Sarah Palin, a Tea Party favorite, said it is revolution time. Apparently the TPs took that literally, resulting in the Tea Party endorsing violence against the U.S. government; 24 percent of all Tea Partiers, 32 percent of the more radical activists think it is justified. When you combine that with the fact that 58 percent have a gun at home, the concept becomes scary. I researched, but couldn’t find, how many TPs are NRA members.
Tea Party activists are the angriest and most pessimistic about the country and President Obama. 72 percent of this gang are angry with Washington and 96 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing. 55 percent think the income tax we pay is not fair, but only 44 percent hold a favorable opinion of the Republican Party. 77 percent like Glenn Beck and 75 percent like Sarah Palin. And 50 percent of these wackos think Palin is qualified to be President.
63 percent of all TPs get their political news from Fox News, 77 percent of the activists, which could explain where they were derailed in the first place. It also explains how 75 percent are conservative with 39 percent very conservative. 66 percent always or usually vote with the GOP, and an even more-scarier statement that the U.S. needs a third party. Maybe Beck and Palin are planning to run as Tea Party candidates.
The TPs are angry about health care reform, lack of representation in government, government spending, and unemployment and the economy. 92 percent of them feel America is on the wrong track, compared with only 59 percent of the overall population. Half of all Americans approve of President Obama’s job, compared to just 7 percent of Tea Party supporters.
In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, it was established that the Tea Party is planning a revolution, and one of its major thrusts will be to roll back the nation’s gun laws, the effective few that are on the books that are responsible for holding down gun violence. Now I know what the gun bubbas are saying to this, that there was a surge in weapons ownership recently and that’s what keeps our neighborhoods safe. Pure bunk!
First of all, I don’t know anyone where I live that owns a handgun, and if I did, they would be the last one I would call on. Furthermore, I don’t feel one iota safer walking down the street next to Wyatt Earp who is carrying a gun, which, because of the way he flaunts it, could easily be wrested away from him or her by a bad guy who could end up shooting me. Like former President Ronald Reagan said, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”
Finally, it is rare that you see coverage in the media where an armed citizen has saved the life of an innocent bystander, and also infrequent when a gun owner uses their weapon to protect themselves. Most everything you read indicates the crooks, depending on just how desperate they are, will go to any length to get what they want, and no amateur gun-carrying Dick Tracy will help. This is particularly true of drug addicts.
My point is that moreguns on the street are certainly responsible for the recent rash of shooting violence across the U.S.
So back to the Tea Party and getting rid of all gun laws. According to UCLA Constitutional Law Professor Adam Winkler, their extremism is illustrated by the fact that many of their candidates are endorsed by Gun Owners of America, headed up by Larry Pratt, which argues that the NRA doesn’t support gun rights enough. Would you believe, the GOA thinks the NRA is too compromising? Pratt is also known for his part in starting the lunatic 1990’s patriot militia movement, which died after Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Professor Winkler believes that although guns rights individuals value their firearms for self-protection, the Tea Party and a rejuvenation of the militia movement covet them for revolution. This was evident by Sharon Angle’s run for the Senate against Harry Reid in Nevada when she told supporters if you don’t get rid of Harry Reid, the people will be forced to turn to “Second Amendment” remedies. Harry Reid won.
You can see Chris Matthews take on the Tea Party by a priceless comment he made recently in the following You Tube video.
While the Tea Party dresses up all their rhetoric for hot button issues like economics and too much government, “Make no mistake,” says Professor Winkler, “when it comes to guns, they’re talking about revolution.”
The NAACP just released a report saying that Tea Party events have become a forum for extremists. It found that organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) which opposes all efforts to “mix the races of mankind,” and white nationalist Web site Stormfront.org have become involved in Tea Party chapters. Gordon Baum of the CCC states the southern chapters are “very active” in preserving their culture.
But the most blatant evidence of racism in the Tea Party with overtones of Nazism thrown in was the party’s invitation for J.T. Ready, admitted racist and neo-Nazi from Mesa, Arizona, to speak at the Phoenix Tea Party in 2009. It was a “hate-Obama” rally that took place at the state Capitol on July 4.
The Tea Party has found the ultimate way to celebrate this country’s independence.
Apparently the question is not ‘is there racism in the Tea Party?’ but rather ‘just how racist is the group?’ Lee Fang on Alternet.org says there is “definitive proof” there is, and provides some examples you can see here. Maybe the TPs put that behind them, but there is more confirmation in a CBS News/New York Times study done in April of 2010. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
88 percent of Tea Partiers disapprove of President Obama’s performance, compared to 40 percent of Americans overall. 50 percent of all Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, while only 7 percent of the TPs think he is doing a good job. The latter were pinned down to why and of their own volition they actually made the following statement about why they held these views.
First and foremost, “they just don’t like him,” numbering 19 percent of the organization’s supporters. This is no edict on a person’s beliefs, but when you combine that with past racial epithets, a new question arises of ‘why almost a fifth of the Tea Party just doesn’t like Obama?’ Racism does still exist whether we like it or not, as evidenced by one Tea Party activist who said: “I’m a proud racist, I’m white.” 36 percent of the TPs come from the South.
Fortunately, we are saved by an American public that doesn’t agree with the TPs. 84 percent of the group’s supporters claim the views of the Tea Party are shared by most Americans. When asked only 25 percent of the latter agree…not necessarily what most would consider sincere support for this aggregation of reactionaries.
If it is a racist disapproval that moves Tea Party supporters, and only they really know that, it is time for progressives to stand up and be known that they are still fighting for the rights of all Americans.
In Part 1 of this article, I introduced Adam Winkler who is a constitutional law professor at UCLA, who says the Tea Party wants an “extreme roll back of the nation’s gun laws.” This is being pursued in several states by Tea Party candidates such as Paul Rand in Kentucky and Joe Miller in Alaska, who advocate adoption of the radical Firearms Freedom Acts, which are basically insurrectionist in their purpose. In Wyoming, if a federal officer attempts to enforce federal gun laws, he could get up to a year in jail.
One might expect that out of a state which former Vice President and infamous liar under GWB, Dick Cheney, hails from.
The Tea Party crackpots disguise their actions as states’ rights, but the intention is purely to eliminate all gun control. A move that could put more weapons in the hands of drug users and domestic batterers, as well as undermine gun dealer record-keeping laws that are used to solve crimes, Winkler says. As an example, the Professor also comments that Rand Paul is hell-bent on “no gun control period,” even if firearms end up in the hands of criminals.
Although the Tea Party tries to connect with the Ronald Reagan era, they fail to mention that Reagan “vigorously” endorsed the Brady Act, named for his press secretary injured seriously by a handgun. And one of my favorites, while Reagan was Governor of California, he supported laws banning gun bubbas from carrying loaded weapons around on public streets.
As a matter of fact, the former President said: “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” AMEN!
But Joe Miller, still trying to associate himself with Reagan, prompted his supporters in July to arrogantly parade with their guns openly displayed. They’re seen with military-type rifles on their shoulders and handguns strapped to their belt in an attempt to mirror Wyatt Earp. See the video below, and tell me if this doesn’t look like the biggest gang of misfits you’ve ever seen. Pathetic!
Tomorrow, Gun owners of America, another gun group even more radical than the NRA.
Adam Winkler is a constitutional law professor at UCLA, and recently wrote about how the Tea Party movement plans to overturn gun control laws. Just what is needed in this country…an extension of the NRA. Winkler says the issue was “conspicuously absent” in the recent election, but an undercurrent running through the campaign rhetoric was that the Tea Party wants an “extreme roll back of the nation’s gun laws.”
This could be the result of the dilution of the D.C. v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the Second Amendment does protect the right of an individual’s right to own guns for self-defense. In that decision SCOTUS added: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
The lower courts have followed that interpretation to uphold laws re. the possession of firearms by “felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.” Also “laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments.” And “laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition.”
With these courts upholding every one of these laws, as Professor Winkler put it, “Since Heller, its Gun Control 60, Individual Right 0." See the Professor’s You Tube video, below, that concludes the major problem of gun control advocates is potential bills through state legislatures.
The CATO Institute financially backed the Heller legislation and thinks the above addendum added by Justice Scalia merely caused confusion in the ruling. The gun fanatics disagree—wouldn’t we be disappointed if they didn’t?—saying it just confirms that the Supreme Court “believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful.” With all these disappointments, amid the flag waving by the NRA of what they had accomplished on Heller, the Tea Party quietly made their plans.
The Tea Party thought so. Rick Perry, elected in the midterms to Texas Governor and potential TP presidential candidate in 2012 agrees. Perry is yet another fanatic from that group that wants to get rid of all government, including Social Security. Hopefully, those seniors over age 65 and drawing their SS will realize the stupidity in the backing of the Tea Party. Probably not, since much of this movement is based almost 100 percent on emotional involvement.
In a Newsweek article linked below, Perry poses with a rack of guns, which means he probably doesn’t plan to support gun control. As a matter of fact, the Tea Party has a radical agenda to overturn gun control laws, while its candidates seem to have soft-pedaled the issue during the recent elections. According to a UCLA Today article by constitutional law professor Adam Winkler, “They seek an extreme roll back of the nation’s gun laws.”
With GM in the process of one of the most touted IPOs in history, the government’s investment was a good one, which saved a company and the jobs held by thousands of its employees. Perry doesn’t believe this, nor does he think saving the banking system was a good idea. Most consumers are anti-banks today—and with good reason—but only a fool would think we should allow our entire financial structure to collapse.
The last Bush administration has shown just what will happen when you lift too many government controls and regulations. How many TPs lost their homes to foreclosure? How many TPs lost their jobs due to the collapse of the economy? How many TPs would suffer financially if they did away with Social Security and Medicare? Whatever these people have been told, I haven’t heard one valid solution for any of the above come from any part of the GOP, including the Tea Party.
The Tea Party rage has been described as a protest vote of angry citizens that will go with anyone but with the Washington regulars. As the old saying goes, they want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. The New York Times article dubs this “…stubbornness of voter anger toward the establishment…” and I call it simply stupid and lazy. Stupid in their inability to evaluate individual candidates, and too lazy to honestly analyze the issues.
This label rings true when you consider the primary elections of Christine O’Donnell from Delaware, and Joe Walsh in Chicago. Other candidates are charged with far-reaching financial troubles, domestic altercations and other problems. Although there is no official platform, the Tea Party promises strict interpretation of the Constitution.
As an example, this line of reasoning brought the Ohio candidate for the Tea Party to the conclusion you could eliminate the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, plus others to achieve a “pure government.”
After Republican fears that this lunatic fringe could scuttle their plans to take over Congress in the mid-terms, The New York Times reports that some Tea Party candidates are strong enough to create a caucus large enough to support their agenda. That would be to repeal health care reform, financial regulation, and replace Social Security and Medicare with personal savings accounts.
With 33 of their candidates in House tossup races, and 8 with good chances at Senate seats, this is a call to arms for all progressives that need to get out and vote to prevent this cataclysm. Since African-Americans and Hispanics would be hardest hit by a Tea Party style government—which, by the way, has no official platform—they should think twice about staying home on Election Day. States with the highest concentration of Tea Party candidates are South Carolina, Massachusetts, and Arizona.
Chinese general and author Sun Tzu, born in 544 BC said: “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” Progressives today are faced with unethical, sometimes illegal tactics from Republican conservatives, particularly the Tea Party movement. Since this group is so new on the scene, The Dunning Letter will document some of their demographics, while exposing their extreme beliefs. Hang on. This may take a while.
CBS News and the New York Times surveyed 1,580 adults, more than half of which were self-identified Tea Party supporters. A summary of the results started with: “They're white. They're older. And they're angry.” 89 percent are white, 75 percent are age 45+ with 29 percent 65+. Their political dogma comes later, but in the meantime more profiling of just what these reactionaries look like.
They are from the South, 36 percent, the West, 25 percent, the Midwest 22 percent and the northeast 18 percent. Apparently voters become more mentally sound as they move north and east. Supposedly they are better educated, but a college philosophy teacher once told the class, “You can educate most individuals but you can’t teach them to think for themselves.” 56 percent earn more than $50,000 annually.
41 percent are female, 59 percent male, 39 percent Evangelical Christians, 61 percent Protestant and 22 percent Catholic. Some 38 percent attend weekly religious services. It wasn’t too long ago that progressives had to contend with the sometimes fanatical actions of the religious right, and then Jerry Falwell died in 2007 and the movement seemed to weaken. Tea Partiers could be a rebirthing.
Robt. Creamer, columnist for the Huffington Post, says that Republicans will regret turning against undocumented immigrants, thus, alienating some Hispanic American citizens. Why? Because the latter are registering to vote in sharply increasing numbers, and it is likely most of them will vote Democratic. Creamer also says the GOP move was to keep from offending the Tea Party group.
As an example, Texas Republican Governor, Rick Perry, also supported by the Tea Party, has lost an early lead to Democrat, Bill White, according to Public Policy Polling (PPP). The PPP says it has all been due to Hispanicvoters.
Passage of the Arizona anti-immigration law, SB1070, forced Republicans to make a choice, and when it favored Tea Party racism strategy, a huge realignment started to take place in Latino voters across the U.S. Creamer says Hispanic voters see the GOP as anti-immigration zealots, and will punish them for it in the fall.
If the Hispanic community continues to grow at the fast pace it is on now—currently the fastest growing segment in America—it might be the chance liberals have been looking for. Put the conservatives where they belong; in at least second place…permanently.
Independent voters represent 40 percent of all voters. If the remaining 60 percent were broken down 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans, Independents would still have a 10 percent edge. I have spoken with several independent organizations including CUIP, Committee for a Unified Independent Party, but the reaction seems to be that they don’t want to form a party.
Meaning what? They don’t want the stigma of party affiliation, or they are satisfied with just standing back and influencing the two major parties? If it is the latter, is it accomplishing a solution that is in the best interest of the voter? The country is currently torn between two warring political parties, the approval rate of the President is dropping again, and voters have absolutely no confidence in members of Congress.
Apparently the problem is that Independent voters are made up of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans who haven’t yet made up their minds just how liberal or conservative they really are. Or they don’t know if they are moderate left or right. But is there anything wrong with that?
I became an Independent because, as a liberal, I felt the Democratic Party no longer championed the best interests of the regular folks over the corporate world. I am in favor of some government control and regulation, so I would never make the Tea Party’s wish list. And Republicans will never stray from their support of big business over the consumer.
The question that arises is whether establishing a declaration in any one of the above directions would damage or kill the Independent movement? Must they declare a specific mission to seal the cohesiveness of this group? But, then, it won’t be independent anymore, will it?
What is needed is an identity that can be easily defined by all, a classification process that makes participants comfortable in what they are engaged in, which can also used to recruit more members and influence political decisions.
Maybe the answer is to poll Independents on how they rank issues such as the economy, defense, education, welfare, taxation, gay rights, immigration, privacy, etc. to get a more comprehensive insight into what this individual looks like. I, for one, would like to know what others in the group in which I participate believe. If CUIP has this I am not aware of it, and if they don’t they should start on it now, before November.
This strategy could attract more people to the Independent cause because they see an issue they feel strongly about, or others who see something weak in the rankings and want to help make a difference in that area. Independents must find the key to moving this stagnant two-party political system forward and out of today’s malaise, corruption and infighting that has turned off all voters.
If something isn’t done soon, we are doomed to repeat history. Many think the Roman Empire never really fell, it just adapted. But others believe its decline was due to religion, decadence, monetary trouble and military problems. Sound familiar? One faction even thinks it had to do with the rise of Islam.
It was in West Virginia that she apparently made up her mind to seriously consider a run for the highest office in the land. In 2012. No doubt as a Tea Party Republican. Yes, pretty soon you could be seeing political ads that tout Sarah Palin for President of the United States. Has a certain ring, doesn’t it? The kind of mayday bells that should set off warnings for all informed and thinking Americans. Stop Palin now…before it’s too late!
Her exact quote was: “I’m engaged in the internal deliberations candidly, and having that discussion with my family, because my family is the most important consideration here.” Maybe we could get the family to convince her of the idiotiocy of this whole idea. Oh, I forgot, husbands and apples don’t fall far from the tree.
Palin talked about the lack of “meaningful differences” in policy between GOP candidates. Didn’t know she had any policies other than to espouse the Tea Party hogwash she seems to have attached herself to. And then she talked about proving her record, on which she would run. Does that record include how her opposition to Senator Lisa Murkowski probably helped the candidate to win her race in Palin’s home state?
My theory is most people listen to her for entertainment, much as the fans of Rush Limbaugh do. But like Limbaugh, it aint funny anymore, and any rerun on television is better entertainment. The Republicans are scared to death of a Palin run for the presidency, but the Democrats can hardly wait and are already licking their chops.
In 2008 the Democrats had the black and Hispanic voters along with some white votes. Obama had considerable strength in young, white voters age 18 to 29. That was then, but now is, well…different. White voters are deserting the President, as indicated by the latest polls, according to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post. The House midterm elections could be “devastating” for Democrats as one top Democratic operative put it.
And there is more. A Washington Post/ABC poll has Obama’s rating with white voters dropping to 40 percent from 60 percent. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey says Obama’s standing among white voters is very similar to those of George W. Bush in 2008, 28 percent.
Enter Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB1070, authored by State Senator, Russell Pierce, a Republican, and Governor Jan Brewer, also a Republican.
White voters made up 79 percent of 2006 midterm voters. This changed to 74 percent in 2008. Is that a potential trend? The Democratic National Committee will be spending tens of millions of dollars hoping to recreate the success of their 2008 election model. This included the pursuit of young people, African Americans and Hispanic voters to produce a higher-than-normal turnout.
What is interesting is the Nevada senatorial race between Democrat Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, and Tea Party backed Republican, Sharron Angle. Tea Party backing could be one strike against Angle. Her support of Arizona’s law could be two assuming a large Latino vote. And if Harry Reid can mobilize the Hispanic vote in Nevada, currently 12 percent of the electorate, that could deliver strike three.
Reid will have to work hard to get Hispanics to register to vote, and then vote in his favor, due to the Senator’s inability to pass comprehensive immigration reforms. However, some think, because of the efforts Reid has made, Hispanics will come to the rescue.
I do not live in Nevada. I am not a Democrat. But Harry Reid must defeat Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle if Nevada is to continue as a civilized state. Angle’s latest TV ad attacks Reid for his support of the DREAM ACT, rivaling the 1988 “Willie Horton” ad in its despicability. Then she heads over to a Las Vegas school to defend the ad to Hispanics. The ad shows three “illegal immigrants” trying to cross the border. (SEE BELOW)
The same three “illegal immigrants” were used in an ad by the Louisiana Governor, indicating they must be crossing several borders at once. Tibi Ellis, Chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Hispanic Caucus who also used to work for Angle, has condemned the ad calling it “propaganda.” It’s this kind of racist politics that has turned off most of the American voting public, but apparently not the Tea Party.
If you haven’t visited FactCheck.org, you should, if only to experience the wide array of subjects covered on this site. Their 2010 FactCheck Awards were published today and the political ads they cover are a cross between the bizarre and the ridiculous. From the use of dog excrement to make a point, to the Alabama Tea Party hillbilly candidate that clearly doesn’t know his Tea Party history. They are worth an after-election laugh or two.
At the same time, Newsweek did an excellent article on midterm “misstatements” that is a must-read. One of their quotes is that, due to undisclosed, unaccountable sources of campaign financing from corporations, “…the amount of deceit in political advertising is at least as high as we’ve ever seen.”
Health Care – Misrepresentations by Republicans on this issue have been common throughout the campaign with false claims like: Medicare patients would lose their doctors, or that the Dems favored giving Viagra to sex offenders, or Seniors would lose some of their benefits.
Social Security – Democrats in certain states claim that Republicans want to abolish or “privatize” Social Security. Mostly a serious overstatement since what the GOP has really said was to allow younger workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in the stock market.
President Obama said it: “The worst thing we could do is go back to a philosophy that nearly destroyed our economy.” Surely an enlightened public will grasp the fact before November 2, that by letting the Republicans take over Congress we are destined to dig the hole of economic devastation much deeper. Not to mention the loss of a number of our consumer rights to big business.
Even though Nancy Pelosi may not be the answer, do you really want Tea Party connected John Boehner running the House? Considering Tea Party candidates Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, Sharron Angle of Nevada, and especially Rand Paul of Indiana, do you want anyone from this disjointed and racist group in office? That could be even worse than the Bush days.
In the aftermath of all this, right wing radicals are spreading bigoted propaganda about how Blacks in power have some vendetta against whites. In an article, the Washington Post has urged President Obama to “stand up to the ‘reverse racism’ ploy,” but in the current state of affairs that could be political suicide. Or would it?
I grew up in a segregated South of the 1950s and 1960s, knew members of the Ku Klux Klan, and once lived very close to the Mississippi site of the Emmett Till murder. I played in a band that performed at a 1948 States Rights Party—also known as the Dixiecrats Party—rally, where J. Strom Thurmond was running for president. It was held in my then home town of Jackson, Tenn.
My father once took me to a Jackson beer hall when I was old enough to drink, and when I questioned some red necks who were openly disparaging Blacks using the “N” word, we quickly had to leave.
I discovered one day to my horror that one of my best friends was an avid racist; that is after I was finally “admitted” to his “study” where KKK material was all over the walls, on his desk, even piles of it on the floor. I often wondered what effect this had on his children, both of which were pre-teens.
It is hard to maintain an objective outlook on an issue with this kind of peer pressure, much less come to the conclusion that you were anti-racism, which I did, and, from which I have never faltered to this day. Big deal, you might say, but I do think it is. My hope is that there are others like myself out there.
In Part 1, there was some brief background on where social democracy is practiced and the whys of its need. The two major items in the latter include hot buttons for the conservatives, particularly the Tea Party faction: welfare and free insurance. It’s the “Why should we give it away when I worked so hard for it.” mentality.
And much of this is based on the premise that the poor don’t want to work when they can just sit back and accept handouts. But experts are now saying that won’t hold up with the repression of social programs that actually assist the poor in finding work. As the pendulum swings, all these arguments are moot until it is decided just how government is planning to govern.
So what is a social democracy? Yes, it did spring from the socialist movement, and stayed very close to that ideology in many of the countries where it is practiced. But the literal development of a social democracy is the creation of a welfare state that combines capitalistic and socialistic institutions and practices. Kind of like what we already have in the reformation of democracy in the U.S. with the U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.
In a successful social democracy, the hypothesis is that if all its citizens have at least a minimum standard of living that is adequately above the poverty level, the whole country will thrive. This includes income, as well as housing and in most cases free medical care. The British Labour Party defines itself as a “democratic socialist party” and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair considered themselves social democrats.
Has the U.S. become so accustomed to the “good life” that we cannot understand that there are those in need, and that something must be done to allay these needs in order to stabilize the economy, as well as help our fellow human beings? This has become even more apparent in the recent downturn, and is now affecting those who once thought they were not vulnerable.
It only took three days for Sen. Jon Kyl from Arizona to blow the ban on earmarks that even Sen. Mitch McConnell from Kentucky had agreed to. McConnell is one of the leading pork barrelers, having bragged in the past about the millions he had directed to Kentucky projects. His shift on the issue was one of the most decent things McConnell has done in the last two years.
This was all prompted by Tea Party influence, especially Sen. Jim DeMint from South Carolina who was instrumental in changing non-binding party rules to eliminate “congressionally directed spending.” That was all on November 15, the week in which Congress was supposed to take a vote on earmarks, but there is some doubt now it will pass. President Obama supports the ban and more, but even some from his own party are in dissension.
Earmarks are spending items inserted in other bills, most likely by a Senator, going to a specific state. Just three days after the GOP renounced earmarks, Sen. Jon Kyl landed $200 million that will settle an Arizona Indian tribe’s water rights claim against the government. Kyl inserted it in a larger bill supported by the President, and then insisted it isn’t an earmark.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said on the floor of the Senate, “I do know an earmark when I see it. And this, my friends, is an earmark.
Kyl supposedly recently joined with the thinking of the senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain, also a Republican, and a stringent foe of earmarks. The junior Senator was impressive during the recent Bush administration when he agreed with everything GWB said or did. At best, Kyl’s congressional accomplishments are limited, consisting for the most part bring back pork to Arizona. Apparently that’s what gets him reelected.
