Marked For Continuation?

Here's another dose of Wallace V. Boehner; this time on "earmarks".



I'm given to the notion again that Republicans - be they conservative or not - have varying opinions on "earmarks" dependent on where you live in the US and what your political Q score is at the time.

The late Ted Stevens was widely known as "Uncle Ted" for "bringing home the bacon" to Alaska while Sarah Palin chides them at every given opportunity. Conservative mouth-breathers like Michelle Malkin doggedly create narratives around people like the late Jack Murtha for doing precisely what Stevens did but never a peep from her and her gleefully ignorant compatriots about what their Republican brethren have done.

So, this leads me to ask this question - are "earmarks" inherently bad? I think this all boils down to perception versus perspective. As I've stated before, if you lack proper perspective and allow the noise-machine to shape your perceptions, you aren't going to get an accurate picture of what these projects are, why they were put in place to begin with, and why the funding was directed to them.

It's a common conservative meme that any and all "earmarks" proposed by Democrats are part of some "culture of corruption" and are individual signifiers of the greed, malice, and utter lack of respect for the constituencies each Democrat represents. I find this framing more than just a little mellow dramatic and laughable.

The way that I see it, politicians are elected to go to Washington and do good for their districts, those they represent. If there needs to be highway repair, school reform, safety regulations amended or improved for business, or any variety of interests of the people, the person you elect should be able to provide or at least help provide those improvements to your city, county, or state. Perhaps this is an overly simplistic way of looking at it, but if I'm wrong, what are these people even elected for to begin with?

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Republican Earmark(s)

With all the bluster, shouting, and whining like 12-year-olds with a skinned knee, you would think that Republicans NEVER utilize earmarks.

Try To Name One, Sean

If there's one thing that can be said of not only Sean Hannity, but all of the lunatic-fringe Right, is that they stay on message. Even if they are confronted with the fact that they are lying.

Here, Congreeman Joe Sestak challenges Sean to name one "pet project" in the Stimulus Package. He can't.



More from Media Matters

The Phantom Earmarks

You almost have to marvel at the mind of a Republican.

When confronted with the fact that an "earmark" for a specific district in the US doesn't exist within the Economic Stimulus Package, they simply tell us that it IS there - we just can't see it.

That's the approach that William Lajeunesse took when discussion the topic on, you guessed it, Fox"News":

LAJEUNESSE: Alexis, you won’t find it in the bill. That is true. However, it is there. Now, what I mean by this. This is what Republicans call a phantom earmark. It’s $50 million for ecosystem restoration, habitat restoration in the San Francisco Bay area, for Congresswoman Pelosi’s district, which is a priority project for that agency there. There is no question that this will be funded when this money is released to the EPA as well as to Fish and Wildlife.

More from Think Progress.

This brings up a very interesting point.

With all the sturm und drang coming not only from the Republicans in congress and the Senate, but from people like Sean Hannity and the bulk of conservative talk radio, they are speaking to those that will listen to them as if they have actually read the bill.

You see, that throws there whole thesis out the window. There telling us that no one has read this bill, yet, they are telling us what is in it.

Kind of makes you want to use the term - oh, I don't know - "liars", doens't it.