Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark in his life. Probably no one else can say that. He forwards all requests for earmarks to Washington, then he votes against them. If more people did this, not a single earmark would pass.

The federal government shouldn’t be paying for shrimp marketing, that’s why Ron Paul voted against it.

None of my reps are on the list. An interesting thing about McCaskill from Mo. though. She is one of the most conservative democrats in Washington. I really like her, but her Mo. Democratic constituents complain about her constantly.

Funny how Bush has mentioned the word earmarks ten times as much since the GOP lost Congress.

Bold, principled…

Dianne, did you see McCaskill’s response to the SOTU?
Dang!
I think she was channeling Karl Marx, she seemed to be in a trance, and her words were eerily like his.

Preston
Yes he is.
Unlike the Swamp Mistress who claimed she was gonna drain it. It appears she meant she was gonna drain the money, not the swamp.

Yes he is.

Well, that settles that.

Or else, you could address the substance of the critique: that President Bush ignored the topic of earmarks while the GOP controlled Congress and directed that money to Republican districts. Bush only spoke up against the topic after the money spigot slowed a little for his political allies and picked up for his opponents.

Preston — your criticism is valid. In fact, the biggest complaint that most Republicans have had with President Bush is that he allowed Congress to spend like Democrats.

So — is it the spending and the earmarks that bother you (if so, don’t look at the biggest transgressors when it comes to personal earmarks [cough, cough, Hillary, cough, cough, Byrd, cough, cough, Murtha...]). Or is it that Republicans are spending like the Dems?

I’m not sure if I have a fundamental objection to the practice though I would prefer it appropriations went through normal budgetary processes- that was the root of my opposition to the tremendous increase in the practice that occurred during GOP control of Congress. In short- fewer earmarks is better, but I don’t know if it’s necessary to get to zero.

But the heart of my point was an aside to this issue and simply a comment on the hypocrisy of the President.

so you stay neutral on earmarks (at least until the gop retakes congress), while you condemn bush for being a hypocrite…

irony anyone?

Does what I wrote imply neutrality on earmarks? I think I made my opposition to their increased use pretty clear.

I’ll leave it to others to determine when earmarks became such a big issue, but if memory serves me correct, it didn’t become as widely discussed until the donks decided to use it as a campaign tactic in the year(s) before the ‘06 election, which would also coincide with the increase in the number of times W mentioned it in his SOTU. Does that make him a hypocrite on this issue or in general? I don’t think so. My major grievance was with the out of control spending that wasn’t in the earmarks.
In the case of the Swamp Mistress, who campaigned on the issue of “draining the swamp” and ending earmarks, yet they haven’t declined at all, then I would say she is without a doubt the clear winner of hypocrite on earmarks.