Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26764)	3/15/2008 11:28:00 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Earmarks as Usual March 15, 2008; Page A10 For Congressional Appropriators, Thursday night's vote cashiering the earmark moratorium was an embarrassment of riches, with some 71 Senators endorsing Capitol Hill's spending culture. For everyone else, it was merely embarrassing. The amendment, sponsored by Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), would have imposed a one-year earmark freeze, and it seemed to be gaining momentum earlier in the week, even cheered on by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the Appropriations empire struck back, twisting every arm to preserve its spending privileges. The measure was voted down after being ruled "non-germane" to the budget. That's as good a measure as any of the Congressional mentality: Apparently earmarks, which totaled $18.3 billion for 2008, aren't relevant to overall spending. Just three Republican Appropriators voted for the amendment, including surprise support from longtime skeptic Mitch McConnell. No such shockers from the Democrats, with all Appropriators going against and only six Senators bucking the party line, especially Missouri's Claire McCaskill, one of the more courageous antipork champions. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton no doubt backed the moratorium to insulate themselves against one of John McCain's signature themes. But they're also bending to the broader political winds. In an election year, voters understand the waste and corruption that pork enables, leading even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say, "I'm losing patience with earmarks." That Mr. McCain's Republican colleagues fail, or refuse, to recognize the political potency is not a good sign. More GOP Senators voted against the moratorium than voted for it, proving that they are just as complacent about pork as most Democrats. And this vote comes on the heels of offenses like appointing ranking GOP Appropriator Thad Cochran ($837 million in pork last year) to the earmark-reform "working committee." The Republicans appear to be settling in comfortably with their minority status. online.wsj.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26764)	4/1/2008 10:09:14 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Watch the Liberals Evade the Obvious By JAMES TARANTO March 27, 2008 Gallup(http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx) has an intriguing new poll result: A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. To be specific, 19% of Obama's supporters say they'd vote for McCain over Mrs. Clinton, while 28% of Mrs. Clinton's backers say they'd choose McCain over Obama. It's very unlikely that the actual number of Democratic defections in November will be nearly this high. No doubt many of the Democrats who now say they'd bolt for McCain will come home in the end, once the rancor of the current primary battle has subsided. But what is interesting about Gallup's result is the difference between the two numbers. Approximately half again as many Democrats say they won't vote for Obama in November as say they won't vote for Mrs. Clinton. Why might this be? It's time to play Watch the Liberals Evade the Obvious! Here is Josh Marshall's theory: I also think there's at least a decent structural argument for why Hillary supporters are more likely, for the moment, to say they'll vote for McCain. I think everybody realizes--whatever they'd prefer--that Obama is a strong favorite for the nomination at this point. And I think the simple truth is that it's a lot easier to be magnanimous, take the high road about party unity or simply be less mad if you're confident that your candidate is going to win. That just strikes me as common sense. But "TPM Reader AK, a dear, dear old friend" of Marshall's, writes him with a different idea: There's [an] easier way than a structural argument to understand why many Clinton supporters say they'll vote for McCain instead of Obama: Clinton, whom they support, and, one assumes, trust, has told them to do so. She has made the case that the pecking order, particularly when it comes to CIC [the ability to be commander in chief], is her, then McCain, and Obama failing the threshold test. She has said the same about judgment and experience. This is a case where considering a structural--to use your word--double move is too clever by half. All you need to do is look at what they're being told by the Clinton camp to understand the polling numbers. Actually, there's no reason it has to be either-or. Logically, it's possible that Obama's supporters are happy and therefore magnanimous and Mrs. Clinton's supporters believe, because she told them so, that McCain is more experienced and better qualified to be commander in chief than Obama. But may we offer an alternate theory, one that has the added advantage of being obvious? Most voters have learned one big thing about Obama in the past couple of weeks--that he has a "spiritual mentor" who says "God damn America," 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost, AIDS is a government plot, and so forth. Isn't it possible that there are some Democrats--not a majority, but say 15% of the party--who take this sort of thing as a genuine affront? And who aren't persuaded by all the attempts to explain it away? Obama himself doesn't necessarily believe these things, his spiritual mentor has said good things too, let's have a conversation about race, and anyway it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand. Imagine if Mrs. Clinton--or any Republican candidate for office--had a "spiritual mentor" who routinely used racial slurs to disparage blacks. Does anyone really imagine that an Obama-style response would suffice to deal with the resulting political problem? For decades liberals have trafficked in identity politics. Why is it so hard for them to understand that some people "identify" above all as Americans, and that "God damn America" is a slur against who they are? It's an American thing, they wouldn't understand. online.wsj.com