I might give you that McCain has requested fewer earmarks than Obama, but I need to do a little bit more research before I concede the point.

However, the idea that McCain requested no earmarks is plainly wrong.

The Washington Post found this nugget of correspondence sent from McCain to the EPA when he was soliciting funds for a wastewater project in Arizona after Congress had rejected the request:

"I would like to request that EPA either re-program $5 million out of existing funds or EARMARK the amount from an appropriate account."

Got it?  Once again the myth of the Maverick is a far cry from the  reality.  Sorry to say JW, my friend, but stuff like this is why McCain is losing.

Since even they publish their opinion that McCain doesn't write earmarks into bills. Granted, a request to an exectutive department to spend money might be called asking for an earmark, but it's not quite the same thing. The money had already been appropriated and it would require the oversight of the EPA to authorize the change of expenditure. Let's say we give you this one. It's still BHO 860 over four years - McCain 5 over 26. So that makes it
BHO 215,000,000/yr - McCain 192,000/yr
Or 215 to 0.192
Or 1120 to 1
Yea, close

BHO asked for 860 million but only received less than 100 million, while Senator Clinton received over 300 million, but that just proves who was a more effective legislator.

-- Modified on 9/28/2008 10:46:27 PM

I knew you were going to compare earmark totals and argue that McCain could be excused because he only asked for $5 million.

Truth be told, I didn't quite follow your argument about the money already being appropriated.  As I read the article I thought the spending McCain wanted had been cut out of the bill.  But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

The point I was making is that McCain is lying.  He's tooting his horn about never asking for an earmark when he plainly did.

And I only included the one example because it's the first one I found.  Fortunately, google seems to have a liberal bias too:

In 2006, McCain teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.

In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill to create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric:  the McCain move was not requested by President Bush or fully authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee - two of McCain’s criteria for identifying so-called ‘pork.

Maybe Obama requested more earmarks.  You probably got me there.  But only one of the candidates is boasting that he NEVER requested an earmark when the opposite seems to be true.

adding verbage to a bill, usually unrelated to the purpose of the bill, to spend money, typically in one's home state or district.

Your example, while called an earmark, was (if true) McCain asking the EPA to 'earmark' a portion of their budget and spend said money in the manner asked.

A legislative earmark typically does not fall under the direct control of another agency. Rather it is 'law' that the money be spent as prescribed.

In your example it would still be at the discretion of the EPA as to whether or not the 'earmark' took place.

BTW, 'MAYBE' BHO requested more earmarks? Are you really going there? LOL

An appropriate analogy is. We saw McCain taking a leak behind a tree in the woods but he said he always uses the head. While BHO openly shits in the middle of the street, daily.

-- Modified on 9/29/2008 8:26:23 AM

See RWU, that's the problem with communicating this way.  When I said "maybe" BHO requested more earmarks I was conceding the point.  That was like me saying "Okay so MAYBE I'm a drunk.  But at least I'm a happy drunk."

But to the point, my other examples would seem to indicate that McCain asked for some earmarks, no?

So the way I see it, the basic thrusts of our positions are this:

I'm okay with Obama requesting earmarks and you're okay with McCain requesting fewer earmarks and then lying about it.

Although I wonder if it bothers you that under governor Palin, Alaska receives more earmark money per capita than any other state?  Or is it only bad when democrats request earmarks?

You never responded to my assertion (or question really) that if BHO doesn't think McCain is lying who are you or I to argue. Like I said, he should hire you.

As to your questions, if you search my history here you will find plenty of examples of me criticizing Republicans for all sorts of overspending.

BTW, You're right in that I shouldn't have presumed that you are using words according to their accepted definitions and that you feel free to redfine them at will.

C'mon, RWU. You're a smart guy.  It's silly to quibble over the definition of "maybe."  

I'm glad you criticize republicans for overspending.  Congratulations.

I guess I'll answer your question with a question - because Obama doesn't say McCain is a liar about his earmark statements does that make McCain's earmarks statements true?  Obama didn't explicitly call John McCain a liar when he said on the View that Sarah Palin didn't ask for any earmarks as governor.  No matter what your politics, RWU, that's a plainly untrue.  

I'll ask you - do you think McCain lied when he said Palin didn't request any earmarks as governor?   Maybe you can use words in their accepted definitions when you answer that one for me so there won't be any confusion.

By your standard unless Obama says McCain is lying it means McCain is telling the truth.  I suppose that works in Right Wing land but back here on planet earth that's a little silly.

I wouldn't characterize my discussion of the word ‘maybe’ as quibbling. I declare forthrightly that you were redefining the word. I’ll add now that it was done in attempt to minimize our differences. Your use of the word ‘quibble’ carries the same weight. You’re trying to minimize the issue.

I’ve said twice now that BHO should employ you on the McCain earmark issue. Why would I do that it I didn’t think that your arguments would be effective for him (i.e. you make a good point)? I also gave you counter reasoning as to the difference between legislative earmarks (the subject at hand) and lobbying an executive office to shift spending, but as of yet you have not responded to that assertion.

Yes, McCain mischaracterized Palin’s actions as Governor. Are you now suggesting that this thread evolve into which side can point to bigger ‘fibs’ by the other side? You really don’t want to go there.

-- Modified on 9/29/2008 12:11:07 PM

Even Kethie O apologized and said he was wrong MAC was right on that point So if Kethie agrees MAC has had 0 earmrks your arguments are screwed