Comments on: Obama on Wasteful Spending: Just Words

By: Achance

Achance — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:59:23 +0000

but you have to separate what the US spends on its own stuff in Alaska and what goes to the State of Alaska in order to make a valid comparison.

Well over a third of the land mass of that island just South of Hawaii on your map belongs to the US Government as military installations, national parks, preserves, reserves, refuges, forests, etc.

A significant portion of Alaska's population are federal Indians, a Constitutional responsibility of the US.

That huge Coast Guard presence in Alaskan waters doesn't really do much for Alaskans other than a little SAR, but it does one Helluva lot to put cheap crap from China on the shelves at your WalMart or Tarjay. I really don't know that the NorKors want to pop a nuclear cap on Alaska, but they damned well would like to pop one on Seattle or LA; those missiles here are a lot more your defense than mine.

You know, it is really easy for Alaskans to hate arrogant Lower 48'ers in the same way that Southerners hate Yankees. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:57:26 +0000

She is talking about "special earmarks" not regular federal funding. In short, she is really opposed to Earmarks to wasteful projects.

I don't think federal funding to University of Alaska, wildlife preservation, etc., federal health programs, federal security programs, etc. are Sarah's own invention. Look at Illinois for you to see the difference.

Sarah is the only Governor who has the integrity of the raising the issue of special earmarks in the national scene, something that Barack doesn't understand because he has never been a Governor.

By: Eye_Want_2_Know

Eye_Want_2_Know — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:05:07 +0000

By: californiatransplant

californiatransplant — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:37:40 +0000

... because, to do so would mean exposing those other "fiscal conservatives" such as hutchison, inhofe, lott, and cornyn.

and this justification of palin's BTN position is just political rationalization of the most convenient kind. don't be offended, both sides do it. but, at least be honest about it. the facts are absolutely this -- she lied and continues to lie. she wanted that bridge like an alaskan tick wants a moose. only when it was no longer politically advantageous to continue the campaign, did she suddently see the light and flop. and, did she give the money back? no way -- spent on other projects.

'cmon guys -- at least be honest about it. or informed. either way, she lied. look it up.

By: Chipolito

Chipolito — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:02:46 +0000

Check out this link http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer to find out who really votes for the most earmarks/pork

By: Kevin_Holtsberry

Kevin_Holtsberry — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:38:24 +0000

It doesn't really matter when Palin changed her mind on the issue. She did change her mind and decided not spend the money on that project. To top it off she has a record of cutting waste and spending. Obama does not.

And oh yeah, McCain has always been against it and has a stellar record against earmarks.

Please explain why you think your comment has anything to do with my post.

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:12:13 +0000

Here.

By: Chris111

Chris111 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:05:49 +0000

Yessss, Please!

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:42:07 +0000

I smell a brilliant tactician working at his best.

By: rstreu

rstreu — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:39:16 +0000

This is exactly the sort of thing the American public needs to be made aware of. This is the guy they’re getting — not some all-things-to-all-people political savior.

By: Wintergreen

Wintergreen — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:36:35 +0000

McCain's camp should be putting up today.

Wow, that quote followed by his gutless vote is pretty damaging.

If McCain's people don't run an ad on this in the next day or two I'll be really disappointed.