See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Neocon News » DR. OBAMA: One Million Dollars!
2. March, 2008 Archive « Right Minded Online

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #266301
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am, PBoilermaker said:

   Like crack to crack whores. They need to be purged from Washington.

2. #266308
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am, DaveC said:

   Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor of the amendment.

   Solidarity right there..

   or is it for show?

3. #266309
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am, geminicontender said:

   DaveC: It’s for show. Hypocrisy has no ends to the means.

4. #266312
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am, MrVIBEMAN said:

   That’s the first vote I’ve heard of that actually supports a conservative view. I’m shocked that the 3 liberal candidates actually voted for it. Naturally, it failed, no surprise there, but I would’ve thought there would be more conservatives supporting it. How depressing.

5. #266314
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am, meatpieandtatters said:

   Earmarks are the politician’s umbilical cord to their constituents, providing the life-giving (political) nutrients (earmark=influence+guaranteed re-election) to depend on.

   This isn’t a party issue but one of a genetic predisposition among ALL politicos.

6. #266322
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am, Ron Rockstar said:

   Both of my senators voted for it. I am proud. Tennessee is still the best place in the world to live.

7. #266326
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am, DBNinKY said:

   Examiner
   

   “As for Madison, he wisely vetoed the public works bill, saying he found no constitutional warrant for such expenditures.”

   If only the Democrats could come to this same conclusion about earmark and targeted tax breaks, but they can’t; true fiscal responsibility and a limited scope of government are foreign, unintelligible concepts to the Democrat mindset.

8. #266333
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am, wrcnossen said:

   This debate about earmarks is all show. While it is something that irritates alot of people, it won’t help the budget.

   Entitlements are where the battle is, not earmarks.

9. #266334
   On March 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Now, how about a vote on a “fair tax”?

   15-85 against I bet. McCain will fix the pork problem like Ron Paul will fix the tax code. When HELL freezes over. Let me fix my own mistake. Not even if HELL freezes over.

10. #266336
    On March 14th, 2008 at 10:42 am, uhangtight said:

    I guess you can call this ‘coming together and working together as repubs and dems’. the reaching across the isle to the other party. yep, take note and vote these incumbents out.

    normally we have a stalemate. this is just unbelievable. i wonder if obama and hillary would be voting with the majority if their presidential bid was not on the line? the vote would have been 73 to 27? or mabye even 74 to 26 cause i still don’t trust mcpain.

    it is time to give our power to a third party at the senate and congressional level (american constitutional party for conservatives is the third largest party in the US) so as to weed these buggers out. cause the dems and repubs are corrupt nothing is going to change. they keep getting voted in as incumbents and they are not going to vote for term limits EVER. the limit was provided by NOT voting the incumbent back in, but alas, the sheeple are not paying attention. they keep expecting to get a different result from the same failed action.

11. #266344
    On March 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am, Zippy_Slug said:

    Ugh.. Kay Bailey Hutchison (”The Hutch” as we affectionately call her here in Tex) voted against this.. and she wants to show her face back here and be Governor?

    No way in hell.. Keep that kind of thinking in DC.. We don’t need your kind in the Republic of Texas!

12. #266347
    On March 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am, Boomer said:

    It looks like Idaho needs a couple of new Senators. At least we will get rid of “wide stance” Craig this year. For what good it will do I will fire off a letter to ask these lying crapweasels to quit trying to bribe us with our stolen tax dollars. We really need to clean out both houses and replace this den of vipers, porkers, and prostitutes along with a law or Constitutional amendment for term limits.

13. #266356
    On March 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am, amigoneus said:

    #11 – Zippy_Slug. Unfortunately, I’m not surprised. Hutch is just as liberal as McCain anymore. I heard her awhile back on an AM talk show explaining why she voted for the DREAM act. Same old liberal nonsense. She’s definitely one I think we should vote out. And DEFINITELY not become governor.

14. #266370
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am, nyc123me said:

    Of course it was voted out – earmarks and corresponding payoffs are the primary source of income for politicians.

15. #266379
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am, DanMan said:

    Kay Bailey continues to show she has lost her way. I contacted her office and was sent a full page letter explaining her vote and how losing earmarks would have a “devastating” impact on Houston. Please. The thing reads like she pulled the money out of her own pocket.
    I guess I should be glad she actually responded though, that is a huge departure from her normal routine. Kay, please stay out of Texas.

16. #266383
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am, graysonret said:

    It doesn’t surprise me. “Me first, party second, country third”. It’s the way things are done in D.C.. What used to be hidden “under the desk” is now open and flaunted by Congressmen. Why not? Few Americans care because they are “entitled”. Besides, with the news feeding frenzy on Presidental candidates, few will know anyway. It just not news and Congress knows it. What better time to vote it down…

17. #266385
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am, magicarb said:

    Pork – the only white meat.

18. #266387
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am, zyzzyg said:

    29 Senators is a start. Maybe they can begin something.

19. #266392
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am, DesertLover said:

    Every Senator that voted against stopping the pork should be targeted for removal from office next time they are up for re-election … PERIOD …

20. #266394
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:36 am, oregonelam said:

    One good slap across the side of a congressman’s head would leave quite an earmark…one I could support.

21. #266405
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am, Larraby said:

    One of Obama’s earmarks was one million dollars for the Unversity of Chicago Hospital where Michelle Obama happens to have a $250,000.00 cushy job. Rest assured that Michelle, who talks about bad things are in the US, is not sewing stitches into drunken patients at the hospital emergency room at 2:00am. But the bigger problem is the conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest. Hospital officials quickly trotted out the old slogans about how Michelle Obama had nothing to do with the earmark, how she nothing about it, and how it could not affect her job position at the hospital. Can anyone even imagine how the investigative reporters at the New York Times would react if McCain had put in an earmark for the business that Cindy McCain’s family manages? The Times would scream about it for weeks. With Obama, it gets barely a mention. This earmark shows that Obama has a deaf ear when it comes to conflicts of interests or appearances of a conflict.

22. #266411
    On March 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am, gandolphxx said:

    Kay Baily Hutchison is a real and continuing dissappointment to those of us in Texas – she continually weasels on things that are really im[portant – always a ‘reason’ – always BS.

23. #266416
    On March 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm, ajmontana said:

    without even looking (but i did) I know how Boxer and Feinstien voted.
    The dreaded Califonia two headed monster. (gag)

24. #266417
    On March 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm, uhangtight said:

    aj.. you took the words from my keyboard! i was thinking the same thing!

25. #266421
    On March 14th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Hutchison isn’t planning to run for her Senate seat again, so that re-election isn’t in the cards. However, I’ve heard she’s thinking of running for governor, and I’ve also heard her mentioned as a possible running mate for McCain…

26. #266426
    On March 14th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    uhangtight~

    The Constitution Party sounds just fine, until you get to the isolationist plank in their platform. That just isn’t realistic in the truly global world we live in. Unlike the days of the Founding Fathers, the oceans can no longer protect us. Especially with such easy access to our nation over unprotected borders with Canada (with lax immigration policies) and Mexico (complicit in the illegal alien problem, and how much easier would it be for a terrorist of Middle Eastern original to blend in by learning to speak Spanish??).

27. #266443
    On March 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, JohnnyD said:

    On March 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am, On-my-soap-box said:
    Now, how about a vote on a “fair tax”?

    15-85 against I bet.

    I don’t see 15 Senators voting for the Fair Tax. It gives too much power away to the people unclean multitudes.

    All of the Senators are too well entrenched with the current 67,000+ pages of IRS tax code to give it up.

    Of course Soap, I’d like nothing better than to see the Fair Tax become law, and for no other reason than the Politicians wouldn’t be able to change it without changing the Consttution too.

    It’s still free to dream, ain’t it?

28. #266463
    On March 14th, 2008 at 1:20 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    JohnnyD,

    Yep and I dream of a day where they do not tell me they are going to do something when I know they are just blowing smoke up our butts.

    Fix the Tax code – smoke
    Pork reform – smoke
    Ethical Congress – black smoke
    Hope/change – thick black smoke
    Balanced budget – red smoke
    Entitlement reform – dense smoke
    …

29. #266471
    On March 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm, JohnnyD said:

    Fix Replace the Tax code – smoke

    Sorry Soap, couldn’t resist making that “change” for ya.

    It must be because I’m bloated from all that smoke.

30. #266494
    On March 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm, zorro said:

    On March 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am, PBoilermaker said:
    Like crack to crack whores. They need to be purged from Washington.

    And make no mistake, they are all whores. Our two clowns from Pennsylvania, Casey the Useless and Arlen the Specter, need replaced too.

31. #266521
    On March 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm, old trooper said:

    No surprise here. After you pay your taxes it is OPM. Other Peoples Money.

    They consider it a Duty to spend yours, not theirs!

32. #266545
    On March 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm, docflash said:

    The only way,vote out incumbents.

33. #266613
    On March 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm, Papa Louie said:

    Both of my Senators voted to keep earmarks. These are Republicans who want the rest of us to fall in line with McCain. Since getting rid of earmarks is part of McCain’s platform, why aren’t they falling in line with McCain?

    I searched for a definition of “earmarks” and found the following:
    

    Earmarks are spending projects slipped into legislation after debate is over without attribution to any congressional member, without peer or public review, and usually specific to one locale, but paid for by taxpayers everywhere.

    I can’t see how earmarks can even be constitutional. They are institutionalized theft. If John McCain can’t get the majority of his own party to support him in stopping earmarks – an issue where he is clearly in the right, how is he going to get the Senate to support him in anything he tries to do if he becomes president?

34. #266928
    On March 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    That bill was only a gesture- They ALL knew it would fail so it was safe to bring it up.

    If only there was a way to let the American people vote (electronically?) for how OUR money is spent (tax payers only, thank you).

    Of course you would still need a president and congress willing to pass it………….never mind.