Bipartisanship in Action

[AFTiger 282]

Home Alone on Earmarks

John McCain may be cruising to a presidential nomination, but he holds limited clout in the chamber he has worked in for over 20 years. Last night, the Senate turned back one of his pet projects, a proposed one-year moratorium on earmarks.

The vote, which technically was on a procedural motion, wasn't even close, with 71 senators voting against the motion by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, and 29 in favor. Mr. McCain, who has made opposition to pork-barrel spending a highlight of his presidential campaign, couldn't even sway a majority of GOP Senators to his side. He did bag a surprise supporter in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, who has traditionally defended earmarks.

Democratic Senators clearly are betting that attacks on pork-barrel spending won't resonate with voters this fall. Only three Democrats joined with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, last-minute converts to the anti-pork barrel cause.

Senator McCain said the defeat of the moratorium proved Congress was "the last bastion in America that doesn't get it" regarding government spending. "It wasn't the war in Iraq that caused [the GOP] to lose in 2006, it was the wasteful, pork-barrel spending," he told reporters. "Ask any county Republican chairman in America. Ask any Republican operative in America."

Senator McCain says he still plans to target outrageous government spending as a campaign issue. He just won't be doing it with much support from his Senate colleagues, which may help him even more easily portray himself as someone who would shake up Beltway practices.

-- John Fund

It is a shame that when they can agree, we get screwed.

[Auburn85 432]

i wonder how many of the 71, who voted against this, are up for re-election this year?

unfortunately,that may have something to do with it. they need every earmark possible so people will say "congressman/woman provided us the the funds for so and so and that's why i'm voting for him/her"

[OldNewby 27]

It is a shame that when they can agree, we get screwed.

In essence, the Senate agreed to keep screwing us. Wonder how HRC and BHO voted?

Also, don't McCain, and either Clinton or Obama have their Senate seats to fall back on in case they win their party's nomination and aren't elected POTUS? Not one of them has the character to go for it all without a safety net.

[Tigermike 3,054]

It is a shame that when they can agree, we get screwed.

In essence, the Senate agreed to keep screwing us. Wonder how HRC and BHO voted?

Well Obama has announced his earmarks and RR says it is all good.

[AFTiger 282]

It is a shame that when they can agree, we get screwed.

In essence, the Senate agreed to keep screwing us. Wonder how HRC and BHO voted?

All three of the presidential candidates vote for the bill. They were unable to persuade their fellow senators to follow suit.

But now we know why they will raise taxes rather than reduce spending.

[Tigermike 3,054]

But now we know why they will raise taxes rather than reduce spending.

Now that deserves a big AMEN!

[CCTAU 3,346]

But now we know why they will raise taxes rather than reduce spending.

Now that deserves a big AMEN!

I'd give you one, but in another thread I thought I read where you have to be black to do that. Sorry.