disabled, fair housing & equal opportunity, lead hazard control, operating expenses of the White House & executive offices, and drug control programs. If you want to continue to read the rest, go right ahead...I read enough to understand why so many people voted for this...its unfortunate that in an important bill stupid pork projects like the bridge to nowhere slide their way in. At this point with all the infuriating lies going around from the camps of candidates...I'm ready for this election season to be over.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Fact of the matter is 93% of the U.S senate voted for this bill. That includes republicans and democrats alike. So there must of been something good on the bill. This topic will fade away the more information is found out.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
One last thing, which should be one of the final nails in the coffin. Louisiana's two senators both voted with Biden and Obama. So the Katrina argument doesnt work either.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Actually no, the Coburn Amdt. No. 2165 to the bill H.R.3058 would have taken the funds from the bridge to nowhere and transfered them to the reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge. Landrieu and Vitter from Louisiana voted for the amendment.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Wait... I don't remember Obama and Biden claiming that they "Stopped that bridge to nowhere"... Can someone provide a link?

That's the important issue here. Not how they voted, but the hypocrisy of Palin's claim that she stopped it, when in reality, she started it AND THEN changed her mind when it was politically advantageous and is using it as some sort of proof that she's a "maverick", when she asked for the funds in the first place.

Unless Obama and Biden claimed to vote against the bridge, I'm not sure of the point of this thread. Can I ask the OP... So what?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Fact is that Obama and Biden sided with the good old boys club in the Senate and voted against stopping the bridge and using the funds for Katrina reconstruction efforts. To criticize Palin for being for it and then against it when they themselves are not only voting for it but also voting against shifting the funding is a bit hypocritical isnt it?

The fact also is Obama and Biden should be asked if they supported the bridge when the voted for it , but then I dont see the media doing that..

And really they should be answering the question why they voted against shifting the funding to the katrina effort, because if they had of done that then the excess money wouldnt have been sent to Alaska after the project was cancelled.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Obama has made many promises with respect to abuses in earmark spending. While I locate the most appropriate one, have a look at this interesting blast from the past.

In February 2006:




Senate War Of Words: McCain Accuses Obama Of 'Partisan Posturing' On Lobbying Reform

There's an unusually angry feud on Capitol Hill between two high-profile senators over the contentious issue of lobbying ethics reform.

Republican Sen. John McCain accused his Democratic colleague Barack Obama of "partisan posturing" on the issue — a charge Obama called puzzling and regrettable.

...

Based on past Obama statements, "I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable," McCain wrote in a letter to Obama on Monday. "Thank you for disabusing me of such notions."



[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Wait... I don't remember Obama and Biden claiming that they "Stopped that bridge to nowhere"... Can someone provide a link?

That's the important issue here...the hypocrisy of Palin's claim...

Unless Obama and Biden claimed to vote against the bridge, I'm not sure of the point of this thread. Can I ask the OP... So what?


Here you go.



From August 2006:




Senator Barack H. Obama (D-IL) appeared recently before the Senate Federal Financial Management (FFM) Subcommittee to ask a question that should be heard more often from his colleagues: "How can we expect the American people to have confidence in us when all they hear about is overcharging and overpayments, pork-barrel projects like the Bridge to Nowhere, and money being wasted on frivolous expenses? How can we expect them to have confidence when the Administration and Congress seem unwilling or unable really to hold people accountable?" Obama noted that even United States Senators experience difficulty in obtaining quick, accurate information about Federal spending.

Coburn-Obama Effort To Curb Wasteful Federal Spending



What was that about hypocrisy?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



Kinda sounds like Obama is taking credit for stopping that earmark, either that or he is bringing attention to his own vote on that earmark........ which was what again BH? Oh wait how he voted wasn't important, I forgot.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I like the title of Loam's article:
Coburn-Obama Effort To Curb Wasteful Federal Spending

When you start reading it who else do you notice introducing it and supporting it......Take a guess?



Obama has teamed with Coburn, Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), Ranking Member on the FFM Subcommittee, and Senator John S. McCain, III (R-AZ) to introduce S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act,


So after voting for these pork barrel earmarks, Obama gets on the bandwagon opposing them, I sense a pattern here.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Double post, this thread is acting up on me.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by pavil]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
First, thanks for all the information.

There are 7 versions of this bill. I have no idea what they voted for or why. And I personally don't care.

I do know that the money was slated to go for the bridge and the vote was to redirect that money to go for rebuilding New Orleans (not Katrina relief). There's so much to look at and I'm not really interested in defending this one vote of Obama's, especially considering the following:



GOP Scours Obama Votes for Election Ammunition

Sen. Barack Obama’s short voting record in the upper chamber includes a number of controversial votes likely to surface in national GOP attack ads aimed at taking down the surging Democratic candidate.

Republican researchers are poring over the Illinois Democrat’s three-year Senate voting record, looking for fresh fodder to be used should Obama become the Democratic Party’s nominee.
...
Also, Obama and 81 other senators opposed an amendment in 2005 to strike the infamous $231 million “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark for Alaska and redirect that funding to help with rebuilding New Orleans.

The Senate rarely backs efforts to strike another member’s pet projects.

If Obama faces McCain in a general election, he may be hit over the earmarks issue. Unlike McCain, Obama voted with most of Congress for the 2005 highway bill, which included an eye-popping 6,000 earmarks worth more than $24 billion.


It seems as though even though he has petitioned against wasteful spending, he has supported it, too, as he voted with most of Congress on a lot of them. (Personally, I was against rebuilding New Orleans, myself, so I can understand a vote against diverting funds for something I consider a waste.) But that doesn't address the apparent hypocrisy in Obama's statements.

Still, Obama's not running around getting his party all riled up by lying to them about a project he supposedly "stopped" when he was the one who started it. He did not take credit for stopping it!


So, the GOP found some ammunition and seized on it. Good on ya.
That's really my position. No one is claiming that Obama is perfect. He's a human being after all. And a lot better than the alternative.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No one is claiming that Obama is perfect.


Actually, that's been my greatest beef with his campaign and many of his supporters. They behave as if he's perfect.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He's a human being after all.


Exactly. I'd like that standard applied to ALL of the candidates.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And a lot better than the alternative.




And that's the American way...


[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Ummm....actually that's not the major point.

I think the intent was to highlight the ridiculous Palin earmark debate.


The difference is that OBAMA/BIDEN did not make this a central theme in each and every stump speech. PALIN did, she ran with, smiled and lied through her teeth.
There would be no discussion on the bridge to nowhere if this was not the case.
OBAMA/BIDEN never made this a central positive in their rhetoric, MCCAIN/PALIN did.

Ball is the GOP's court, they framed the game --- your move...



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Actually, that's been my greatest beef with his campaign and many of his supporters. The behave as if he is...


I'm sure that's a subjective argument. I have never seen anyone behave as if Obama's perfect. Okay, maybe 2 people. But jeez. I'm not going to hold that against him or his campaign. Some people need a star or hero or, heaven forbid, a Messiah. But hey, compared to the crap we've had for high-level politicians in this country lately, he looks pretty damn honorable.

Nobody's perfect. My husband isn't perfect, but you can believe I ADORE him (it's nearly worship).
People don't have to be perfect to lead, to gain respect, to be "good" for the country.

Not to mention all the other aspects of who he is and what he plans for the country that I wholeheartedly agree with.

I like John McCain and I have said so. There was a time I would have voted for him. But I freaking hate Sarah Palin. Sorry. In my opinion, she's Cheney in a skirt, as evil and underhanded as he is if not more so. So, she's not going to get the benefit of being "only human" from me, because I'm not sure she is.

THat's not to say that I think others can't love her. They do. It's cool.

I don't want to go too far off topic, so I think this particular subject might be better discussed elsewhere.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Interesting OP, thanks for the info. My point of view is that the main reason this is a 'issue' that has stuck to McCain / Palin is that she claims to have been against it when she was not. If Obama / Biden have made similar comments I am sure it wills tick to them as well. Time will tell.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 



Originally posted by mental modulator
The difference is that OBAMA/BIDEN did not make this a central theme in each and every stump speech. PALIN did, she ran with, smiled and lied through her teeth.


You mean her one speech?

Also, was Obama not smiling when he appeared before the Senate Federal Financial Management Subcommittee? Was that the difference?



Originally posted by mental modulator
OBAMA/BIDEN never made this a central positive in their rhetoric...


And need I demonstrate every place where Obama discussed earmark reform as part of his campaign promises?


[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Hindsight is 20/20

The only problem with this is that the "Bridge to Nowhere", when they were voting in October 2005, didn't have any negative connotations associated with it. It wasn't until 2006 that the bridges started to become infamous for the money being allocated to it.

Voting against something before it turned negative isn't as big of a deal compared to Palin during 2006, saying "I support it", only becoming an opponent of it after federal funding was cut in Congress, and still saying "thanks but no thanks" and keeping the 200+ million dollars for her state.

If Obama and Biden had voted against redistributing the money after it became apparent that the money was going to go to waste then I'd say it was hypocrisy, but at the time it was just considered a bridge, a bridge that many people in the government apparently supported and one Repulibcan Ted Stevens of Alaska even went as far as saying he'd quit the Senate if it was changed or shot down.



[edit on 13-9-2008 by davion]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I can agree with much of what you said generally, even if I disagree with your conclusions about the specifics.








new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join