quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
RECKLESS in his foreign policy,
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS in choosing a Vice President, and
Proof please?
quote:
RECKLESS with the truth?
Same as above.
I've already given proof in my last two posts. If McCain were president, we'd be at war with Russia because he would already have exhausted all diplomatic measures before the invasion of Georgia. We would be blindly supporting the right wing nuts in Israel that will never trade land for peace.
We don't need a "shoot from the hip" "maverick" in the White House; we need a leader that can build bipartisan consensus and make government more transparent to its owners (us). Americans are middle-of-the-roaders and, if they have access and the attention of their leaders, they will demand smart policies that help all of us.
No, that's your
opinion, not
fact.
Judging from Obama's list of pet earmarks posted elsewhere, I'm not seeing much in the way of transparency.
With his starkly liberal agenda, how was he planning on building bi-partisan consensus.
Feel free to correct me and guide me in the right direction on this. Bi-partisanship and transparency seem to be illogical conclusions.
You seem to imply that requesting earmarks somehow is not transparent. I agree that it is not the optimal way to allocate federal government funds, but it isn't necessarily non-transparent, is it? In your looooong post listing Obama's earmarks, you forgot to mention that it was Obama himself who announced the requested earmarks up front:
"Obama Announces FY08 Federal Funding Requests
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Printable Format
Discloses earmarks to improve government transparency
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today announced that he had requested federal funding for the following projects, in the amounts designated by his constituents and several national organizations, as part of this year's annual appropriations process:"
Moreover, from Senator Obama's Senate website:
"Senator Obama worked closely with Senator Coburn, to draft and ultimately pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. President Bush signed this measure into law in September of 2006.
"This important bill will bring badly needed transparency to Federal spending by creating a user-friendly website to search all government contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans, thereby opening up Federal financial transactions to public scrutiny. This measure was cosponsored by more than 40 Senators and received the support of more than 100 outside groups from all parts of the political spectrum. It was also endorsed by dozens of editorial boards across the country from the Wall Street Journal, to the Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman.
"The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act
Hidden, last-minute earmarks hide pork and add to wasteful federal spending. Senator Obama sponsored the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act. The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate. Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists. Several of these provisions were included in the ethics and lobbying reform bill that passed the Senate in January 2007."
So, yes, I think Obama would bring greater transparency to the White House and the government in general.
I'm not sure what you mean about "starkly liberal agenda", although I have to say that I've heard this complaint before. Universal health care is not "liberal" it's just common sense economics that interests as diverse as drug manufacturers, doctors, insurance companies and health care advocates can agree on. Tax cuts for 95% of the population (including small businesses) is not "liberal"; it's good tax policy. Not spending gobs of money on unnecessary wars is actually very conservative.
