ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First thoughts: Becoming John McCain

Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:19 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Becoming John McCain: When it comes to the topic du jour -- legislative earmarks -- it’s fascinating how the political world turned President Obama into … John McCain. That’s right, for those of us who followed the two-year-long presidential campaign, it was McCain who crusaded against earmarks, not Obama (who instead said he would work to reform the process and make it more transparent). In fact, had earmarks been the public’s top concern in November, the Arizona senator probably would have won the election. But, as we all know, it wasn’t. “As president of the United States, I want to assure you, I've got a pen … and I'm going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk. I will make them famous. You will know their names,” McCain said at the first debate. Obama countered, “[L]et's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing … $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.”

*** Obama’s reform: Yet at 11:20 am ET today, President Obama will make an announcement on earmark reform, which comes after the Senate last night passed its $410 billion omnibus spending bill that contains $7.7 billion (or less than 2%) in earmarks. Of course, Obama deserves some of the blame (or credit) for all the focus on earmarks. He celebrated the fact that his stimulus didn’t contain earmarks. Also, given the humongous price tag of the stimulus, the bailouts, and the home-foreclosure plan, it was inevitable that every bit in extra spending -- i.e., $7.7 billion in earmarks -- would receive extra scrutiny. And during the campaign, in response to McCain’s rhetoric, Obama promised to reform the earmark process. “When I'm president,” he said, “I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” What has gone largely ignored, however, is the philosophical debate over earmarks. Indeed, one person’s wasteful spending and pork is another person’s important project and constituent service. After all, unless your name is John McCain, chances are that your constituents back home expect you to bring home the bacon. As the Washington Post points out, only five senators didn’t add pet projects to the omnibus: McCain, DeMint (R), Coburn (R), Feingold (D), and McCaskill (D).

*** CYA time: But let’s also make no mistake: Today’s announcement on earmark reform is intended to give Obama cover for signing the omnibus legislation, which he’s expected to do today. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, per the Washington Times: "Although it's not perfect, the president will sign the legislation, but demonstrate for all involved rules moving forward that he thinks can make this process work a little bit better.” But does Obama sign the bill publicly? It is important to note that the president set himself up a bit for today's criticism, since he decided to jump on the anti-earmark bandwagon and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was one of the more aggressive anti-earmark members when he was in Congress. Emanuel, in fact, was among the first to go public with his requests and push the disclosure angle. In many ways, Obama wants to take a victory lap today, noting that his push for disclosure is among the reasons we know who ordered up what earmark. Still, congressional Dems did him no favors with allowing this leftover bill to be on THIS president's desk rather than Bush. The Dems got a bit greedy.

*** Desperately seeking another spokesman: As voices from the left -- especially Nancy Pelosi’s -- keep alive the chatter about a second stimulus, the White House is looking for another spokesman to talk about the economy. White House aides admit it's difficult to find a strong voice, other than the president's, that can inspire the same level of confidence in dealing with the economic crisis. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't have the same perceived Yoda-like hold over Wall Street that his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, had in the '90s, although Bernanke’s comments yesterday did provide some comfort to investors. Treasury Secretary Geithner was hailed as a potential savior when Obama appointed him, but stumbled early. But last night, Geithner was on “Charlie Rose.” And now the White House is pushing out chief economic adviser Larry Summers and Christina Romer -- who appeared on TODAY this morning -- to play more public roles. They need one or more of these four key folks to catch fire among the muckety-mucks on Wall Street.

Video: Christina Romer talks about how Obama is handling the troubled economy.

*** Strings Attached: Isn't it good news for the government bailout plan that some banks want to give the money back because they don't like the strings? The New York Times: "Some bankers say the conditions have become so onerous that they want to return the bailout money. The list includes small banks like the TCF Financial Corporation of Wayzata, Minn., and Iberia Bank of Lafayette, La., as well as giants like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. They say they plan to return the money as quickly as possible or as soon as regulators set up a process to accept the refunds.” Also, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that some investors now don't like the papers they have to sign to participate in the TALF investment plan to buy up toxic assets. Isn’t this what Congress wants to hear? 

*** The never-ending recount: As we’ve said before, the Minnesota Senate race -- which has now extended 127 days since Election Day -- will someday, somehow come to end. And today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports, we’re reaching another milestone as Al Franken’s (D) team calls its final witnesses in the trial over the recount. This means that the trial will soon be over (but that also means that we might be headed next to the state Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court). Appearing on Capitol Hill yesterday, Franken said, "I believe that we're going to win the election contest, and after that Sen. Coleman (R) can choose to do what he wants." Then Franken predicted that Coleman would appeal the contest to the state Supreme Court, if the Republican loses the election trial.  and

*** Michelle Obama watch: The first lady, celebrating International Women’s Day, heads today to the State Department, where she will join Secretary Clinton in presenting the Secretary of State’s Award for International Women of Courage. Tomorrow, she travels to Fort Bragg, NC to visit with military families.

Video: Rachel Maddows reports on Michelle Obama's visit to Fort Bragg.

*** Remember him? And remember John Edwards? He spoke in public last night, and the lead to the story was about the topic he did NOT address. “Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards took another tentative step into the public spotlight tonight, speaking at Brown University about extreme poverty around the world and urging Americans to get involved in what he called a ‘fundamental moral issue.’ Edwards, a two-time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has struggled to get his message heard since a scandal about an affair he had with a former campaign staffer enveloped his personal life.”

Countdown to NY-20 special: 20 days
Countdown to Obama’s 100th day: 49 days 
Countdown to NJ GOP primary: 83 days
Countdown to VA Dem primary: 90 days
Countdown to Election Day 2009: 237 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 601 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

...they fear a wave of inflation or hyper inflation, so the people who are voting with their money are not voting in favor of these policies.

Decoded: The very rich hate Obama just like they hated FDR. Under FDR we saw the expansion of the middle class and a shrinking of the Court of American Royalty.
-------------------------------------------------
Give me a break Pat.  We all vote with our wallets.   And all of us, rich and poor, are going to be affected by the inflation around the corner.
Brain Crooks - Until the President is given the power of a line-item veto, he can do little to combat earmarks short of vetoing every bill.

================

So veto the bill. Either that, or admit he lied when he was campaigning. It's not like Obama didn't know the process.
Last, we didn't write that Obama is the same as McCain. We were pointing out how the political press and Obama's opponents are holding him to a cause that wasn't his -- but was rather McCain's. And now, under criticism for earmarks in last year's spending bill, Obama is today rolling out his proposal to reform them.
I just have to say, I am getting exactley what I voted for, I want the rich to pay more taxes, I want it bad. Its has nothing to do with punishment, it has to do with paying the price for the freedom you have to stick it to the little guy every chance you get. This little guy can be your employee, he can be your client, he can be a small investor thats is fed the crap stock. He can be the guy who has to pay the highest intrest rates because he has the least. Really the h-ll with you rich people, it really is time you paid for the great lives you have, we dont owe you, you owe us. You get the biggest breaks on everything, when you buy a house, you get the break, when you buy your car or boat, you get a big break, you know it and I woulnt mind if you had to pay 45% instead of 39%. When you ask is there a war against the rich? I say I want to be a Captain in that fight.
 I can do without John Edwards,  I was  between Edwards and Obama, settled on Obama, when I learned of Edwards affair, I lost all respect, forget him, hes trash.  I dont know Mrs Edwards, but anyone deserves better than that.
 As a true liberal, I am glad Gitmo is being closed, glad our troops will come home from Iraq (one day). Hope we finally find a way to catch or kill Bin Laden, I think that is a big priority. Glad congress is looking into the crimes by Bush and Company. As I have the patience of Job, I will not make hasty conclusions about our economy, it really did take 20 or more years to get in this mess, with the help of the last 4 administrations, including Clinton (nafta,cafta,closing military bases). So as my pride in my county soars again ( I wasnt real proud for the last 16 years), I say God Bless America !!!
pat, ny --> Earmarks are not all bad and wastefull, per se.

Earmarks are taxation without representation. How did your congreesman/woman vote on the earmarks? He/She didn't you say? Someone else just stuffed them in a spending bill with no vote taken? That's taxation without representation.
Shut up about earmarks. Who cares! Some of the earmarks create stimulus for states.

Hasn't the press already sunk so low during the last 8 years that they lost credibility?

Start writing about the news....start earning the respect from the public.

The Republicans have no message and no desire to work together with Democrats to help this nation. How sad for America.
I'm confused. Six of the ten biggest earmarks were requested from Republicans. 40% of the total was from Republicans. Yet they voted against their own earmarks, because why? Because they are complete hypocrites and only voted no because they knew it would pass. If it was in trouble, they would have voted yes. Even that slimeball Lindsay Graham was on MTP saying he'd add the Myrtle Beach convention center earmark again if it didn't pass, even though he was voting no??? He claims as a US Senator, he has the right to bring home the bacon to SC. I say, ok, but then why is it wrong for the Dems to bring home that same slab of bacon to their states? It's just complete nonsense and I sure hope the country is paying attention! Thankfully, David Shuster takes this on each night with his fabulous Hypocrisy Watch.
Last, we didn't write that Obama is the same as McCain. We were pointing out how the political press and Obama's opponents are holding him to a cause that wasn't his -- but was rather McCain's. And now, under criticism for earmarks in last year's spending bill, Obama is today rolling out his proposal to reform them.
Mark Murray


This is absolute blather. Come back to reality. Obama ranted about earmarks and wasteful spending on the campaign trail, and how he was going to clean it up. First chance he got to prove it, Obama failed. Revisionist history doesn't cut it MSNBC. Once again, you are way out of line and way behind the truth curve.
I like how Obama Bashers have nothing positive to say.  But please tell me how does it feel to be apart of the GOP, the same people that ran the global market into the ground and let fools take over planes bring down a tower when the attack was preventable. they have never started to rebuild and a plan didn't get under way until now.....HUMMMMMM.  The GOP had the whole world laughing at us..... But notice they are starting to shut up because "THE DEM'S ARE BACK"......... Once again we clean your mess up,  From Surplus to Nothing.... & from Nothing to Surplus..  
Hey Stephanie in Prescott. that's not entirely true. He did ask for them before running for president in 2000. Also, he had that snake Kyl add them to his bills or pass them under the radar. So don't hold ol McCain in too high esteem. He's just a grandstander who is trying to make up for his dad's disgust of him.
President Obama would have to lose several million brain cells in order to become John McCain. That statement in FR is laughable. On the topic of future earmarks, however, I would like to see the names of the people asking for earmarks and what they're asking for transparent for all of us to see. Let the people decide whether or not their representatives should hold the seats they current occupy or whether they should be replaced in the next election. That should settle some of them down a little.

Diane from Illinois (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:45 AM)
_________________________________________________

I completely agree that those requesting earmarks should be called out and identified. But I wouldn't expect it to have much impact. Most people probably don't view earmarks going to their state or district as bad, only those to other states and districts.

Personally, I think all this talk about earmarks is a big distraction. They are a fact of life and not likely to go away. They've been a way to get money for pet projects and a way for senators and congressional representatives to get support on their bills. It is part of the negotiation process.
Pedro. Earmarks are added because if someone wanted say, that convention center in Myrtle Beach, like Lindsay Graham does, they do it as a tag on to another bill.Otherwise, it would take years to get that money through the system. That's the same for many road and other infrastructure projects. I don't want my money going to an illegal war in Iraq, but it's going there. I don't want my money going to the banks, but it's going there. You can't pick and choose where every tax dime goes. You can elect those that share your priorities, which is EXACTLY what the American people did on November 4th!
southern liberal, columbia,s.c.- I just have to say, I am getting exactley what I voted for . . .


Unemployed?
LB Virgina

I'm confused. Six of the ten biggest earmarks were requested from Republicans.

---------


So? An earmark is an earmark. Why isn't Obama cleaning those up, just like he promised he would?
Obama rambles on and on how he is going to make the banks, the congress, the health care industry, the <fill in the blank>, be "Accountable". So who's keeping an eye on Obama? Who is making him accountable?
I usually like Fineman, but he needs to shut his trap.
----------------------------------------------------
Typical.  You like Fineman until he dares to cast a doubt about Obama, and then he needs to shut up.  
I dont understand this whole line of thinking that the rich are going to be paying more taxes. My understanding was that Bush LOWERED their tax rate from 36% to 33% in an attempt to stimulate the economy (which didnt work) with the provision that the rate would return to normal in 2010 which is exactly what is happening. Noone is raising taxes on the very wealthy they are just returning to the non discounted rate.

The whole thing reminds me of the athlete who signs a 3 year contract today then wants more money a year later.  

Please explain to me how the taxes on these people are being raised and why they are in such a rage about returning to their proper tax rate after 5 years of discount.
Hey Stephanie in Prescott. that's not entirely true. He did ask for them before running for president in 2000. Also, he had that snake Kyl add them to his bills or pass them under the radar. So don't hold ol McCain in too high esteem. He's just a grandstander who is trying to make up for his dad's disgust of him.
----------------------------------------------------
I don't know where you get your information, either about his father or his alleged earmarks.  Probably the Daily Kos, because you haven't read any of his biographies.  Every nonpartisan watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense is a good one, can give you the info on earmarks.  His hands are clean on this one.
Diane In Illinois

Obama DOES have less brain cells than McCain with all those cigarettes he keeps sucking on.

Yours was a put-down. Mine's a fact.
To the Gate Keeper: Oh I agree the whole process is a mess and needs to be redone so that smaller money requests, or earmarks, can be done through the regular channels. However, my issue is with the Republicans who are out in force trashing the budget and the earmarks, some of which they put in there!!!
Stephanie, Prescott AZ: '...Say what you will about McCain, his conscience is clear and he's no hypocrite on earmarks.  He's never requested one in 27 years...'.

McCain got a BIG EARMARK for Charles Keating
McCain pressured regulators NOT ot look at Keating's criminal enterprise
That way Keating was able to keep swindling investors

Crooked Charles Keating was the Bernie Madoff of his day
He wasaided and abetted by John McCain

But, no earmark ???

To the Gate Keeper: Oh I agree the whole process is a mess and needs to be redone so that smaller money requests, or earmarks, can be done through the regular channels. However, my issue is with the Republicans who are out in force trashing the budget and the earmarks, some of which they put in there!!!
LB, Virginia

===========

All Republicans in congress are not for getting rid of earmarks. They are the pigs at the money trough just like the Democrats. It's wrong for both. Obama promised to clean it up. He hasn't.

So just who are we to hold accountable? I say both Obama and Congress. McCain and Feingold are the heros on this one. They need our support too.
If mccain was a true "leader" he wouldn't have just had theatrics going on earmarks, he would have actually accomplished something in that regard.  He's ineffective and actually pretty irrelevant in his own party - the republicans could have made a statement and followed mclames lead and removed their earmarks from the budget - but no, Kyle, Graham and the others just proved themselves to be hypocrits and leaders of the "do as I say not as I do" party.  
because republicans ARE bitter and DO cling to their guns.  

ANNA MOLLY -
This is the most stupid statement i've ever come from you. these shooters could very easily be democrats. Many criminals use guns to commit criminal acts. I assume you think all criminals are republicans too. wise up and don't make blanket, generalizing, ignorant statements.
It's a shame that this forum has been hijacked by all the anti-Obama nuts.  The President is doing a great job; no one can say he doesn't put in enough thought or hours to what's going on.  The last 8 years of Republican leadership as well as the 10 years (96-06) of congressional dominance left the country in a big hole.  Unsurprisingly, none of those responsible wants to help us get out of that hole, they just want to complain and complain in the hopes that once President Obama has made progress, they'll be voted in to ruin it yet again.  The government needs proposals, not tax cuts -- people who aren't earning money won't be paying taxes.  People who (in this economy) are still earning $250,000 or more (very few of whom are small business owners) shouldn't complain about having their rates go up marginally.
LB, Virginia (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:24 AM)
I too appreciate the David Shuster "Hypocrisy Watch".

Those lawmakers who vote NO to grandstand when they are up to their eyeballs in earmarks are just plain lunatics. Don't they know that in this new era of transparency we will know their names.
Candidate McCain vowed to call them out but he lied. If not, why isn't he railing against Sen. Kyl (R-AZ)?
Can you say HYPOCRIT?


"Last, we didn't write that Obama is the same as McCain. We were pointing out how the political press and Obama's opponents are holding him to a cause that wasn't his -- but was rather McCain's. And now, under criticism for earmarks in last year's spending bill, Obama is today rolling out his proposal to reform them. - Mark Murray
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you First Read for shining a spot light on this phenomenon.

I have been very dismayed that so many people have been calling President Obama a liar for breaking promises he never made.

I appreciate your clarification of the matter.
Thank you First Read for shining a spot light on this phenomenon.

I have been very dismayed that so many people have been calling President Obama a liar for breaking promises he never made.

I appreciate your clarification of the matter.

Nashville_fan



Ahh, the head Obama cheerleader has arrived, now we can start. Showing a little more leg today I see.
Ah yes, the all-too-predictable has happened again.  It came a little faster than I expected, but it did come.  Now that the glow surrounding our new king has diminished, the media have turned on their chainsaws for the next four years.  I wrote on this list before the election last fall stating that it didn't matter who won -- the media would do their job and turn the winner into chopped liver.  Obama is no different -- he is mortal like the rest of us (though liberal happy-children would beg to differ), and he will go the way of Jimmy Carter -- especially when the double-digit inflation kicks in and the truth of our economy being too chronically anemic to recover sinks into the head every average American.

The only part about this whole thing that perplexes me is that liberals were all hailing the pundits and poll numbers when Obama appeared to be in favor with the media -- now that he's becoming their victim, they all discount the media and everything it has to say (and yes, conservatives did the same thing with GWB).  Take the blinders off, boys and girls.  The media never was your friend, and Obama is no deity.  He has made some grave errors in the first few months of his presidency while dragging level-headed economists kicking and screaming, and now we will be paying for those errors for a long time to come (and please keep your mouths shut about GWB and the last 8 years, that point is nauseatingly clear by now -- Obama took the reins with the understanding that his mission was to fix the mess -- not reminisce about how it wasn't his to fix; and no, I'm not defending GWBs economic policies by saying that Obama is wrong and failing in his effort -- both administrations messed up -- and we the voters (or I should say, we the "stupid" voters) have no one to blame but ourselves.  We're supposed to look for the best qualified people to lead us based on the problems we're dealing with today -- not the cutest, most attractive, most eloquent, most influential, or most politically-correct -- this isn't senior achievement day, folks).  Until America decides to take its tonic, we will all continue to suffer.  No magic bullet, kids, is going to save us from ourselves.  Reagan handled his Black Monday the right way -- this fire needs to burn itself out.  We spent many years stoking the fuel for this blaze, now all we can do is wait for it to go out on its own.  Messing with it (especially if its the government) will only make our overall situation worse.

And as for Pat in Boston -- what would you be saying of Obama if his assessment of Iraq was wrong?  In fact, he has spoken nearly the same words GWB spoke 7 years ago after 9/11 -- specifically, use the best intelligence available when making decisions about foreign relations.  Bush made the same (stupid?) disclaimer.  Was Obama just a benefactor of fortunate dumb luck on Iraq, or did he actually know something?  We will never know -- nor will we ever know whether his "best intelligence" is any better than GWBs intelligence before the Iraq invasion -- until after it all plays out.  As with GWB, Obama will either look like a fool, or be heralded as a prophetic leader.  As for GOP plans -- they've been presented and discounted (yes, yes -- much the same as democrat plans were discounted during most of GWBs tenure -- tit for tat).  Just be sure to remember that conservatives and liberals can agree on two things -- bipartisanship is bogus, and the person in charge will make decisions that the other side doesn't like.  It's the American way -- like it or not.
At least watching someone trying to defending the indefensible is amusing to watch.

Johnny Walker

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Believe me, we know the feeling!  We were forced to watch, & listen to all of you for the last 8 years.


So what's Obama's point of trying to help the banks? See, Obama is obvioulsy not clear on what the overall goal of helping the banks is. The goal is to keep the banks liquid so the economy doesn't go from a recession to a depression. What Obama is doing is trying to score his usual amount of populous points by making it something that benefits him politically, and not the country. Now Obama puts so many restrictions on the money, the banks can't use it. So now we're back to the country being on the path of going from a recession to a depression.

This is what happens when you need a President that believes "Country First", but you get one that says "Me First"
Ken Randell, MT (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:04 AM)
___________

So we should just fork over the money to the banks and allow them to use it however they want, without any restrictions?  Isn't that one part of how this mess got out of hand in the first place?  Well, excuse us for trying to make sure it is used properly.

I always the love the "talking points against Obama, no matter what he does" campaign.  If he had given the banks money with no restrictions, all we would be hearing is about how he forked over all this money without any accountability whatsoever.  So, he tries to show accountability, and now all we hear is "how dare he".

The man can't win for losing.

The banks had it their way, and it wasn't working.  If they want government money, too bad if it comes with a little regulatory compliance.  Maybe they need a little bit of that right now.
Bobby in Bossier City

Anna Molly has been off her "game" for some time now. Looks like her radicalism is finally coming through.
Personally, I think Obama's misrepresentation of everything in sight is getting her down and it's affecting her judgement. Poor gal.
Obama DOES have less brain cells than McCain with all those cigarettes he keeps sucking on.

Yours was a put-down. Mine's a fact.
Molly Anna (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:43 AM)
_____________________

And yet American still preferred Obama to McCain.

Mine's a fact too.
Pat Boston and Sheila R, appreciate the thoughtful comments which are so true.  

FR says McCain would have won if the election had been about earmarks.  You did that to get the discussion going, good job.  I don't recall a single election that was ever about earmarks.

Amazing that the GOP and the media are like dogs with bones about earmarks.  Earmarks are how people back home get programs that are needed.  In the words of GOP Senator Kyl, his earmarks aren't earmarks by definition--what?  Their names are on the legislation.  As FR has stated, Pres Obama never said he would do away with earmarks, just that the process would be reformed.  Personally, why should he veto this bill?  Brian, Naperville is right, there is no line-item veto.  I don't think we need Government to shut down right now which is what will happen if the bill is vetoed.  We can't blame Congress for not getting it done last September because the economy went into freefall and they were kept busy by Paulsen and Bush dealing with TARP, failing banks, and car companies.    

If republicans are so outraged about earmarks, then why did they leave their 40% in the bill--sounds like they're saying GOP earmarks don't count, you only count the democratic ones.  Nonsense.  Sign the bill and move on.  

Speaking of that, it makes me wonder why Sen McCain has spent 27 years fighting against earmarks, 2% of the money spent, yet never achieved getting rid of them.  Is it important, yes, but if he was so dedicated to fighting earmarks, why are we still talking about it 27 years later?  Years ago, McCain could have proposed the legislation to reveal names on earmarks but it took Obama and democrats to get it done.

As for John Edwards, he messed up, as many others have, both republican and democrat.  Glad he and Elizabeth have worked through it and moved on.  Now it's time for the rest of the chattering class to move on, he and his wife are good voices for the poor and effective at bringing awareness to the rest of us.  

Good news, the banks don't like rules with their money.  They're really going to like regulations which should never have been discontinued.  Private companies drive the free market and with it comes unscrupulous, greedy behavior; it's the job of Government to regulate to prevent unscrupulous and greedy behavior for the good of the public, us.

I see the usual President Obama naysayers are out, he's inept, can't do anything right, blah blah.  Wishful thinking gets you nowhere.
Ahh, the head Obama cheerleader has arrived, now we can start. Showing a little more leg today I see.

- Give Me A "B" Give Me An "A"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lol

It's called being positive . . . give it some time . . . you'll get used to it! :)

I actively campaigned for President Obama's election and the implementation of his policies for two years . . . did ya really think I was going to sit back and not help him combat the forces of misinformation that always seek to distract us whenever real change is at hand?

Not a chance!

You know what is the most curious thing though?

Folks who remind us out of one side of their mouth that President Obama is not the messiah, and then out of the other side they bemoan the fact that the President has not magically healed the economy in 51 days.

Who's drinking the Kool-aid now?
Gate Keeper: '...All Republicans in congress are not for getting rid of earmarks. They are the pigs at the money trough just like the Democrats. It's wrong for both. Obama promised to clean it up. He hasn't....'

Actually, earmarks were John McCain's issue, not Obama's

That said WHY didn't McCain call out the ear markers ?

McCain PROMISED to MAKE PUBLIC those people putting in EARMARKS !!

McCain promised to EXPOSE Earmarks !!

McCain LIED !!

He was afraid to expose Mitch McConnell
He was AFRAID to expose Lindsey Graham
He was afraid to expose John Kyl

Some Hero

McCain LIED !!

By the way, can we have that money you spent on the banks back now? You know, just we can get something to eat, and maybe fix the roof? Many thanks.
Tyler Texas Joe (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:40 AM)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
First the TARP money was given to the banks by the Bush administration with (as usual) no oversight or strings.

Second the money was a loan and WE, the people, will get the money back with interest [9%].

Need I go on with all the errors in your statement?
I hope Franken sues Coleman personally to recover his lost senatorial wages for the delay.
I'm happy to see that someone finally pointed out that not all earmarks are necessarily bad. Many of them create much needed jobs. It's true that some are ridiculous - but most are not - they are projects that create jobs in a faltering economy.
Obama DOES have less brain cells than McCain with all those cigarettes he keeps sucking on.

Yours was a put-down. Mine's a fact.
Molly Anna
==========
It was MEANT to be a put down. McFossil has early Alzheimer's and shouldn't be anywhere NEAR the White House.
Until the President is given the power of a line-item veto, he can do little to combat earmarks short of vetoing every bill.
Brian Crooks, Naperville, IL
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
The Supreme Court has said the "line item veto" is unconstitional.
Like it or not the president can not over-ride the congress.
In fact, had earmarks been the public’s top concern in November, the Arizona senator probably would have won the election. But, as we all know, it wasn’t > FR this is by far the dumbest and most bias statement you guys have made so far this year.

Are you serious - how many Americans do you know that really gives a damn about ear marks to the point it could sway an election.

You media guys are some arrogant sons of bitches, how do you call your opinions - a fact.

Please stop with this BS, it ruins your credibility.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA
Juan,Ft Lauderdale,FL

You are missing the point of the Minnesota recount, if you feel less bad about Florida, because of the experience in Minnesota. In Florida there was no real recount, as a result people argue Gore won, others claim Bush won. Although clearly if some elderly people in Palm Beach county had not been confused, and if over 90,000 liberals hadn't thrown away their vote for Nader, there would have been no question and Gore would have easily won.

The problem with Florida was partisanship controlled the post election process. My neighbors to the north, have done everything possible to avoid a partisan recount. They have done this by following their statutory law, including the following, 1. In elections this close there's the mandatory hand recount. The hand recount follows a prescribed procedure. 2. The hand recount was open and transparent. People actually could watch it in person, or on TV (I would think with 10,000 plus lakes most Minnesotans would find more enjoyable activities, but the process was open to anyone interested) 3. The make up of all governing boards was equal in representation, there wasn't an all GOP or all Democratic board. 4. After the hand recount showed Franken ahead (by 20 something)the improperly rejected absentee ballots were counted. The one error Minnesota made was here, the MN Sup. Court ordered that only rejected absentee ballots that the county officials and both the Franken and Coleman campaign agreed were improperly rejected would be opened up and counted. Coleman abused this order and objected to several hundred ballots the local election boards had determined were improperly rejected, which Franken's campaign agreed. After the absentee ballots that every one agreed were improperly rejected were counted Franken’s lead rose to 225. Under Minnesota law Coleman had a right to appeal.

One can rightfully criticize Coleman’s motivations in his appeal. As an attorney it is a violation of the canons of ethics to pursue a frivolous appeal. However, Minnesota law provided the right, and because Minnesota has done its best to remove partisanship in the process, the Courts have not limited Coleman’s appellate rights. Eventually the appellate trial will end, and Coleman will lose, because he has failed to prove his claim that properly cast ballots weren’t counted (except of course the ones his own campaign objected to being counted). All that his appeal has done was increase Franken’s lead. In the end Franken will be seated. Hopefully the good citizens of Minnesota will see who has drawn out this process, and will not only punish Norm Coleman in any future attempts at elected office, but will hold other Minnesota Republican’s who didn’t stop the procedure after it was clear Norm lost from continuing.  
Until the President is given the power of a line-item veto, he can do little to combat earmarks short of vetoing every bill.
--------------------------------------------------
Actually Brian, it would take one veto of a bill for Congress to get their act together and strip future bills of earmarks.  I think Obama, and Bush and Clinton before him, should have done exactly that.

E. Mark (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:13 AM)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
If / when the president were to veto a bill and congress wanted to make their point that the president can not controll them they would all get together to ensure an over-ride of the veto telling the president "you can't tell us what to do".
The banks had it their way, and it wasn't working.  If they want government money, too bad if it comes with a little regulatory compliance.  Maybe they need a little bit of that right now.
You people are amazing!

------------

Then don't give the banks the money. Obama is trying to micro-manage something he and his administration either do not understand, or would need thousands of people to monitor each and every bank each and every day. Obama is process orientated, not results orientated. He understands process, but he doesn't understand what the results of the process should be. And Obama needs to lean not to put unneeded regulations and process controls on everything.

The problem is that Obama is running scared. All this stuff could have been hashed out if he had taken his time (months even) to understand the problem, work with the banks and his administration on a plan and a solution. But no, Obama said "We need to act now!". His words. He jumped the gun and made himself look like the fool he is. Now he's trying to go back and put the toothpaste back in the tube, and again he looks like a fool.
Diane In Illinois

Obama DOES have less brain cells than McCain with all those cigarettes he keeps sucking on.

Yours was a put-down. Mine's a fact.
Molly Anna

Really Molly Anna, you're comment was a fact, based on what? I'm as anti-smoking as you get, one reason I didn't support Obama in the Iowa caucus was he smoked. I considered it a substantial negative when deciding among the Democratic choices. However Obama could be a chain smoker, as opposed to a closet smoker, and the pro's versus the cons in a choice between Obama and McCain were so overwhelming that cigarette smoking wasn't even a consideration.

You do not have facts to support your claim "Obama DOES have less brain cells than McCain with all those cigarettes he keeps sucking on." Assuming arguendo that cigarette smoking decreases intelligence to a measurable degree, for your BS statement to be true McCain and Obama would need to start with the same level of intelligence, and age couldn't be a factor in intelligence, and of course you'd need to know the number of cigarettes Obama smokes, the rate of diminished brain capacity per cigarette etc., none of which you have knowledge of.

However, your assumption that Obama's smoking means he has less brain cells than McCain ignores McCain's age, and the relationship that plays with his brain cells. And ignores the objective evidence we have regarding their respective intellect. McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval acedaemy (I believe 3rd from the bottom), he jokes about his poor academic record. Obama on the other hand graduate with honors from an Ivy league college, and later graduated from the nations best law school Harvord, again in top of his class. He was editor of Harvard law review, which is an indication not merely of academic sucess, but intellect. The idea that McCain has more brain cells than Obama is a joke, the idea that it is fact, and not merely a foolish undeucated put down is a joke!
If / when the president were to veto a bill and congress wanted to make their point that the president can not controll them they would all get together to ensure an over-ride of the veto telling the president "you can't tell us what to do".
Dennis, Columbus, Ohio


So what you're saying is that Obama didn't know what he was talking about when he brought up the issue of cleaning up earmarks because it's not his issue to resolve?
This is what happens when you need a President that believes "Country First", but you get one that says "Me First"
Ken Randell, MT (Sent Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:04 AM)

------------------------------------------------------
You, so-called "Country First" types make me want to puke.

Where is "Country First" in regards to health care, education reform, and energy?

Where's "Country First" when it comes to letting the Tax cuts expire AS GWB SCHEDULED!?!?

Where's "Country First" when it comes to actually coming up with NEW ideas to help stabilize and rebuild this nation?

"Country First" my A$$! Greedy, selfish, and reprehensible, the whole lot of ya!  
"I'm not defending GWBs economic policies by saying that Obama is wrong and failing in his effort -- both administrations messed up -- and we the voters (or I should say, we the "stupid" voters) have no one to blame but ourselves. " - Greg in WA
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will leave you to your pessimism  . . . just wanted to point out that you can't really compare an 8 year Administration with a 50 day one.

At least you can't do so and be taken seriously.

P.S. President Obama was right about Iraq. It wasn't dumb luck, it was common sense. President Bush and his team just didn't use much.
The line item veto would be a disaster! Imagine the power the President would have if they could strike out individual lines of a bill. It would insure than the minority party (when the President was of the majority party) would have no say in virtually anything.

Our form of government isn't perfect and never will be. But even with earmarks and partisan bickering, it is the best form of government in existence!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1831603

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google