Gov. Palin the "reformer" is actually an earmark champion!!

reply to post by northof8


And poet1b,

I just want that you point me out where in this thread is the baiting and trollishness that the new guidelines seek to get rid of.

To the contrary, in this thread facts and figure are being debated and people on BOTH sides have made good arguements.

This is a thread were Gov. Palin words are been put against her record and actions. This is the type of discussion is completely legitimate.


[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by poet1b

Ironically, shortly after taking office as governor, Palin got an unambiguous forecast on earmarks from Stevens, who signaled in 2007 in a speech to the Alaska legislature that federal budget writers were taking note of the state’s budget surpluses and “the billions of dollars in our Permanent Fund” from burgeoning oil revenues. The earmark era was coming to an end.

Warned Stevens: “To them, the question seems simple: if Alaskans are unwilling to invest in a project, why should the federal government?”

community.adn.com...

I understand that Gov. Palin reduced earmaks request, but the question in why? I think she realized that the pace in which the state was requesting earmarks got Congress so fed up that she had no choice but to tell their people that it wasnt going to be that easy anymore. Thats what Sen. Stevens told her at that time. Face with reality she had no other option than to reduce the earmarks request.

That to me is falls short of reforming.




[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by Bunch


The thread seeks to distort the issues, and use them to hide behind personal attacks against Palin.

Examples

Right at the start of the thread, the op talks about how much money Alaska receives from Earmarks, but fails to acknowledge how much she has reduced Earmarks for Alaska. The whole thread is a complete distortion of the reality, long ago debunked.

Then you follow up, "Talking about buying your votes!!"

How the heck does reducing earmarks by almost 50% equate to buying votes. If you could show Palin increased fed funds to Alaska you might have a point, but just the opposite is true. This is blatant distortion of the facts, not an honest discussion of the facts.

"Hypocrisy at its finest" describes this thread.

Then you go on to claim " in her first chance that she had to introduce herself to the nation and outright lie to the country proclaiming herself as a "reformer" and an agent of change only goes to show you what she really is, just another politician trying to move up."

She didn't outright lie, she did decrease earmarks, she did sell that jet, she did not use the money to build a bridge to nowhere. this is just a personal attack on your part. You are calling her a liar when this whole thread is a lie and a distortion.

A 50% reduction is considerable bragging rights as a reformist. Whatever warning she may have, or not have received form congress about earmark directions, she in cut earmarks to Alaska by 50%. That is Above and Beyond doing the minimum.

The thread is trolling by distorting the facts and immediately turning to personal attacks against Palin.

reply to post by poet1b


Dude, dude....poet!

This is discussing Gov. Palin's public record, isn't it?

I don't think anyone has, recently, gone into any personal attacks against her, only her record has been discussed.

Public record, regardless of any attempt at refutation here online....are still public record.

What seems to happen, and this is not limited to just any Party, is a 'spin' occurs....this means, selective memory, and 'selective' reporting.

BUT, a few words of human-speak notwithstanding, the printed pages of history tend to tell the whole story. Humans revel in rhetoric...but, as Jack Webb used to say...."Just the facts, Ma'am".

Originally posted by bknapple32
Its hypocrisy at its finest.

You mean like Obama voting twice for the Bridge to Nowhere ( Obama and Biden Voted for Bridge to Nowhere ) and then criticizing it as pork?

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 a candidate's hypocrisy?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by loam


Sorry, loam....am trying to ascertain your point.

It seems, from the links you provided, that you are supporting Sen. Obama's record, in the Senate, along with his bi-partisan strategy....but your words seem to support Gov. Palin.

I'm not an expert on 'earmarks'....I'm still spooling up on the subject, because they're now hot topics....and I've heard of 'lobbyists', of course...

Thing I'm having trouble digesting is, the Lobbyists who...well, 'lobby'..for 'earmarks' do it on the Congressional/Senatorial level. THEN it bubbles up to the Governor (in this case)??

If there are any 'behind-the-scenes' shennagins (and, I ain't accusing, just asking) then further study might be warranted.

EACH side needs to be thoroughly vetted, in my opinon.

Also, McCain's top 7 people on his campaign? Lobbyists. Hmmm, who will own the White House if he's elected?

reply to post by jsobecky

Thank you for making my point. Earmarks are an indictment of Washington, and not of the states that are forced to play their games.

I would like to know then......why did she say "thanks, but no thanks".......AND STILL TOOK THE MONEY???