Digg - McCain just broke his BIGGEST campaign pledge! (earmarks)

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

379 Comments
Who Dugg It?

orelses, on 10/02/2008, -31/+429Before anyone says "but Obama voted for this also". Obama doesn't say he is against all legislation with earmarks. Obama is for smart and open use of earmarks. We can debate the value of those, however at least he is being fairly straight about it. Where as John pretends that he is totally against them, when he votes for bills that have earmarks in them all of the time. And has supported earmarks for his state as well.
- mgraham80, on 10/02/2008, -72/+52As a Muslim, shouldn't Obama be opposed to pork though?
  
  /wingnut
  - EvilLordBanana, on 10/02/2008, -3/+8You forgot /s
  - yacks, on 10/02/2008, -1/+15wow.. a lot of people don't have humor here.. :) I think the /wingnut gave that away..
  - ennio, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11hahaha, im for obama, but i thought that was funny. good one orelses. dugg it.
  - DarkAlchemist, on 10/03/2008, -3/+3Um...Obama is Christian. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama]
  - Mononuclear, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3I dugg you down because even sarcasm can be stupid. I find it funny that whenever a sarcastic remark gets dugg down it is assumed that no one got it. You can get it and still think it was a dumb comment.
- kev0476, on 10/02/2008, -61/+10thats Jews.
  OMG OBAMA's a JEW.
  
  Just about as much logic as calling Obama a Muslim right?
  - orelses, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Speaking of Jews for Obama:
    
    Senior Israeli military leaders from across the political spectrum talk about their country's security and the upcoming elections. This is a preview for a longer and more comprehensive discussion.
    
    http://digg.com/world_news/Israel_s_Generals_Speak ...
  - diggitydoc, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11Muslims too...
  - jshaft, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Muslim's can't eat pork either.
  - publiclurker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2More bacon for me then.
  - Blind0825, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1WHOOSH!!!
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -65/+20McCain said that he would veto pork as president.
  
  As a senator, he doesn't have the power to send bills back to be rewritten.
  
  No campaign promises have been broken.
  
  You fail.
  - pintomp3, on 10/02/2008, -7/+48he could have voted against it. duh.
  - FallenTurtles, on 10/02/2008, -6/+31He has the power to at least TRY with a "no" vote.
  - CCB0x45, on 10/02/2008, -4/+44Wait wait wait...
    he would veto bills that he would vote for?
    Isnt that a little strange? I would Veto this... but I am still voting for it.
    
    Is it in hopes that bush will veto the bill that he has been desperate for all week?
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -33/+10Folks... as a senator, his options to fight pork are limited.
    
    He's one of 100 voices, and in the minority party. The Democrats control this show.
    
    Regardless, he NEVER said that as a senator he would vote "no" on every bill containing pork. No campaign pledges have been broken. This article is buried as inaccurate.
  - biotch, on 10/02/2008, -2/+26"you fail"
    lol
    By your reasoning there is no reason to pay attention to either of their records and just go completely on whatever one or the other pledges to do as President regardless of how they behaved in the past. No wonder you support McCain.
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -25/+4No, my reasoning is that this article is inaccurate because no campaign pledge has been broken.
    
    Whether McCain is an effective fighter of pork as a senator in the minority party is another matter entirely.
    
    If McCain had voted no and the bill failed, would all of the pork have been removed?
    
    Look at what happened in the House -- it was voted down, and now we were given the same bill again, BUT WITH PORK.
    
    How many times are they going to revote on this bill if it keeps failing?
    
    As president, McCain could make specific revision demands. It's an entirely different situation.
  - CCB0x45, on 10/02/2008, -2/+16So you are saying, since his voice doesnt matter as much here, he agrees with it, but if his voice mattered more, then he would disagree with it.
    
    So basically his views change based on the amount of power he has?
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -15/+4No, I'm saying that this article is inaccurate because no campaign pledge has been broken.
    
    I'm also saying that the president has a different tool to fight pork than senators do.
  - rowjimmy, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8while i certainly think john mccain is a slimy douchebag, this is the same argument obama supporters have made for his fisa support - if/when he is president he'll work against it, but since he wasn't, he had to vote for it to get some of the good along with a lot of the bad
  - biotch, on 10/02/2008, -4/+11except charlotte that his contended proof in the pudding is that he has never voted for pork barrel spending AS SENATOR.. He is using his own record as evidence... thus it is reasonable for us to do the same.
    
    And row... I for one will always be pissed at Obama for supporting that idiotic FISA bill. I just recognize a better overall choice when I see it. Obama failed the citizenry and his own constitutional credentials with that vote and so did McCain fail his own pledge in this instance
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -5/+6@biotch:
    
    Please show me where he said that he never voted for a bill with pork in it as senator. Got a link?
    
    Virtually every major spending bill that has gone through Congress has contained pork. That would be quite a feat, to get anything accomplished in Congress with a three decade record, AND to have never voted on pork.
  - Firgof, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5If it's impossible to not vote on pork then he shouldn't have promised that he wouldn't do it.
    
    Sounds irresponsible to me.
    
    If I make a pledge to you to never, in my life, mislead anyone I would -expect- people to hold me to my word. When I broke my promise, as I would invariably have to as unintentional misleadings count too, what would you think of me if I just didn't mind you at all and act like I never made that promise when promises like that are what got me to be elected to be a potential president?
    
    I think you're being far too forgiving. A man who makes a ridiculous promise deserves no sympathy of yours when he breaks the promise he so ostentatiously proposed he could keep.
    
    If you can forgive even that, then if I promise to you that I will never comment on Digg again will you give me $2,000,000,000?
    
    How far does this deep-seated trust of your fellow human beings go? What, exactly, would it take for me to prove to you that I was merely making a quick buck off of you and had no intention at all on following through with what I said I would. Take that into context when you're voting me in for one of the most powerful seats in our nation, in one of the most tumultuous and trying times we'll ever go through, to do what could shape not just the course of this nation, but perhaps the course of the entirety of human existence.
    
    You'd entrust something that powerful, that threatening and important, to a snake oil salesman with a silver tongue?
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -5/+3McCain didn't make a ridiculous promise; he made a very specific promise, to fight pork with the power of the presidential veto.
    
    Liberals are embellishing that promise, and then faulting McCain for not living up to their embellishment.
  - biotch, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3"Please show me where he said that he never voted for a bill with pork in it as senator. Got a link?"
    
    Oh for crying out loud.
    
    ""So I call on the senator [Obama] ... to go ahead and tell people how much money in earmarked projects and pork barrel projects that he got for his state and what they were for. AND MY FRIENDS, EXAMINE MY RECORD ON PORK BARREL PROJECTS AND YOU WILL SEE A BIG FAT ZERO"
    -John McCain
    
    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/14/mccain-str ...
    
    "And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous."
    -John McCain
    
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark ...
    
    He is claiming that because of his actions AS SENATOR, we should trust him in how he will behave as President. Therefore, among other reasons, your argument not to judge him based on his senate record is baseless.
    
    The real problem here Charlotte is it actually doesnt matter whether he voted for this bill in direct conflict with what he has been promoting. Every republican President that I have witnessed starting from Reagan to Bush sr. to Bush jr. has claimed he would lower spending. And then what do they do? Discretionary spending goes out of control and they break a new deficit record 3 times in a row now. McCain is just the next liar in line as far as Im concerned. Clinton raised discretionary spending the least out of all of them btw.... and what do ya know he balanced the budget... even if you delete gains from social security.
    
    McCain can claim he wants to lower spending and balance the budget all he wants... He can thank Reagan, Bush sr. and Bush jr. for my skepticism.
    
    sources:
    Discretionary spending increases
    http://www.factcheck.org/defending_spending_bushs_ ...
    a more complete chart:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets ...
    
    Balanced Budget:
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_c ...
    
    debt by party:
    http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/03/2008, -3/+1...and you still haven't shown me a quote from him saying that he never voted on a bill with pork in it.
    
    Oh for crying out loud, indeed.
  - biotch, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2"AND MY FRIENDS, EXAMINE MY RECORD ON PORK BARREL PROJECTS AND YOU WILL SEE A BIG FAT ZERO""
    
    Are you brain damaged or something? And dont distract from the point... You claimed we dont need to worry about McCain's record as senator. McCain is clearly pointing out that his record as senator is an indication of how he will act as president.
- Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -49/+13Buried for suggesting there is such a thing as a smart earmark.
  - Bith8654, on 10/02/2008, -3/+25Buried for buying into McCain's talking points. Earmarks aren't ALWAYS bad, it's just when they get out of control that they become a problem.
  - orelses, on 10/02/2008, -9/+6Buried for suggesting there is a such thing as smart legislation at all.
    
    /snark
- Daedalus81, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6Earmarks came up early in the debate. Does anyone remember what Obama said?
- hansonc, on 10/02/2008, -32/+11Wow... so if both McCain and Obama do something stupid like give a Trillion Dollar bailout to a bunch of bankers who caused the economic mess we're in we can only blame McCain? Can Obama do no wrong? If Obama were out on the campaign trail kicking puppies would it be McCain's fault because he didn't introduce Anti-Puppy Kicking Legislation? They both did their best to ***** the American public with this one.
  
  I was really hoping we'd have an election where the president could be selected based on merit and not blind partisanship. I guess I was wrong.
  
  Yes We Can (continue the same partisan *****)!
  - cyberprunes, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6I think in essence both of these guys voted YES because they feel the bill will be helpful to this crisis. This is more than a bailout for "bankers".
    You do realize that the DOW lost 777 points after the bill initially failed right?
    That's about 1.2 trillion in lost wealth.
  - hansonc, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2 @cyberprunes
    
    Do you realize that the dow was up the next day 485 points? Do you also realize that we're not talking about real money that we're talking about paper losses and paper gains? Do you realize that both Obama and McCain voted to give banks $700B for worthless "investments"?
  - rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4Look, if you can't tell the difference between voting for something you say you support (what Obama did) and voting for something you say you're against (what McCain did) then I don't even know why I'm replying.
    
    That said, I would prefer if this bill didn't pass. I don't think the bailout is needed, or that the world will come to an end. It's just an overreaction to an inflated market. It should come down, and money should be lost -- there was not this much real value to begin with.
  - hansonc, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1@rotundo
    
    At the end of the day they did the exact same thing, voted Yes. Just because you think there's a difference between the ***** they gave the American people doesn't mean there is.
- banthis, on 10/02/2008, -5/+30"but Obama voted for this also"
  - elfprince13, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3beaten to the punch.
  - Kyzzyxx, on 10/02/2008, -6/+8Exactly! They are both losers. That's why I will vote for neither. But if I HAD to choose between one or the other, hands down, Obama. McCain is a dangerous idiot.
  - DougChristian, on 10/02/2008, -11/+4@ Kyzzyxx
    
    Wow. I know there are lots of you idiots out there. But you're the first I've seen to really express the insanity of your position.
    
    OK, sorry to bother you. You're dismissed back to Fantasy Land.
  - lisa3711, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4how many of you actually read the bill?Anyone ANYone?
  - rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -1/+2@Kyzzyxx - A non vote or a vote for a third party is a vote for whoever wins. That's the way our system works and all the want in the world isn't going to change that.
    
    If you think one candidate is better than the other (by however small a margin) and you are smart, then it is an obligation to vote. Otherwise you are de facto giving the election to stupid people: stupid people vote without getting hung up on the details.
  - honeybrass, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2@lisa3711, this is America, we don't "read" bills, we simply look at the title, then back whatever the back of the cereal box says our party believes.
    
    /s
- ChronicColonic, on 10/02/2008, -21/+8As a senator, he cannot veto earmarks.
  - thugok, on 10/02/2008, -1/+25As a senator, he can vote against the bill.
  - ChronicColonic, on 10/02/2008, -9/+2While I do not agree the bail out may be the best idea, the damage cause requiring the bail out was caused by the government forcing banks to finance risky loans. Wall Street did not cause this problem. The government did. Ignoring it or letting it correct itself on its own will not work. The banks are very close to not being able to lend money. Once that stops, our economy stops, plain and simple.
    
    Sometimes companies take a loan out to pay their employees. If that happens where you work and you can't get paid, what happens? The scenario is not good.
    
    The bail-out is providing the difference of falling off a ladder and landing in a pile of leaves or falling off a ladder and landing on cement. They both hurt...but the latter will hurt more.
    
    This bail-out is not a giveaway. They will hold onto the loans until the market improves and sell them back. In an ideal situation, for profit. It happened with Chrysler in the 80's and the loans were paid back with interest. Many people were against that but it actually turned out to be the right thing to do.
    
    The government put the bull in the china shop...we need to get the bull out of there with as little damage as possible.
  - republicker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5You cant get lure a bull out of a china shop with money, you will only end up getting the horn. I dont think you understand what is going on. I'll sum it up for you. The economy is *****, pumping money we don't have into the problem just delays the exact same problem. We either take the hit now and deal with it or we get the taxpayers into a few more trillion in debt before we take the hit. Also the only way you get a unwilling bull out of a china shop is to shoot it in the head and drag it out. Kill the bull fix the problem.
  - Hockey13, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2@ChronicColonic,
    
    It's not the government's job to earn interest on your money. Now they're entitling money management to everyone as well.
- randumbusername, on 10/02/2008, -22/+7lol at smart earmarks. i swear you people are quick to put down religious folk for blind faith yet fail to notice your same blind faith with obama.
  
  guess what, every politicians thinks his/her earmarks are smart. and they are because they are vote getters.
  
  Obamastians....lol.
- rolf, on 10/02/2008, -23/+31But didn't Obama say he's against bailing out Wall Street and the rich?
  
  Oh wait, him and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tied together:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
  
  Please, the Obama worship is nauseating. McCain and Obama both suck. Vote NO to democrats and republicans.
  - wedges, on 10/02/2008, -14/+21and vote YES to making your vote useless!
  - elliottjgriffin, on 10/02/2008, -13/+9@wedges
    
    You are why America is falling apart. Because everyone is conditioned to believe that unless they vote for a R or a D their vote is wasted. It's dribble like yours that has caused this belief to permeate our society and blocked candidates of REAL change from AFFECTING change.
    
    Congrats...you are a bottom-feeding zombie-whore for the major parties.
    
    My progeny thanks you for continuing in the destruction of the American political, economic, and social system that they will inherit.
  - sinrtb, on 10/02/2008, -5/+7elliottjgriffinelliottjgriffin you do realize if everyone that would vote for Obama voted 3rd party then McCain will win the election right?
  - lisa3711, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5Uh gee, you can only vote yes, not no.
    
    Elliottjgriffin: I do feel sorry for your progeny, because having a parent who calls people names when they disagree with him will make them angry and sad people.
  - kaplanfx, on 10/02/2008, -6/+2@elliottjgriffin
    
    1) This is Digg
    2) You have just posted here
    3) Your chances of producing progeny? 1 in 1000.
    4) Good luck!
  - ldailey06, on 10/02/2008, -6/+2Voting in this country is all about producing the best possible outcome. Voting for a 3rd party is a waste because --they clearly do not have enough support to be considered viable candidates--.
  - elliottjgriffin, on 10/02/2008, -7/+3To the progeny jokes: hahaha, they were good.
    
    To the I called someone a name comments: You are idiots (I DID IT AGAIN!!! ZOMG), because that's how much I hate people who just feel that voting on principle and conscience is a waste. Voting isn't about voting for a lesser of two evils (that's an even MORE moronic statement than its a "waste" because it infers an understanding that these two choices don't quite represent you). Voting is about casting a vote to entrust someone to represent you. If they do not represent you, than WHAT ARE YOU VOTING FOR?
    
    Voting is exercising political authority. Authority is power. To exercise power in support of something you do not support is not only the only TRUE waste, but it is also putting people in control who do not push policy you would want. You are in effect voting against yourself 100%, 80%, 50%, whatever-percent of the time they take up a vote and you have no one to blame but yourself.
    
    I voted for major party candidates numerous times--when it was in line with my politics and beliefs. To betray your core beliefs is not only wasteful, but completely antithetical to the process of REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
    
    You ***** twits. (ZOMG I DID IT AGAINNZZ!) Sorry I got passion and principles, ***** (...you know what I was going to say...z..omg..)
  - elliottjgriffin, on 10/02/2008, -4/+4oh and @sinrtb
    
    I am understand that voting for your principles in a sea of others who do not DOES put ppl into power that do not deserve to be. But that's only because on the aggregate-level ppl are not voting for their conscience...we've stuck in this cycle engendered by ppl like wedges and I don't care if a vote for Chuck Baldwin or anyone else puts McNasty or Obama into power--I can feel comfortable knowing that I exercised my political authority in a manner that is true to myself.
    
    KnowwhaddImean?
  - rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -5/+4Good lord you 3rd party people -- get it through your heads that the rules of the game make your vote worthless. God knows I wish it wasn't so since I often like third party candidates, but we are not in an election system that works that way.
    
    You are playing the plurality game whether you like it or not. Ignoring the rules and being idealistic about the way it should work doesn't get you anything. Go ahead and try to get the law changed, but in the meantime, play the game intelligently: vote for the best candidate who has a chance to win.
    
    Anything else is complete foolishness under our current system.
  - geoboy, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5A question for those who think that voting for a 3rd party candidate is worthless:
    
    What alternative do you propose? We not vote at all? We vote for someone we don't like or agree with but believe is "the lesser of two evils"? That's a pretty ***** messed up way to have a democracy.
    
    If more people vote 3rd party, the least that could happen would be that whatever party suffers the loss due to a 3rd party will work to be more in line with that 3rd party in the next election. McCain is the one who stands to lose votes to a 3rd party in this election, and it's because the Republicans have lost their way. Serves them right, too.
    
    The most that could happen would be major reform in the electoral process, and we could actually have 3rd parties in the presidential debates. I'll be using my vote to fight for a better democracy. That's not a waste of a vote at all.
- pinchduck, on 10/02/2008, -13/+18So Obama is given a pass on crappy legislation because he won't even come out and say he's against it? Not that it matters. Oh, he was against George Bush's curtailment of our rights and the Patriot Act. Oh yeah, big defender of our liberty. Then he voted for FISA and telecoms immunity. So there is your hypocrisy.
  
  Both candidates suck.
  - yacks, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5well this bailout is a damned if you don't do kind of things because why? Because a NO vote would have killed their campaign right there. A lot of people believe this bailout will work.. The more I read about it, the less I don't like it. Especially them raising FDIC limits to $250K when they were going to have trouble with them at $100k.. This "$700 Billion Bailout" is not going to cost $700 Billion.
  - PolishLogic, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3"he was against George Bush's curtailment of our rights and the Patriot Act"
    
    and demonstrated that by voting to extend the Patriot Act.
- cashman57, on 10/02/2008, -14/+7"Obama doesn't say he is against all legislation with earmarks. Obama is for smart and open use of earmarks"The Democrats offered a more open process when they wanted control over the House and have been the Congress with the least open legislative process in decades.
  If you trust 0bama you need to look a little deeper into who he is.
  He's a gun grabbing rights stealing lying leftist liberal lawyer who plays fast and loose with the facts and his intentions.
  Why anyone would think he's qualified to be president is beyond me.
  If he's for the bailout he's against the Constitution, but we already knew that when he refused to support the Enumerated Powers Act.
- rthakidn, on 10/02/2008, -13/+7You're buried. Poor style in (first) commenting on your own post. Second. He does not yet have the opportunity to send a bill "back" since he is not yet president. Perhaps the "one" can do it, but he is not mortal. Last, the bailout, is a no win situation for all of the politicians. The only thing they should have done, is follow McCain's advice in 2005 for more regulation, but that would have damaged Barrack's cash cow.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w
  
  It's 8 minutes of interesting sound bites, if you have the guts to watch.
- gamabunta, on 10/02/2008, -4/+11Before you go defending Obama remember he said the following regarding the FISA legislation that granted the telecoms retroactive immunity: "I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed."
  
  Yet on July 9 he did exactly the opposite: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
  
  He gave them the free pass he was so adamantly opposed to. If I wanted more of this ***** I would vote McCain. (Don't go defending McCain on this legislation as he wasn't even there to vote; although we all know he would have said yes.)
  
  At least with Nader you have a candidate with a history of consumer protection initiatives. All I know is I don't want to look back 20 years from now and say I voted for a candidate who trampled on the 4th Amendment.
  - lisa3711, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4If Nader really wanted to help anyone but himself, he would run for Congress or the Senate, and write some legislation that helps consumers. He wants to change things, but won't even try anything except writing or running for PRESIDENT- don't normal people start small? Instead of working in our communities should we all run for Governor first?
    
    He's a grand stander who knows that not all candidates are alike (is Obama like John Kerry, Al Gore?), yet instead of doing something, continues to say "boo-hoo they are all the same, they're all bad..." Imagine if he told Obama, I'll support you, but I want to be Secretary of Commerce, or Interior, or better yet, EPA Administrator- he could do so much in those positions, but no- he wants to either be top dog, or nothing. And he would rather see the country go to pot than elect someone other than himself.
    
    I used to respect him, but no more.
    
    And, of course, you're throwing away your vote.
  - gamabunta, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Read my last paragraph and you'll understand why I'm fine with "throwing away my vote."
  - rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -3/+1You're not throwing away your vote, you're giving it to whoever wins. That's what a distant third party vote does under a plurality system.
    
    So if McCain wins, your vote for Nader counts as a vote for McCain. If Obama wins, your vote for Nader counts as a vote for Obama.
    
    So you can look back in 20 years and say "I didn't do anything to minimize the damage by trying to get someone better in office. I would only play ball with prefection, so I got whatever crap was coming."
- beesaretasty, on 10/02/2008, -2/+12To McCain's defense, he probably doesn't read the bills to realize they have earmarks in the first place...
  
  Wait. Was that a defense?
- klooper, on 10/02/2008, -3/+9I'm an Obama supporter, but these incentives are NOT earmarks per se. An earmark is government spending that is added to a bill that goes to a particular project. What was in the Senate bill were targeted tax incentives (reducing the money coming in to the government).
  
  McCain has been for tax breaks all along - for oil, business, ... rich folks. Because many of these incentives are unfunded, the outcome is the same as with an earmark -- deficit spending.
  
  You can argue that with earmarks, at least there is something tangible for the public out of the expenditure (many infrastructure improvements happen through earmarks), but McCain and Republicans are all about "reducing the size of government" by cutting money coming into the government. So this will be their argument.
  - yacks, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Tax breaks = Free Money. in a very indirect way.
- Zarchon, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Good thing you posted that here. I was so afraid that Digg users were going to come out in mass for McCain. Now, thanks to you, that will not happen.
- ThePwnyExpress, on 10/02/2008, -0/+12i've got my pen here, and i'll veto every piece of pork that comes across my desk. i'll make them famous and you'll know their na...... oh never mind...
- mousky, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4There are no such thing as open and smart earmarks. You shouldn't be attaching non-related expenditures to bills. Period.
  - lisa3711, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3The government would cease to function. Earmarks can work out. Personally, I think they should be used for infrastructure, medical research, etc... something that benefits us all, not one company or entity.
  - mousky, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2The Bridge to Nowhere was "infrastructure"? If earmarks account for 3 or so percent of the total budget, the government would not cease to function.
- OwdenBowden, on 10/02/2008, -5/+5But it is Okay that Obama has violated and borken EVERY one of his Promises. He changes more than New England Weather.
  - lisa3711, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4I disagree.
  - rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5They've both changed positions. However I find it interesting that when McCain does, he tends to ignore or deny it, while when Obama does he gives a well reasoned explanation.
    
    I'm still far happier with Obama as president than McCain.
- lisa3711, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Folks- Obama is a SENATOR, not President. When he takes office, he can change this bill, he's said as much. Try and pay attention. Unless you think McCain will change it for the better, like take out the regulatory oversight.
  
  Just sayin'...
  - HunterGathers, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Sorry Presidents can't change a bill only request veto it and request it to be changes
  - InfiniteNothing, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Yes but they can approve a bill that would be vetoed by the last president.
- dpmrpi, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Earmarks are necessary part of the way the country works, but also happen to be a easy scapegoat when abused, which I admit, does happen a lot. However some earmarks are used to fund city parks, early childhood education, social services such as planned parenthood, and necessary infrastructure. (Necessary infrastructure does not include bridges that cost 750M for 5000 some people by the by.)
  
  Again Obama takes the rational, more logical stance. While not hugely popular, it is what this country needs.
  - mousky, on 10/03/2008, -1/+1Why should federal tax dollars be spent on local parks?
- Spudster, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7Earmarks aren't that much of a burden on the budget compared to the military. If you really want to balance the budget, by far the easiest place to look is at cutting military expenditure.
  - mousky, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2There are many items in the budget that "aren't that much of a burden on the budget". But add them together, and they start to look like a burden.
  - rotundo, on 10/03/2008, -1/+5Yeah -- funny how the people who always harp on government spending wouldn't see fit to cut a dime of our military budget, or consider a foreign policy that didn't rely on needing the world's largest military.
    
    Hypocrisy.
ProKid, on 10/02/2008, -12/+605Gotcha Legislation
- RodBorn, on 10/02/2008, -14/+8hahahahaha!
  ...mod that comment up....er.....wait....wrong site
  - CarStan, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8i redd what you did there
  - Rotzooi, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Pew pew pew
  - Colimus, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4***** Reddit
- preichelt, on 10/02/2008, -0/+14isn't that a pizza place
  - gavintlgold, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Seriously, what did McCain mean by that?!? Is it a pizza place? Doesn't seem to make any sense to name a pizza place Gotcha Journalism ....
  - waxenpi, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5the question was asked to palin at a pizza place.
- PeterTSantilli, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9It's only "Gotcha" legislation if the Obama campaign uses it now! I'm not sure if Obama wants to go on an unnecessary offensive with poll momentum and McIdiot's self sustaining implosion
- zacharytelschow, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6FTA: "[McCain] promised to veto the first bill on his desk that included pork barrel spending."
  
  "But yesterday John McCain was given his first opportunity during the whole campaign to PROVE how he’d live out his campaign promises. And what did he do? He BROKE his promise."
  
  So... McCain, as president, signed into law a bill with pork barrel spending yesterday? Am I missing something?
  - fungalboom, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Exactly! He should get all his pork through right now, so that if he becomes president, the first pork on his desk will pale in comparison!
- collution, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2There's a pun in there somewhere: That bill basically stole my wallet.
  
  "Gotcha!"
- chukd, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Obama on Meet the press in 2006: "Obviously, most of the time, it seems, that the president has maybe 10 percent of his agenda set by himself and 90 percent of it set by circumstances. So, you know, an Abraham Lincoln is defined by slavery and the war, FDR defined by the Depression and, and World War II. So I’m not sure that I can categorize what is, is—are those ingredients in each and every circumstance."
  
  So many it is one of these circumstances that a President or Presidential hopeful has to swallow and vote for something they don't like. I don't support either McCain or Obama but how about a little fairness in this discussion.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15304689/page/3/
Dalhectar, on 10/02/2008, -9/+166I've been to enough bars and clubs to feel I'm pretty sure Bacardi doesn't need any help from the US government.
- Brad324, on 10/02/2008, -2/+16dude, you must drink a lot if you can support the whole industry.
  - Dalhectar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10Let's just say, that business seems to be good by looking at the standing room only crowd.
    
    Even if it was bad, I didn't realize that the US government had to bail them out for the well being of the middle class.
- pintomp3, on 10/02/2008, -0/+13bicardi has been getting favors for a long time due to their anti-cuba stance.
  - Bith8654, on 10/02/2008, -0/+12Damn it, politics and alcohol are never a good mix.
- stretch611, on 10/02/2008, -0/+13Alcohol does well in a recession. It lets people forget their problems.
  - paker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Until they sober up and find they spent all their money on booze.
  - mithrasinvictus, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Victory gin!
- ultrasparc, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2http://www.vicefund.com/
- rolosworld, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5funny facts:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_la_Torre
  
  Quote:
  "Carefully controlling the government he instituted a policy which he called "dance, drink and dice" (baile, botella y baraja), implying that a well entertained population will not think about revolution."
  
  This guy governed PR from 1823 to 1837!!!
  
  I think this would be the wet dream of McCain
- cdcantu, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2I personally know bacardi and you really shouldn't say those types of things about people I know.
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Most folks aren't aware, but Rum Taxes are the primary funding source for the US territories of US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. This form of funding was has been in place since the early 1900's, and is in lieu of much of the federal dollars most official states receive.
  
  There is admittedly some pork in this bill, but rum subsidies aren't one of them.
- RevinKoze, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2After reading your comment regarding Bacardi, I couldn't help but give a small chuckle when I noticed your comment had 151 diggs.
codairem, on 10/02/2008, -7/+113The fall 2008 McCain says he's spent his entire carreer fighting against pork and government spending. He also says pork and government spending is out of control. Clearly he's been a failure, then.
- mooseontheloose, on 10/02/2008, -16/+8Clearly one senator from Arizona has complete control over the entire US government's spending policies. He's running to change things as he thinks is necessary - like Obama. Why is Obama running? Why doesn't he fix the problems while in the Senate? He can't? So he's a failure.
  - coachten, on 10/02/2008, -2/+17well. McCain has had 26 years in the senate to effect some kind of change.
    
    Look, the fact is not that McCain failed to reform over his career, but that he has only once (with campaign funding) ever tried to reform anything. He is one of DC's biggest players and he loves it.
    When he tells us that he spent his entire career fighting against pork and such, he is lying through his teeth.
  - kigcoopa84, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5He actually introduced legislation to apply more restrictions on fannie mae and freddie mac. It was shoot down by the reform loving democrats.
  - CaptCarrot, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3McCain was onto the Fannie and Freddie failures over 2 years ago. But at least he wasn't profiting from them at the time.
  - coachten, on 10/04/2008, -0/+2also, he never "introduced legislation" to regulate their actions. Two months before the bubble burst, he just put his name on a bill, written by others, that was never even put up for a vote (introduced) by the then Republican Congress... ??
    
    Where's the beef?
- cashman57, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Will someone please tell me why they would consider either of the Senators if they refuse to support the Enumerated Powers Act?
  Come on, this isn't rocket science, both of them are in it up to their eyebrows and both would be equally disastrous for our future.
- Lukesed, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Every moment McCain has lived has for decades been a success, he survived being a pow!
- noelsusman, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Or he believes that passing this bill is more important than his fight against pork barrel spending. John McCain is basically the leader of the Republican party right now, so for him to oppose this bill would basically be sending it straight to the graveyard. You have to pick your battles, and McCain decided that rescuing the economy is more important than fighting a few earmarks.
- webwatch, on 10/03/2008, -0/+5I am a big time Obama supporter. But going after McCain because he voted for this bill is not prudent. This was a bipartisan bill and he did not add any earmarks for his state.
  
  If you look at his record, except for a few exceptions McCain has been pretty consistent on the issue of earmarks. However I am surprised that he is making this a central theme of his campaign since a) earmarks account for about 3% of the Federal spending and b) he chose the 'queen of earmarks' as his running mate.
axel000, on 10/02/2008, -13/+185Pork is what 3% of annual federal spending ? What about the 40% (incl Iraq) we spend on wasteful wars McCain ? What about that ?
- ErickStevenson, on 10/02/2008, -3/+39That's the difference between Tactics and Strategy!!@@#@
- EustaceTilley, on 10/02/2008, -11/+10no offense, but defense spending as a total of the budget is only about 20-22%, and that includes stuff that we would be spending other wise.
  I agree the war is a lot of money that could be used else where, but it is very far from 40% of federal spending
  
  i am for anyone who will balance the budget
  - robmaan, on 10/02/2008, -2/+14That figure does not include the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. They don't include wars in budgets. Not to mention all the money they funnel to their buddies for support and construction deals.
  - johnpaul191, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8you forget that the war is not in that 20% of the budget. it's not actually being paid for yet..... we'll have to deal with it in the future
  - aftern9ne, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Looks like you're not voting this year...?
- Wargalas, on 10/02/2008, -8/+3"Wars", meaning plural axel? You know, you can argue about the merits of Iraq all day long, but you cannot argue the merits of the war in Afghanistan.
  
  Or did that fact fall out of your head?
  
  Of course, we could end both wars by dropping a nuke on both countries and being done with it in one swoop.
  - smartassCanuck, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5You know you CAN actually argue the merits of Afghanistan. History should have already taught the world that controlling Afghanistan isn't easy, just ask the Russians. Not to mention that you can't wage war on "Terror" only terrorist groups, and the effectiveness of doing that can be debated.
    
    Nuke em! That's a great solution!
    
    Of course it would violate article 33 of the Geneva Convention on collective punishment (punishing civilians.)
    
    Don't be such a douche...
  - Wargalas, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3What the ***** does "controlling" Afghanistan have anything to do with the facts? Bin Laden attacked us from bases inside Afghanistan and was protected by the Taliban. THAT'S why we're over there.
    
    If you can't smell the sarcasm from my nuke comment, perhaps you should get your nose out of the air.
- Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -8/+7Depends on your definition of pork, mine is "any money the Government spends on things the Constitution doesn't mandate it do", so for me over 50% of the federal budget is pork (most of that being direct entitlement wealth transfer payments in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).
  - PleaseJustDie, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5... You do realize you pay for Social Security and Medicare right?
    
    You put into it until you retire and then you collect on it until you die. Don't believe me? Look at your next pay stub under federal taxes, you should have an entry for Social Security and one for Medicare.
    
    It's like a layaway program, you put into it now for use later.
  - Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Social Security is a ponzi scheme or an IOU, take your pick, they aren't investing your money anywhere. Your payments are used to pay out the current recipients and any surplus gets spent elsewhere. This creates a very large problem later when there are fewer workers and larger and larger numbers of people living longer and longer. Eventually the system needs revenue beyond what the people paying in are providing. Were it a pension plan it would be much less problematic, because its possible with good management it could actually earn enough interest to sustain itself, but it isn't.
- cashman57, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5The undeclared wars are a huge cost and both of the Senators voted together to fund it in a 100-0 Senate vote.
  Those are pretty rare.
  Saying you are against the war and voting to support it are not consistent with each other.
  Now they side with the majority to up the ante on the Hose and offer a trillion dollars in spending and both voted for THAT.
  The war is not an issue with 0bama he has stated he wants to win the war that must be won in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
  The balance of the budget has never been something 0bama has cared about.
  The Constitution is worthless to him as several of his prior statements prove.
- CyphreDias, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2The sad thing about "pork" is that the government is using our own money (the tax payers money) to buy individual votes. This is a corruption of the system. In Judo you use your opponents size and strength against him by redirecting it. "pork" is using the peoples money to undermine the people's government.
- headzoo, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2He doesn't care about that stuff. "Pork barrel spending" is just the phrase of the week, and he's going to throw it around as much as he can.
- specialK16, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Pork?? No wonder why some of you are so fat.
- fani, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Message to John McCain - "Penny wise, Pound foolish"
  
  You can spend lot of time and effort saving that $18 billion earmarks or you can spend same time by not giving the $300 billion tax breaks to rich and wealthy individuals and corporations.
  
  Or you can finish the Iraq war, that costs $10 billion each month, 2 months early and potentially save additional $2 billion.
  
  John McCain - always seeing the small picture
- mousky, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2And that 3% would pay for the rescue package.
kev0476, on 10/02/2008, -15/+44McCain Response - This is Sexist because you are calling Palin a Pig.

Just Watch.

What a Bill to make Famous.
- stretch611, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5"The media is biased against me."
EustaceTilley, on 10/02/2008, -5/+44Gov spending is the number one issue for me, and to be honest i find this disturbing all over the place. the fact that OUR senators had to be BRIBED with $150 billion to pass a bill ($150 billion of OUR tax money in this bribe) is sick, and this does look bad for McCain and his no pork policy
- Dalhectar, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8But they had to be bribed...
  
  to spend your money...
  to reward Wall Street for handing out depositors' money...
  to people that couldn't afford to pay them back under leacherous terms...
  for houses that were overpriced...
  
  I smell FAIL in that somewhere.
  - Cybermaul, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7They fail only when they've sucked us in the 'lower classes' dry. Then, they retire and move to Tahiti.
  - worldnick, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I think the three comments above me sound more accurate than anything else I've heard or read on this issue.
- stretch611, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8This bill makes our entire government look bad.
- JeddHampton, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
  -- Alexis de Tocqueville
- PleaseJustDie, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I don't think the bill looks bad on McCain, I think it looks bad on the people who put the earmarks into it. That's who we should be blaming. McCain voted for it because he thought the content of the bill, the bailout, was enough good to outweigh the bad, the earmarks, and that it needed to be done now to help the economy.
  
  When you have ***** (voting it down and risking further loss in our economy) in one hand and ***** covered with flowers (voting for it even with the earmarks) in the other and you have no choice but to pick one to sniff most people will pick the ***** covered in flowers.
  
  Besides, his pledge was the first bill with pork that crosses his desk he would veto as president. He's not president yet, he can't veto bills in the senate and if you look at his history of requesting earmarks and his attempts to reform the system, which have been overwhelmingly shot down by the other corrupt politicians in the government who like to take advantage of the earmark system you can see he not only means what he says about pork spending, but tries to live by it too.
mazerrackham, on 10/02/2008, -6/+23So what you're saying is, he eats his candy with the pork and beans
- zacharytelschow, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4FTA: "[McCain] promised to veto the first bill on his desk that included pork barrel spending."
  
  "But yesterday John McCain was given his first opportunity during the whole campaign to PROVE how he’d live out his campaign promises. And what did he do? He BROKE his promise."
  
  So... McCain, as president, signed into law a bill with pork barrel spending yesterday? Am I missing something?
- plainOldFool, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Excuse his manners if he makes a scene?
- Timmaaayyy, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5He ain't gonna wear the clothes that you like?
- joyler, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6He doesn't give a hoot about what you think?
nernie, on 10/02/2008, -4/+13This is getting ridiculous. We need more accountability in our leaders. It's not going to happen on it's own, though. We need to all take responsibility, and we need to start having more say in this system---that starts with voting http://make.ourpledgetovote.com/
mooseontheloose, on 10/02/2008, -52/+24Did McCain put those earmarks in? No, he didn't.
- 41k1d0k4, on 10/02/2008, -3/+31HE VOTED FOR IT!
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -7/+7Of course he voted for it.
    
    The veto power of the president means that the bill gets kicked back to Congress to either override the veto, to change the bill to the president's liking, or to drop the bill altogether.
    
    Right now, McCain is one of 100 senators, and in the minority party. He has some influence over some of the contents, but he doesn't get to veto a bill and send it back as senator. He doesn't get to choose between two versions to vote on -- a pork-laden one and a non-pork one.
    
    The bill he gets is the bill he gets.
  - soflasooner, on 10/02/2008, -2/+11If every member of Congress had to agree with everything contained within a bill, nothing would ever get passed. In the absence of a line-item veto, the President can't strike items with which they do not agree - it has to be signed or vetoed in the form in which it was presented. It's called compromise.
    
    And this was an all-fire emergency to give away $700,000,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, wasn't it?!?
  - Daedalus81, on 10/02/2008, -4/+8And he could still vote no. Stop making excuses.
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -6/+7But that wasn't his campaign pledge, now was it?
    
    Therefore, this article is buried as INACCURATE.
  - Daedalus81, on 10/02/2008, -5/+2Sure it is. I'll have you read it three times so it can sink in.
    
    John McCain has been a tireless warrior against wasteful spending, and one of the few leaders who has the guts to challenge abusive Congressional earmarks and the pork barrel politics that grip Washington. John McCain understands that, fundamentally, wasteful spending is an issue of ethics.
    
    John McCain has been a tireless warrior against wasteful spending, and one of the few leaders who has the guts to challenge abusive Congressional earmarks and the pork barrel politics that grip Washington. John McCain understands that, fundamentally, wasteful spending is an issue of ethics.
    
    John McCain has been a tireless warrior against wasteful spending, and one of the few leaders who has the guts to challenge abusive Congressional earmarks and the pork barrel politics that grip Washington. John McCain understands that, fundamentally, wasteful spending is an issue of ethics.
    
    From his website:
    http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/cb15a05 ...
  - Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4What part of that is an across-the-board promise to vote "no" on every bill containing pork?
    
    What part of that is an across-the-board promise to vote "no" on every bill containing pork?
    
    What part of that is an across-the-board promise to vote "no" on every bill containing pork?
- pintomp3, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9mooseontheloose = palin?
- FallenTurtles, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10Oh, I forgot that supporting something, as long as you didn't create it, was an appropriate way to alleviate blame and responsibility.
- zacharytelschow, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Nor did he sign them into law as president, which he pledged he wouldn't.
- CaptObvious, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5McCain the Senator: I'll vote for everything that has pork barrel spending in it.
  
  McCain the President: I'm against senators passing pork barrel legislation.
  
  See, McCain's such a maverick, that he's running against HIMSELF!
- tweedius, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Who wrote this bill? Could this be the Democrats that are in control of the House/Senate?
  - MSUKate, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1The Dems voted FOR the bill WITHOUT the f-ing earmarks in the first place!
    
    It was the hous Reps who needed "sweetening" in order to pass the bill.
    
    Watch CNN sometime
- jayzfans, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4i dont care if he put them in or not, obama could have put them in, that is not the ISSUE here. he said NO earmarks and he voted FOR them. conclusion: another LIE from the drama queen campaign. hes gonna explain it on TV if hes asked, almost crying again that he didnt mean any harm to the american people.
  
  stop the drama, vote obama.
  - zacharytelschow, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3You must be an honest to goodness idiot. If McCain voted no on every bill with pork barrel spending he'd be forced to vote against every single bill.
- lhbaker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Did McCain object to the earmarks? No, he didn't. Is McCain a hypocrite? Yes, he is.
M4dC0ns3rv4tive, on 10/02/2008, -11/+24McCain lost my vote for sure when he voted for this bailout. This bailout is bad for every American family out there. Our national debt seems to be a joke to people. This is as serious as a heart attack people. People on limited income will be even poorer as a result of a devalued dollar. The taxpayers will have to dig deeper in their pocket to finance this mess.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/02/2008, -3/+18Obama and Biden voted for it as well.
  - skatastrophy, on 10/02/2008, -4/+9Of course they did. McCain and Obama are running on the same platform for all intents and purposes. The two party system is broken.
- inboxnews, on 10/02/2008, -12/+9So you're for 0bama now? Both 0bama/biden voted for this bailout also! If fact both 0bama and biden passed on voting in the first round. They waited to see which way the wind was blowing before casting their votes. Real integrity there. After seeing this was going to pass 3/1, they voted for it. FYI, when McCain voted for this bill, he didn't first wait to see what others were doing. Say what you want about McCain, he is NOT a coward.
  - Asheis, on 10/02/2008, -4/+7Why are you using zeros? Are you trying to be subtly clever?
  - M4dC0ns3rv4tive, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Why do you assume I would vote for Obama just because I am not voting for McCain? You seem to believe that this is a two-party system. There are other candidates on the ballot. I never said that McCain is a coward! I said that he is a liar.
  - tattertech, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4He didn't necessarily say he's voting for Obama.
  - inboxnews, on 10/02/2008, -5/+3@M4dC0ns3rv4tive - Do I really have to say it? A vote against McCain is a vote for 0bama. But you knew that right? Please tell me you did. Another thing, this one vote is just that--one vote. What about everything else? Abortion, Gay Marriage, a Strong Military... just to name a few. Doesn't that matter to you?
  - Dalhectar, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5@inboxnews, you're talking out of your ass.
    
    The Senate never voted on the bill before Oct 1. Check the Wiki article for a time line... Section 7.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_bailout_of_U ...
    
    Please stop making up facts. It makes you look dumber than spelling Obama 0bama.
  - Kucher, on 10/02/2008, -1/+40wned
  - M4dC0ns3rv4tive, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6Don't get me started. A crippled economy cannot support a strong military (Please refer to the Soviet Union/Ronald Reagan handbook). I am a business owner. I not only am responsible for my mortgage, but for the mortgages of each of my employees. This bailout is personal to me. My party, the Republicans, ran up huge debts, trounced civil liberties, and made our enemies stronger through bad foreign policy. I am more afraid of our country going bankrupt and soldiers dying than I am gay people getting married. So yes, I am mad!
    
    Not voting for McCain is not a vote for Obama. My vote has to be earned by a candidate. I do not whore out my vote out of blind allegiance. I have hope that this country will embrace the power of Democracy by valuing our vote and finally finding something to believe in, instead of something to hate.
  - iantagonist, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Right on!
- AzBats, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8He's probably voting for a 3rd party which is not Green or Nadar.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3There are issues with the bailout, but raising the national debt in the long term is not a major one. Over time, these assets will regain value as people either become able to pay their mortgage or houses are foreclosed on. In fact, the assets could even be resold for a profit.
  
  As for you saying it is bad for every American family, a sunken economy and frozen credit market wouldn't do wonders for them either.
kemp34, on 10/02/2008, -16/+68McCain has long ago proven he has ZERO integrity.
- brad3378, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2I'm surprised that he doesn't get more crap from the media for flip flopping on his Abortion stance. That's a pretty damn big issue to flip flop on if you ask me.
  
  2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQU0TF18ZfI
  1999: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Trbaufpok8
kev0476, on 10/02/2008, -7/+17McCain: I voted for the bailout before I lobbied against it!
veggielib, on 10/02/2008, -9/+16You mean, John McCain lies?? Wow, who would have seen that coming? He's been so honest and forthright up until now. Oh well, at least his running mate tells the truth. And she's so smart!
lquid, on 10/02/2008, -11/+10Lmfao, and we were expecting him to keep his word?
Your funny digg, really funny.
- brawr, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3You're*
- nycjap, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3You mean "funny", like "haha", like I amuse you?
toastybeast, on 10/02/2008, -20/+8let's get some diggs up in hurr. people should know this.
Wosat, on 10/02/2008, -25/+30Obama once said he wasn't even running for president (because he lacked the necessary experience), then he said he would accept public funding for this campaign. He went back on his word both times.
- soflasooner, on 10/02/2008, -8/+16I guess DailyKos readers/Diggers are Digging Wosat's comment down because truth's a bitch!
  
  I forget, in which of the 57 states is tonight's debate?!?
  - Tocc, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4and McCain will be delivering "bottled hot water to dehydrated babies".
    
    Everyone will say at least one thing stupid when they are tired. In Obama's case he just mixed up 47 with 57.
  - jerrolds, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9back to the ol 57 states thing huh...slip of the tongue man, it isnt a gaffe come on
    
    He probably was referring to the 57 contests in the Democratic primary, even though they're not all in U.S. states:
    1-49: The 49 states besides Texas
    50: Texas primary
    51: Texas caucus
    52: Washington, DC
    53: American Samoa
    54: U.S. Virgin Islands
    55: Democrats Abroad
    56: Guam
    57: Puerto Rico
    
    http://digg.com/politics/Obama_s_57_State_Slip_of_ ...
- Hoffpa, on 10/02/2008, -7/+3hah
  but that doesn't matter it says nothing bad about mccain prepare to be dugg down.
  - Anomaly100, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5But the story is about McCain-
- RodBorn, on 10/02/2008, -4/+15Always happens, the quick TURNAROUND tactic. Just avoid the question and do a "yeah but what about him?"
  lame
- bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -4/+15@ all 4 of you.
  
  The truth is a bitch alright...for you. Obama said he lacked the experience he felt he needed in 2004. 2004. (just in case you have trouble with the numbers 2008-2004=4 YEARS) 4 years ago. Clearly since many top ranking officials on foreign policy, the economy, education, and others are agreeing with and supporting his ideas (even Bush and the Iraqi President embrace Obama's timeline for withdrawal for example), they are realizing that Obama has indeed asked the right questions, studied the right things, and has the experience needed to run. And if MORE experience meant he would be acting as crotchity, dishonorable, and erratic as McCain, then ***** more experience.
  
  He said from the beginning that he would accept funding from the general public....individuals, citizens, general public.. That's who has been giving to his campaign. Companies cannot, and if you went to his website you would see that only individuals are allowed to give.
  
  Wow, pull your heads out of each other's asses.
  - chukd, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4In 2006 on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Obama about the presidency.
    
    "MR. RUSSERT: Well, nine months ago, you were on this program and I asked you about running for president. And let’s watch and come back and talk about it.
    
    (Videotape, January 22, 2006):
    
    MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”
    
    SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.
    
    MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
    
    SEN. OBAMA: I will not.
    
    (End videotape)
    
    MR. RUSSERT: You will not."
    
    At least Clinton kept her word to her voters when she got to the senate and said she would not run for President in 2004 and server her full 6 years as senator.
    
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15304689/page/3/
  - bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5congratulations he will serve his full 6-year term...and he will if he doesn't get elected president. So what of it?
    
    As far as running for President, January 2006 was almost 3 years ago (34 months). At that point he still may not have felt that he was ready to run. Good for him, at least he was willing to admit it. Why are making it sound like he made a promise not to run when he didn't? if clinton promised her voters that, then congratulations, good for her.
    
    i still refer to my original comment...you've said nothing of merit here.
- cashman57, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4He said he was against the Iraq war and voted in a rare 100-0 Senate vote to fund it. He has so many lies it is almost funny, except for the fact some people take him seriously.
  - bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9TO FUND IT! It's one thing to be opposed to the war, but if the start of the war is approved which it was, even if you are opposed to it you have to be in favor of funding it for the sake of the poor troops that get sent over there for no good reason to fight bush's crusade. It's bad enough so many have died for that stupid ***** war.
  - adamdigg, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1bbtweb, It goes like this:
    1) War funding bill is voted down by congress.
    2) There is still some money remaining from the previous funding bill.
    3) The president and generals have to decide how to spend it.
    a) They use it up on a couple more months of bullets and rations, after which the troops are *****
    OR
    b) They use it to bring home the troops and end the whole fiasco.
    Bush calls Congress unpatriotic and as a result, some lose their positions
    
    So stop making excuses for Congress, they could have ended the war at any point by refusing to approve the funds. With a couple exceptions such as Kucinich and Paul, our representatives are selfish cowards, and all they care about is keeping their positions of power, which they paradoxically are too scared to actually use.
  - bbtweb, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3and if funding was cut off, do you really think Bush would have brought our troops home?? hell no! he would have bitched and moaned exactly as you stated. It would be ideal if Congress refused to pass the spending bills and thus we could count on the fact that Bush would bring our troops home, but I'm not willing to gamble with the lives of our troops - because really in the end, if funding is cut off and Bush refuses to call them home and tries to muddle through with sub-standard funding, the only ones who lose are the troops and that's not right. The troops deserve better than the ***** Bush has dropped in their lap in the last 6 years.
  - cashman57, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Perhaps some of you cannot underestand what I wrote. If the vote had been 99-1 with 0bama as the dissenter it would have passed and he would have kept his word.
    He decided instead to do what was politically expedient.
    How many lies does this man have to tell you before you discover he's a liar?
- johnpaul191, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3ok fine, NADER!
- johnkelly84, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Sure Obama went back on his word, but his Presidential platform was not "I will not run for president", nor was it "I will use public funding".
  
  McCain's crusade against pork-barrel spending IS a key part of his platform, and one that McCain heavily promotes.
- lhbaker, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7But... But Obama! Republicans argue by changing the subject.
- hierophantus, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3The difference is that neither of those "promises" meant anything to me, or anyone else who doesn't robotically vote straight-ticket Republican.
  
  Oh no! He's running for president when a while ago he said he wouldn't!
  Oh no! He's not going to do it on the US taxpayers' dime!
  
  Shameless and horrifying! We must not elect this monster!
edrift101, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6It's time to make some people famous. Oh, wait...
- zacharytelschow, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4FTA: "[McCain] promised to veto the first bill on his desk that included pork barrel spending."
  
  "But yesterday John McCain was given his first opportunity during the whole campaign to PROVE how he’d live out his campaign promises. And what did he do? He BROKE his promise."
  
  So... McCain, as president, signed into law a bill with pork barrel spending yesterday? Am I missing something?
darkmachina, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9Almost all lies are acts, and speech has no part in them.
- Mark Twain
- Anomaly100, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2And never the twain shall meet--
  
  R. Kipling
SethEllis, on 10/02/2008, -23/+8You guys are forgetting about line item vetos. If a bill with earmarks is presented to McCain he wouldn't veto the whole thing. He'd just use line item vetos to get rid of the earmarks. The president has very different tools to help deal with earmarks. As a senator McCain honestly can't do much. If he had to vote against every bill with earmarks, he would never get to vote for anything.
- shoelace414, on 10/02/2008, -2/+20That's funny considering there is no line item veto at the national level.
- singularityv, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9What line item veto? Or are you talking about signing statements?
- saddino, on 10/02/2008, -1/+17The president has no line item veto (the short-lived 1996 liv was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the supreme court). Only a constitutional amendment would bring it back.
- FallenTurtles, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9Once again, his power is to vote "no" until it is rewritten properly. It might still pass, but at least McCain could claim that he did what was possible with his power.
  - jdibiase, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3The proverbial rock and hard place. If he voted no he'd be lambasted for voting against the bailout. It's true that he only has a vote as a senator, and sometimes, if the stakes are high enough, you have to swallow hard and make the tough choice to vote for a bill, EVEN IF you find some aspects unsavory.
    
    Why aren't we talking about the votes that were "bought" with these earmarks? Those are the truly despicable people that should be castigated.
- gi0rgi0s, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10Presidents don't have line item veto power.
- VicHislop, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10To echo shoelace, there is no federal line-item veto. There was for a brief period, but it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
  
  (Oh, and if you're reading this Sarah, the court case was Clinton v. City of New York.)
- BlueScreenOD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton. [3][4]
  
  However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
  
  ---
  
  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
- jayzfans, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3i wonder how many reasons you will find to get mccain innocent. hes a liar, and he has been a liar all his life, and thats facts. he is not only hiding the truth, but hes lying in your face, and smiling while doing it.
  
  stop the drama, vote obama.
- CursorTN, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3So there is no line item veto and he'd have to send it back to congress--at least until they could get enough pork in it to override the veto.
  
  "Make them famous." I'm tired of presidents who talk like they think getting elected to office makes them the God damned Lone Ranger.
cwright213, on 10/02/2008, -5/+30Hope Biden brings this up in the debate. MAKE HIM FAMOUS JOE!!!
smartest4you, on 10/02/2008, -2/+21McCain is a maverick, he will say or do anything for the sake of this country. God save this country and this world from him.
- Cybermaul, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2If you truly wish God to save this country, you need to be willing to be an instrument in His hands (i.e. do something about it).
  - IronTek, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7Oh sure, smartest4you can go do all the hard work only to have God swoop in and take all of the credit.
  - CursorTN, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I think cybermaul just called McCain a "tool." heh heh.
pintomp3, on 10/02/2008, -1/+23the iraq war is the biggest pork barrel project of them all. mccain is against cost plus contracts, but companies like haliburton and blackwater are the largest recipients of such contracts. why doesn't anyone point this out?
- dolphindance25, on 10/16/2008, -0/+1Let's spend billions to simultaneously rebuild and destroy a country.
  
  If it was really "country first", we'd be spending that money in America.
singularityv, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12The more this goes on, the more I realize how ***** we are no matter who wins in November.
Zuljin, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7Who else loves that "pork barrel spending" is a term?
PeppermintPig, on 10/02/2008, -3/+11If there are earmarks, then he's a huge hypocrite. But tax cuts are not earmarks.

I'm fine with the elimination of all taxes. :)
- pintomp3, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6elimination of all taxes is not the same as preferential tax cuts for a select industry.
- ldkronos, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I agree. According to the definition that I understood, an earmark is selectively targeting funds to be applied to specific projects. I'm not sure that a targeted tax cut falls into the same category.
  
  Jackasses. You got me excited over nothing.
- ldkronos, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4OK, as a followup...from the office of management and budget.
  
  http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html
  
  Based on the definition on that page, I'll reassert that tax cuts are not earmarks. Now if I can just find the congressional definition of earmarks....
- tucson27, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7You're fine with elimination of all taxes?
  
  Then you're fine with no military, no courts or police, no roads but those you make yourself, no education other than propagating your own ignorance. You're fine with just waiting for the next strong man with guns taking everything you own and selling you into slavery?
  
  Check out human history to view life in the free from all government mode.
gi0rgi0s, on 10/02/2008, -3/+8Did McCain request these earmarks? That's different from voting on a bill with earmarks. Almost every bill has earmarks; he would never vote for any bill if that were the case. He has lied a ton of times during the campaign, but this isn't one of those times.
mrdeathgod, on 10/02/2008, -8/+18JOHN MCCAIN IS A LIAR.
- bailoutbrigade, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2And a pretty poor one at that.
  Ah, wait, bailout, forget about that "poor" bit.
bailoutbrigade, on 10/02/2008, -5/+19McCain betrayed us. Obama too.
And they're not alone, not at all.

If you want to know if your Representative or Senator added to this catastrophe, we're keeping a permanent list at: http://bailoutbrigade.com

Hopefully more diggers will get the word out about the leadership of our parties going against the will of the people.
- randumbusername, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4man obama is on the bailout bandwagon so you know his followers are too.
  
  early on i got the sense most of the people here were against it, even your kos sites where against it. now that obama has given his grand speech the tide seems to have turned. jesu....i mean obama has given the bailout his blessing. now look every post criticizing the bailout is in the negative.
- SchmuckofNI, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5I'll say it again and again they are both horrible canidates. Its truly a shame Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich didn't get more votes...
  - sealink, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Kucinich is awesome.
iceooo3, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7John McCain lies?

No way.
3gibberish4q57, on 10/02/2008, -5/+5I guess they needed the tax breaks for Puerto Rican rum makers so all those Puerto Rican congressmen would vote for it.
- ixach, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2There's only one Puerto Rican congressman in Washington, and he doesn't have the ability to vote.
  - svendm, on 10/03/2008, -1/+3I understood it as a joke.. that being the point?
tigerduck, on 10/02/2008, -5/+4The line item veto is not constitutional so can't be used - wait I forgot if McCain gets elected there is no such thing as not constitutional

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 act unconstitutional. Some scholars, including Louis Fisher, believe the line item veto would give presidents too much power over government spending compared with the power of Congress.[
Cyberdactyl, on 10/02/2008, -17/+17The Dailykos sits a poops another massive steaming pile and the far left diggers cover it in seconds.

So. . .what else is new?
- rjey, on 10/02/2008, -5/+8Nothing else is new and diggers need to wake the hell up and stay away from dailykos and huffington stories. They want credibility and yet continue to digg up crap from both of those sites. It is pathetic.
  - kezia1, on 10/02/2008, -3/+4We digg these because apparently the MSM is too pussy to report ***** like this. I would have dugg it if it was from CNN, the Onion, or Entertainment Weekly, as long as it is TRUE.
  - sealink, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2I don't digg the pure opinion articles, but I digg HuffPo that cites other articles, simply because HuffPo gets those articles to the front page.
craigatwork, on 10/02/2008, -3/+16http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/397/tarp30198dg ...
evo8ftw, on 10/02/2008, -18/+13More idiotic logic from the dailykos.com
- fredtehcat, on 10/03/2008, -0/+3Not sure why you're being buried; the site is known for spewing tons of crap.
Wargalas, on 10/02/2008, -13/+20I love how you all get all uppity about McCain breaking this campaign promise, when Obama has broken so many, and we don't hear a peep out of you. (FISA)

How about the corrupt nature of Obama's earmarks towards his wife's employer, yet him talking about wanting "honesty" in government?

She did get a raise that was almost double her salary around that same time you know.
- Wargalas, on 10/02/2008, -3/+10I especially love how I'm getting folks digging me down after I present them with indisputable FACTS.
  
  Keep drinking the kool-aid sheep.
- macfarm, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8Think you for telling it like it is !!!!!
- Pandatot, on 10/02/2008, -3/+6Did you suggest that we didn't hear a peep about FISA? It was all over digg and everyone was upset about Obama for voting that way. I hate people who pretend there are no negative stories about Obama, but usually when someone makes a legitimate post or comment about something bad Obama has done it gets upvoted. It's just most comments about Obama are 'he's a muslim!' or 'omg he's going to increase taxes!' and are just plain wrong and stupid talking points. Stop being one of those 'oh noes teh librul media!' morons.
  - PolishLogic, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Actually, there was an awfully strong sentiment of "his FISA vote is understandable, because he didn't want to seem soft on terror". This was echoed far more frequently than any uproar. A large number of Obama supporters attempted to defend this piece of ***** yes vote.
    
    "usually when someone makes a legitimate post or comment about something bad Obama has done it gets upvoted."
    On which website does this occur?
    
    "'omg he's going to increase taxes!' and are just plain wrong and stupid talking points"
    How so? He IS going to increase taxes. "Taxes" are more than income taxes (which will be increasing for some). They're also taxes on business (big and small), taxes on capital gains (which very much affect the middle-class).
- Wargalas, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6I'm talking about people proclaiming Obama to be the next "Messiah", and they clearly ignore a lot of bad things about him, while they trumpet ANYTHING about McCain/Palin they can.
- Pandatot, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2No one says that, but what you said was about FISA which was wrong.
  
  Also, just look at all the ridiculous things McCain and Palin have done just in this last week. Of course that will be getting more news time because they are clearly ridiculous and an embarrassment to this great country.
  
  No one thinks Obama is a 'Messiah' and the only reason you say that is to make the side that you are not a part of seem ridiculous so that you can somehow rationalize your thinking and allow yourself to sleep at night by just saying that some hypothetical person that doesn't exist thinks Obama is a 'Messiah' and that makes you clearly in the right. It's pathetic.
  
  Just stop making a fool out of yourself, just like this whole McCain/Palin debacle.
  - Wargalas, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3"No one thinks Obama is a 'Messiah' and the only reason you say that is to make the side that you are not a part of seem ridiculous so that you can somehow rationalize your thinking and allow yourself to sleep at night by just saying that some hypothetical person that doesn't exist thinks Obama is a 'Messiah' and that makes you clearly in the right. It's pathetic."
    
    You must be new here.
- noplastic, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Verify your statement with a source. This is untrue. More spin.
55mph, on 10/02/2008, -6/+4I want to see those propaganda videos McCain made for the North Vietnamese. 32 of them i hear.
StupotAce, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2What happened to Updates 1 & 5?
brianbb98, on 10/02/2008, -5/+7One more reason to write in Ron Paul. I know he would be president but I cant bear to vote for either of these guys. I like Obama.. think he's a nice guy and all and seems to know much more about things than McCain but I dont agree with him on so many levels. And McCain... what he did in Vietnam is greater than anything I'm sure I'll ever go through in my lifetime.. I would like to shake his hand and thank him for his service and maybe have a beer and go fishing with the man, but thats about it. He'll make our country even worse then those men on 9-11 could wish for...

/end mini rant
- noplastic, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3There are a number of us who have respect for Ron Paul But this election is between Obama and McCain. it's after the election we should get behind Ron Paul, or whatever party follows your values. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to get us, We The People, involved. This also means with our representatives and senators, whether repubs or dems. Right now a vote for anyone but Obama will definitely put McCain in, then Palin.
Akairenn, on 10/02/2008, -15/+6I am now strongly in favor of a McCain presidency.

"We ’re talking $195M in tax cuts to Puerto Rican rum makers"

I'm going to need a lot of alcohol to make it through the next four nears, regardless of which avatar of McBama is elected. By electing the senile incarnation of The Great Political Tool, rum will at least flow, as water from the sky.
Killmon, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5Is anyone really surprised? Of course he spends our money on what he wants!!! Of course he lies to us to gain power...that is his job. they say they want less government in the form of less regulation, but they have increased the size of government as far as members... so what we should want is smaller government that does more regulation.. so the members of government do not rape us with their private corps!!!! But, we all trust them like dumb asses.

And, let me get this straight... the owners of the banks say we want 1 trillion dollars... we say no, so they tell there banks to stop giving credit, and we say OK here is a trillion? Am I wrong?
- jjmelch, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Where is all the spending for Arizona? Oh, I guess he forgot to get himself some while the demoncrats that control the congress feed at the trough.
  - Killmon, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I agree the dems are just as bad.... Obama prosecuted mortgage companies that did not give enough sub prime loans.
  - Killmon, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2all though this did not just start when the dems got control...that is just silly talk.
- NetLethal, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1You're not wrong...you're just an *****.
- noplastic, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Pretty close to being almost right. At this time however, if we don't pass this bailout in two weeks we will be in the worst financial mess ever. Sometimes we have to ride it out and strike when the iron is hot; until then it's a matter of waiting. Elections come up often enough for us to make a difference. But it does take a lot of us, it takes a lot of watching, and time at the internet. It's truly amazing what goes on in govt. -- but we let too many years slip by because we were afraid of Bush police knocking on our doors. It's not enuf to read the usual news or watch the networks, except BBC. You have to dig really deep. Let's hope Obama gets in so we get the chance at least to have that freedom of speech that has been limited. (the Dixie Chicks, Whoopi Goldberg, et al)
  - Killmon, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1The mess will not be avoided... they are just privatizing the profit and socializing the debt... it is exactly what they want...we are just amusing their debt...
    
    News flash, the reason why the Treasury and the FED could continue to print money and put it in market without the effects being absolutely horrible. It was becau

McCain just broke his BIGGEST campaign pledge! (earmarks)

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

McCain just broke his BIGGEST campaign pledge! (earmarks)

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Related by Keyword

McCain criticized earmarks from Palin

Wife Must Cought Up 1.5 Million If For Husband's Kidney!

Sarah Palin: Earmark Queen Of The Earmark State