Comments on: Palin’s Goal Puts Game Into Overtime! Updated http://jscafenette.com/2008/09/04/palins-goal-puts-game-into-overtime/ Pull up a chair and sit a spell... Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:08:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ~J~ http://jscafenette.com/2008/09/04/palins-goal-puts-game-into-overtime/comment-page-1/#comment-10298 ~J~ Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:55:35 +0000 http://jscafenette.com/?p=4387#comment-10298 Hi, David, If you want to see pork just drive through the small state of W. Virginia. They are always doing road construction and building new Robert Byrd buildings. :) Anyway, what you say is basically correct. The problem is that if you want a bill to pass you have to fill it with pork and that's one of the reasons Obama can say McCain has voted against certain bills. He was for the actual bill but against the pork in the bill. As to the voting with him 90% of the time, most of what the Senate does is pass resolutions and in that case just about everyone would vote 90% of the time with the president, whomever it might be. Yes, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowehere before she was against it. From what I have heard since it couldn't get more funding the Alaska gov't decided if they wanted it they'd pay for it themselves. Not really sure, but I think that's what I've heard, but if this is her only issue I think it's not bad. Thanks for stopping by. Hi, David,

If you want to see pork just drive through the small state of W. Virginia. They are always doing road construction and building new Robert Byrd buildings. Smile

Anyway, what you say is basically correct. The problem is that if you want a bill to pass you have to fill it with pork and that’s one of the reasons Obama can say McCain has voted against certain bills. He was for the actual bill but against the pork in the bill.

As to the voting with him 90% of the time, most of what the Senate does is pass resolutions and in that case just about everyone would vote 90% of the time with the president, whomever it might be.

Yes, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowehere before she was against it. From what I have heard since it couldn’t get more funding the Alaska gov’t decided if they wanted it they’d pay for it themselves. Not really sure, but I think that’s what I’ve heard, but if this is her only issue I think it’s not bad.

Thanks for stopping by.

]]> By: David M. http://jscafenette.com/2008/09/04/palins-goal-puts-game-into-overtime/comment-page-1/#comment-10297 David M. Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:43:39 +0000 http://jscafenette.com/?p=4387#comment-10297 First,thanks for posting this. As J knows, my job requires I work a lot at night and my wife prefers to watch these events together so we can discuss them. I think Governor Palin will be criticized on this "bridge to nowhere" issue. I would like to point out, that phrase is really incorrect. That bridge would have connected the City of Ketchikan with its airport. It had a valid purpose, but it does raise a question we should consider. What is "pork" or "earmarks?" Isn't it, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? My entire Congressional delegation and our Governor saved Cannon Air Force base from closing. That's not a great example, because they found a new mission for the base--training pilots in flying over dessert and mountain environments. Some projects seem like obvious "pork"--the Woodstock Museum, for example. However, even that should not be dismissed without analysis. What would it have added to the local economy? We're subsidizing a local bus system. It will never be a money-maker, but it delivers the rural Hispanic and Native American poor to jobs and to the commuter train. I think we are too quick to label local projects as "pork" without having all the facts. I'm positive each of us can think of good projects and bad projects in our own state that are the result of earmarks. So-don't buy into the idea that all earmarks are pork or all pork is bad. It's the process that's bad. These should never be hidden away in other legislation. If the President had a line item veto like our governor does, these projects would not be hidden from public view. I think that's the real issue. First,thanks for posting this. As J knows, my job requires I work a lot at night and my wife prefers to watch these events together so we can discuss them. I think Governor Palin will be criticized on this “bridge to nowhere” issue. I would like to point out, that phrase is really incorrect. That bridge would have connected the City of Ketchikan with its airport. It had a valid purpose, but it does raise a question we should consider. What is “pork” or “earmarks?” Isn’t it, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? My entire Congressional delegation and our Governor saved Cannon Air Force base from closing. That’s not a great example, because they found a new mission for the base–training pilots in flying over dessert and mountain environments. Some projects seem like obvious “pork”–the Woodstock Museum, for example. However, even that should not be dismissed without analysis. What would it have added to the local economy? We’re subsidizing a local bus system. It will never be a money-maker, but it delivers the rural Hispanic and Native American poor to jobs and to the commuter train. I think we are too quick to label local projects as “pork” without having all the facts. I’m positive each of us can think of good projects and bad projects in our own state that are the result of earmarks. So-don’t buy into the idea that all earmarks are pork or all pork is bad. It’s the process that’s bad. These should never be hidden away in other legislation. If the President had a line item veto like our governor does, these projects would not be hidden from public view. I think that’s the real issue.

]]>