Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit TennisMom2's column >>

TENNISMOM2

Articles Posted: 1  Links Seeded: 21
Member Since: 7/2010  Last Seen: 5/08/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Jon Kyl Reaps $200 MILLION In Pork Just Days After Senate Republicans Voted To Ban Earmarks

Seeded on Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:18 PM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: The Huffington Post
politics, gop, jon-kyl, hypocrisy, earmarks, tea-party
Seeded by TennisMom2
Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks – money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest – was short-lived.

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • TennisMom2's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: NYTimes Forums Refugees, Obama Supporters, Rational Progressive Party, Seeders and Posters w/ Manners, The Gutter Girls
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (76)
TennisMom2

Ummmmm, I kind of hate to ask the obvious question here but at what point to GOP lemmings and their Tea-bagging brethren realize that they just got fooled again? They should have Wiley E. Coyote as their mascot.

  • 28 votes
#1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:20 PM EST
belle42

Beep Beep!!

  • 20 votes
#1.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:49 PM EST
Brent-320354Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Did either of you two brain surgeons actually read the article?

Since when is a court settlement an earmark? Pelosi even said it's not an earmark.

Pathetic

  • 6 votes
#1.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:16 PM EST
Jesse-Az

Echo chamber is in full force today. This isn't an earmark. Nobody on Capitol Hill thinks it is. The only people who do are liberal bloggers/authors who are trying incite a reaction.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:21 PM EST
Brent-320354

Jesse, I thought the liberals were supposed to be the really smarter ones?

  • 5 votes
#1.4 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:24 PM EST
Brandon-801865

"Do what I say, don't do what I do..."

This is a quintessential Republicon "family value."

So sad.

  • 18 votes
#1.5 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:34 PM EST
Luke WrightExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

They should have Wiley E. Coyote as their mascot.

Why, because the dems have Dumbo as theirs? lol

TennisMom2, with this post about a non-earmark you are now the "Sarah Palin" of Newsvine!

  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:38 PM EST
sendlo

This isn't an earmark. Nobody on Capitol Hill thinks it is.

That is false.

"I do know an earmark when I see it. And this, my friends, is an earmark," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a prepared floor statement.

Also...

Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."

So it sure sounds like an earmark to me, even if the purpose was to settle a lawsuit.

  • 15 votes
#1.7 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:18 PM EST
TennisMom2

From the article, which I certainly read before posting it:

But it meets the know-it-when-you-see-it test, critics say. Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."

And:

"I do know an earmark when I see it. And this, my friends, is an earmark," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a prepared floor statement. He said Kyl's project would help the White Mountain Apaches "make snow at their ski resort, improve water flow to their casino and build fish hatcheries to improve local fish production."

GOP lemmings will continue to fan away the smell while trying to force everyone into believing that it isn't, in fact, an open sewer which is delighting their olfactory senses; rather it's a bed of roses. Glenn Beck will draw graphs to prove it, too.

As for me, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

  • 17 votes
#1.8 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:21 PM EST
dwillie

It's an earmark.

Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."

Kyl requested it. The lawsuit settlement could have been handled through the Department of Interior, but Kyl moved it to the head of the line legislatively in order to avoid that process. The proceeds will be used to fund water projects in Arizona and frankly, water is fast becoming a bigger issue than energy so I don't necessarily impugn the necessity of such projects.

But its an earmark. Interestingly, Kyl claims not enough time to pass a nuclear treaty that has broad bi-partisan support, but he has time to get his earmark done. Typical.

  • 15 votes
#1.9 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 PM EST
FredC

Kyl want to continue wars because some of his biggest contributors are miltary suppliers!!!

  • 11 votes
#1.10 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:40 PM EST
Sebbydad

It is a 200 million dollar building project in his district. in exchange to drop a legitimate lawsuit. Kyl has connections to SRP a prime benefactor of the project as well as companies likely involved in the construction. Probably nothing illegal but definitely a pork project that became a non-earmark earmark behind closed doors.

  • 11 votes
#1.11 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:15 PM EST
Carol-99

Was Kyle one of those Republicans who criticized the Democrats for having meetings about health care reform behind closed doors? If so, he must have changed his mind about that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/jon-kyl-earmark-hypocrisy_n_787901.html

Typically, Congress "authorizes" big water projects in policy-setting bills that promise funding in future legislation. Kyl's measure started out that way but it morphed behind closed doors into a bill that actually provides the money.

The bill, passed unanimously on a voice vote Friday after most senators had left Washington for the week, vaults his, Baucus' and Bingaman's projects to the front of the line instead of having to compete with other projects for limited Interior Department funds.

  • 9 votes
#1.12 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:05 PM EST
Canadian Dave

K-Y-L...W-H-O-R-E

  • 5 votes
#1.13 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:26 PM EST
deepwater don

Tennis Mom 2... you got my vote for President over Sarah Palin. Good seed, thank you.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:31 PM EST
OneNativeSon

Ummmmm, I kind of hate to ask the obvious question here but at what point to GOP lemmings and their Tea-bagging brethren realize that they just got fooled again?

Simple...

at the point pigs sprout wings and begin sailing in the air above farms all across this nation.

*looks intently at watch for a moment*

Not yet... no-o-ot yet...

"We may be here a while folks..."

  • 5 votes
#1.15 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:46 PM EST
Beckyal

this has been in the courts for years and years. They finely settled it and the government is finely paying something that is owed. this is not an earmark!!!!!! Those that whining should think about all those lawsuits that they have supported and then shut up. The only people that disregards a lawuit settlement are liberals such as obama.

    #1.16 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:16 PM EST
    LasVegasRocks

    Just more of the same -

    Do as I say, not as I do

    • 2 votes
    #1.17 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:44 PM EST
    R. Donald Snyder

    He can call it what he wants to, it's still an earmark.

    • 8 votes
    #1.18 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:00 PM EST
    theralinc

    Bulls___, mom. This settlement has been kicking around for about 15-20 years. Thanks to Cong. Kyl for finally having the guts to start to get it resolved. You should read the Huff Post with a large degree of skepticism; it, like you, is severely slanted. I'm not a Republican but sick and tired of half-ass liberal rantings.

    • 1 vote
    #1.19 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:03 PM EST
    SuperSaiyan

    Read posts #20.1 and #20.2, theralinc...

    • 3 votes
    #1.20 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:06 PM EST
    NativeAmerican-1289371

    Oink, oink Senator Kyl ya goddam Republican douche bag.

    • 3 votes
    #1.21 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:58 PM EST
    Jesse-Az

    Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today lauded Senate approval of legislation to authorize implementation of the Cobell Settlement, a $3.4 billion agreement that will resolve the long-running and highly contentious class action lawsuit regarding the U.S. government's trust management and accounting of individual American Indian trust accounts.

    http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4626:salazar-weighs-in-on-senate-passage-of-cobell-agreement-water-rights-settlements&catid=51&Itemid=27

    Legal settlements are not farking earmarks. Sorry that some of you can't realize this. It is non-discretionary spending, it HAS to be paid. Earmarks direct money to projects from discretionary spending. Federal lawsuit settlements are not discretionary spending.

    • 1 vote
    #1.22 - Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:23 PM EST
    mountainmike-1199289

    Jesse:

    Yes it is an earmark because it was added to unrelated legislation after all discussion had ended. I have no problem with specific legislation for this type of cause being discussed and passed, as the Native Americas were indeep ripped off of their water rights.

    • 3 votes
    #1.23 - Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:15 PM EST
    Reply
    Sebbydad

    thye forot to mention, this was only with regard to earmarks that Democrats want.

    the funny thing. This will be added to the "out of control spending" by Obama administration. pile.

    • 13 votes
    Reply#2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:54 PM EST
    HeelsnHairMetal

    Color me unsurprised.

    • 13 votes
    Reply#3 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:06 PM EST
    Kingofbeer

    what did you expect? neocons love their pork! Tea Party you got dupped! lol suckers!

    • 14 votes
    Reply#4 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:11 PM EST
    Brent-320354

    From the article:

    Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.

    Since when is settling a "Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government" an earmark?

    You people will do ANYTHING to insult a Republican. Just remember that outside of the Huffington, thinkprogress, mediamatters and the KOS, nobody @!$%#ing cares.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#5 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:14 PM EST
    Concerned Citizen-1303521

    Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."

    Which of those criteria for 'earmarks' does this not meet?

    This was a settlement because (unsurprisingly) the Arizona STATE government discriminated against African and Native Americans. Why should the rest of us pay for AZ's bigotry?

    • 21 votes
    #5.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:25 PM EST
    Brent-320354

    CC, run with it!!!!!

    • 3 votes
    #5.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:27 PM EST
    dcstone01

    Why should the rest of us pay for AZ's bigotry?

    Exactly...

    • 15 votes
    #5.3 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:29 PM EST
    RV in GB#1

    Which of those criteria for 'earmarks' does this not meet?

    You need to ask the Democrats who ran the House of Representatives earlier this year who flat out said that they "didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year."

    • 3 votes
    #5.4 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:36 PM EST
    David-1830107

    Why are the rest of us paying for Illegals when its only dems that want to make them legal?

    • 4 votes
    #5.5 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:36 PM EST
    RV in GB#1

    Why should the rest of us pay for AZ's bigotry?

    You did notice that the entire bill was for "a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government." Why should ANY of us who are not bigots need to pay for ANY of this bill? That would be a better question - one for President Obama.

    • 1 vote
    #5.6 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:38 PM EST
    sendlo

    Brent, you keep saying it is not an earmark because the money is being used to settle a lawsuit. But I didn't see any "except for settling lawsuits" clause in the definition of an earmark. Why do you think this is an excuse?

    • 12 votes
    #5.7 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:21 PM EST
    dwillie

    Why should ANY of us who are not bigots need to pay for ANY of this bill?

    Because We The People are ultimately responsible for any illegal actions taken by the federal government. The black farmers' claim had been adjudicated years ago. The federal government only just got around to paying them for proven discriminatory activities outlined in their 1997 lawsuit. If you don't want to pay, then you should help make sure that bigots aren't in a position to discriminate.

    • 7 votes
    #5.8 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:29 PM EST
    RV in GB#1

    Because We The People are ultimately responsible for any illegal actions taken by the federal government.

    We're responsible for stuff that happened before we were born? Remember, the "earmarks" that this article is accusing Kyl of taking is being used for the same stuff that you are asking the rest of American Taxpayers to pay for.

    • 1 vote
    #5.9 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:02 PM EST
    Concerned Citizen-1303521

    No, different parties are involved. Do you really not see the difference between the federal government settling a lawsuit filed against them due to an action they took and the federal government settling a lawsuit filed against a state government for an action the state government took?

    If you don't see the difference between the state and federal governments, please let us know. It'll give us some perspective on where you are coming from.

    • 3 votes
    #5.10 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:07 PM EST
    bonos_rama

    Why are the rest of us paying for Illegals when its only dems that want to make them legal?

    Since when? It was Reagan who granted 3 million of them amnesty in 1986 and gave them access to free emergency room care. And it was republicans that said nothing and voted for him again in '88.

    • 4 votes
    #5.11 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:00 PM EST
    Jesse-Az

    Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today lauded Senate approval of legislation to authorize implementation of the Cobell Settlement, a $3.4 billion agreement that will resolve the long-running and highly contentious class action lawsuit regarding the U.S. government's trust management and accounting of individual American Indian trust accounts.

    http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4626:salazar-weighs-in-on-senate-passage-of-cobell-agreement-water-rights-settlements&catid=51&Itemid=27

    Legal settlements are not farking earmarks. Sorry that some of you can't realize this. It is non-discretionary spending, it HAS to be paid. Earmarks direct money to projects from discretionary spending. Federal lawsuits are not discretionary spending.

    • 1 vote
    #5.12 - Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:23 PM EST
    Reply
    IronLung

    Hey, wait a minute guys, I'm sure there's a perfectly good and "common sense" explanation for all of this!

    I'm sure he's going to use that $200 Million to buy tri-corner hats and "Don't Tread on Me!" flags, and lots and lots of Tea Bags. This might sound like a huge waste of tax-payer money, but that's only because you don't understand what our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution. Our freedoms depend on gatherings of old, uneducated, white people with tri-corner hats and tea bags waving flags they don't seem to understand. That's what America is all about. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that the "common sense" politicians you voted for have to A) live up to the reasons that you voted for them, or B) have common sense.

    Let's not laugh at the Teabaggers for being duped even though everyone told them they were being duped. Let's laugh with them.

    • 10 votes
    Reply#6 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:15 PM EST
    Brent-320354

    It's for a law suit with an Indian tribe, Einstein.

    • 6 votes
    #6.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:17 PM EST
    G. H.

    Of which there are several.....................and damn well SHOULD be paid! Remember? The Native American Indians got sorta screwed?? :-(

    • 4 votes
    #6.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:09 PM EST
    Jesse-Az

    Earmarks are for discretionary spending. Next time you settle a lawsuit tell the other guy that it's discretionary spending and he can pay you when/if he wants. The government HAS to pay the settlement, it's non-discretionary.

      #6.3 - Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:25 PM EST
      Reply
      RV in GB#1

      Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government. Kyl's office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn't deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year.

      So this evil human being got $200 Million to settle claims AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT by Native Americans over water rights? Is that the evil "earmark" (notice the quotes) that you are talking about? Just wondering, who has control of the senate right now (ahem, Democrats)? Who had control of the House of Representatives (ahem, Democrats again) earlier this year when they "didn't deem it [an earmark] when it considered a version earlier this year."

      Nevermind, that is what I thought. Sorry, this is nothing more than a partisan hack story from the Huffington Post - something that everyone should come to expect from them.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#7 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:16 PM EST
      Brent-320354

      RV, exactly. They require no substance, just a direction to be pushed too.....

      • 4 votes
      #7.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:18 PM EST
      Reply
      ScienceGuy-356641

      Labeling federal expenditures as "earmarks" is an inherently subjective exercise.

      If the project will benefit one's own constituency or will bolster the popular appeal of one's own political party, then said funding is definitely NOT an earmark. They are simply promoting the distribution of federal funds to worthy programs that just happen to be associated with their home state or district.

      If the funding is for a project in a district that is predominantly populated with the opposition party, or if it will go toward programs that do not support one's own political agenda or ideology, then these expenditures most definitely ARE earmarks and should be summarily eliminated from future legislation.

      It should come as no surprise that many Republicans are hesitant to support a complete ban on all earmark funding. Corporate donations got many of the GOP candidates elected, and these same special interestsexpect a return on their investment. Legislative earmarks comprise one of the components of the expected payback.

      • 10 votes
      Reply#8 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:23 PM EST
      socialjustice

      I even agree with the Republicans this time.

      Enough of the petty bs.

      We need jobs, stick to that now. Earmarks are jobs.

      This is not really an earmark, and so what if it is, the whole argument about earmarks is absurd and pointless. Earmarks are 1% of the budget and cover things that for the most part enrich the lifesof us all - yes, I include the Rock and Roll hall of fame in that, and I even include the Alaska bridge to no-where - because infrastructure creates economies and jobs.

      You can't be for the idea of government stimulus and not for earmarks.

      I applaud the Senator for settling a lawsuit, finally.

      As much as Republicans hate lawyers and justice, and minorities, this is a coup!

      There is no reason to give Republicans any credible thing to complain about liberals for.

      There are many things to condemn Republicans for, and this is not it.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#9 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:24 PM EST
      Brent-320354

      As much as Republicans hate lawyers and justice, and minorities, this is a coup!

      Republicans hate minorities? Are you @!$%#ing serious?

      You guys'll never learn. It's not about what percentage of the budget earmarks are-it's that they're a legal bribe. They need to go. Even Obama WAS for reducing earmarks.

      Viva la 2012!

      • 3 votes
      #9.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:33 PM EST
      Beckyal

      Earmarks are usually those items that added by a senator or house member to repay someone who contributed during a campaign or buy votes in some manner. usually they did not go through committee and we added during the floor discussion or conference. however, many earmarks are carried over from year to year and almost impossible to get rid of. many of them are not even appropriate for the bills they are attached to. Many of them are grants and were not even monitored by the agency who was responsible for the funds. The money was just handed over and nothing ever delivered. Jobs have nothing to do with many earmarks, they are political payoffs.

      • 1 vote
      #9.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:25 PM EST
      Reply
      ZmanJeff

      Hey Tea Party... Do you feel like the GOP is screwing you yet? (a settlement & a snow machine)

      • 8 votes
      Reply#10 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:26 PM EST
      Beckyal

      This has nothing to do with the tea party. This has been owed for many many years.

        #10.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:26 PM EST
        Reply
        Kingofbeer

        THE POINT IS!

        Tea Party and Republicans complaining endlessly about earmarks. WE (Dems) already know they have there uses. BUT Tea Party and Republicans complaining endlessly continue to use them.

        THAT IS HYPOCRITICAL!

        Get it now?

        Stop being hypocritical and we will stop calling you out on it. and Stop crying if we do call you out.

        "Put on your man pants!"

        • 14 votes
        Reply#11 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:30 PM EST
        Brent-320354

        Use this issue in your 2012 election strategy KOB-we'll see how far it gets you.....

        • 2 votes
        #11.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:34 PM EST
        Kingofbeer

        deflect and change the subject Brent. it's what you do ;)

        • 10 votes
        #11.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:41 PM EST
        WmRAllen

        Tea Party and Republicans complaining endlessly about earmarks. WE (Dems) already know they have there uses. BUT Tea Party and Republicans complaining endlessly continue to use them.

        I suppose the relevant questions then, are:

        Does this fit the definition of an earmark? It seems that it does.

        Is this also legitimate business for the government? Yes, that seems so, too...

        If this had been done by a Democratic senator to resolve a similar issue in a state or district seen as "left-wing" rather than "right-wing" Arizona, would the partisan Right be raising a very large stink about it? Would the conservatives here on Newsvine be making heated and vitriolic arguments against the "evil liberals" and the "misuse of taxpayer funds" and "pork, pork, pork"?

        What do you think?

        • 2 votes
        #11.3 - Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:39 PM EST
        Reply
        Brent-320354

        I am leaving now.

        Everyone have a happy Thanksgiving.

        • 6 votes
        Reply#12 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:37 PM EST
        G. H.

        Happy Thanksgiving, Brent.

        • 3 votes
        #12.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:13 PM EST
        RV in GB#1

        Happy Thanksgiving GH and Brent! Lousy Football and the famous "Turkey Nap" are on tap for the upcoming weekend.

        • 2 votes
        #12.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:21 PM EST
        Reply
        Angry Left-532262

        They just meant earmarks for Dems are bad, the repubs can have all they want evidently.

        Personally, I can't wait for the pork to stop rolling out. Once they get rid of earmarks, welfare and unemployment benefits places like SC, MS, and KY are going to look like refugee camps.....

        • 9 votes
        Reply#13 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:37 PM EST
        David-1830107Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

        Do you actually read or is your mom reading it for you?

        • 1 vote
        #13.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:52 PM EST
        Reply
        Allegory

        Told you stupid Republicans that Pork wasn't going anywhere.

        I feel bad for you.

        • 10 votes
        Reply#14 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:49 PM EST
        wbbtexas

        Righties LOVE to Be LIED TO. They NEVER, EVER, EVER...LEARN.

        REAGAN Tripled the National Debt...Yet He is WORSHIPED as an Example of "Fiscal Responsibility". Remember "STAR WARS"? Bush I added another 50% on TOP of THAT, and BUSH II added $5 TRILLION to the National DEBT!

        WHY, OH WHY...would ANYBODY in their RIGHT MIND....want to GO BACK...to THAT??!!!!

        OH Yeah, THAT'S Right. Because the Foxy News, Koch Brothers, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mainstream NEWS FEAR MACHINE Convinced ENOUGH Frightened, Easily FOOLED Voters into BELIEVING the Sky is FALLING, the Communists Have Taken Over, and the Democrats are Foolish...when in FACT, -THEY HAVE Turned Things AROUND...with ZERO Help from Republicans!

        When P.T. Barnum Said..."There's a SUCKER Born Every Minute, he Had a Different World he was Addressing. But He HAD to Be TALKING about the KIND of People Who Rushed to The Polls in November to "Throw the Rascals Out". The Rascals who have Been OUT of Power for 30 Years, and are Just BEGINNING to REBUILD the America that was BROKEN by 30 Years of Republicanism!

        Well, it is NEVER Clean and CLEAR, as the Nation Turns from ONE ERA into the NEXT. Even though the Republican Revolution, which Really Began in 1968, took 12 Years to Really Hit it's Stride, so TOO will the NEW DEMOCRATIC ERA, which Began in 2005, Technically, take a Few Years for the Pattern to Emerge Clearly. We are IN a NEW Progressive Era. And THAT is a FACT.

        The Country MUST MOVE on from the Last and Final Heyday of Big Oil, Nation Building, Commie Fighting, De-Regulating Everything, Letting the Chinese and Indians PASS US BY - ERA that we Have Begun to Leave Behind.

        Obama SAYS he Wants to see us: Through to the OTHER SIDE...With us COMPETING With China, India, Brazil, and Europe for the LEAD in The Technologies of the Future. And BUILDING those Industries RIGHT HERE in the USA....and I FOR ONE...Believe Him. Because His Rhetoric is Matched by the FACTS: MUCH of the Stimulus Spending, and the Targeted Tax Breaks, and Incentives for Business to Expand in the US, were AIMED at assisting in the Start-Up and Expansion of those VERY Industries. Lithium Ion Battery Production, is Already on a MUCH More Competitive Footing, than it was 2 years Ago. Bush Really Didn't GIVE a DAMN about alternative Energy and Fuel. He EXISTED to DO ONE Thing...Maximize the Profits of the OIL INDUSTRY One MORE Time, Before the Awful Period of MOVING ON Begins in...Earnest.

        Right Here in MY AREA: Austin, Texas...it was JUST Announced Today That a Major Solar Panel Innovator and Developer/Producer will Headquarter Soon in the Austin Area. And in the Report, it was CLEAR that BOTH the Stimulus Assistance for Start Ups, and the Tax Changes(Reductions) that OBAMA has Engineered for New Expansion, were Instrumental in The Expansion and New Hiring going on with This Company!

        Big Oil MUST Move to Diversify, and Become Active PLAYERS in the Alternative Energy Campaign, and THEN we Will Have an Explosive Period of Growth in The Most Revolutionary Technologies Happening on the Planet.

        We Can't AFFORD to NOT Catch UP to the Chinese, Indians and Europeans in this AREA. It IS OUR DESTINY: IF We are to REMAIN who we Have BEEN Since WW II. The Leader in Innovation and R&D and Development of NEW Technologies in the World!

        Or, you can LISTEN to Clowns Like Imhofe and Joe Barton, who have been the PROPERTY of BIG OIL for Many, Many YEARS, and ALWAYS Will BE - Tell You that Global Warming is a Fraud/Myth/Hoax,... WHATEVER!

        It's GUTT CHEKK Time, America: It's Time to ASK Yourself this Simple Question: Do You REALLY BELIEVE...All That BULL&#*t You've Been Parroting from Foxy News and The Millionaire Club, or Were you Just KIDDING?

        Put Your Money Where Your MOUTH is! If You REALLY Believe All that Crap, Then BUY GOLD and Hold on TIGHT!

        If You Are able to MAN-UP, and admit it was Just a Bunch of Political CRAP, and Somewhere inside You KNOW the Economy Has TURNED the Corner, and BIG GROWTH is Dead Ahead...Somehow I'll Bet you are Going to Sneak a CALL to Your Broker SOON. While Things are STILL Relatively CHEAP.

        So, WHAT'S it Going to Be? FEAR and Confusion? Or Faith in America, and Reaping the Rewards of Believing in Our Future?

        It's STILL Early in the Expansion...Lots of Time to make Money. But SOON, the Horse will Be OUT of the Gate!

        • 3 votes
        Reply#15 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:53 PM EST
        Ron West-513664

        This should come as no surprise since M. Bachmann said they would have to "re-define" what an earmark really is. If a Dem does it, it's "pork inserted in the dead of night"and is bad for our "children and grandchildren". GOP does it, it is legit, called something else or it will create jobs. How many jobs were created from 2001 to 2009 vs. jobs lost? Tax cuts and pork create jobs. Where are they? Will one GOP supporter tell me why we should try your way again? Record profits for Corporations and massive unemployment for your average citizen. Why?

        • 5 votes
        Reply#16 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:54 PM EST
        fishydigit

        Sounds like Larry, Moe and Curley. whoop, whoop whoop, whoop, whoop...it's an ear mark, no it isn't an earmark, slap, slap, pook em in both eyes...yes it is, no it isn't....

        Do you see the American people crying...laughing?

        • 3 votes
        Reply#17 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:08 PM EST
        MikeBravo

        Sen. Kyl would have put his time to better use by getting out of the way of the ratification of the START treaty. As it stands, he is the sole reason we now face a situation of no nuclear treaty with Russia which has been in the works for 7 months.

        In spite of the urging by former Sec. of State of both parties, Sen. Kyl is blocking the ratification of an important treaty because he says he needs more time to digest it. If 7 months is not enough time, I would suggest he get someone to read it to him.

        • 5 votes
        Reply#18 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:50 PM EST
        SoNotRight.

        Exactly Mike, and thanks for bringing that up. Kyl seems to have re-election in mind while the safety and well-being of the U.S. and the world come in a distant 2nd, maybe 3rd, maybe... (who knows?).

        • 3 votes
        #18.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 PM EST
        Reply
        SuperSaiyan

        This is another example of GOP hypocricy...

        • 4 votes
        Reply#19 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:59 PM EST
        Lukepccpa

        After searching the web and reading stories on this subject on CNN and MSNBC (because I wanted to find the most unbiased takes on this story that I could), I think the left has gone a bit overboard on this story. Considering that it is a settlement of a federal lawsuit against the US government, I don't really think it is an earmark. The only ones charging that this is an earmark appear to be those trying to score political points.

        The left should have kept quiet on this particular story, because I'm sure there will be some blatant earmarks surface in the future, and accusing this muddled situation of being an earmark now will weaken the power of making the charge in the future.

        It's kind of like crying racist or bigot at every perceived slight. The words have been thrown around so much and so loosely that they've largely lost their power.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#20 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:51 PM EST
        SuperSaiyan

        I think the left has gone a bit overboard on this story.

        Nope, this is fact...

        But it meets the know-it-when-you-see-it test, critics say. Under Senate rules, an earmark is a spending item inserted "primarily at the request of a senator" that goes "to an entity, or (is) targeted to a specific state."

        Earmarking allows lawmakers to steer federal spending to pet projects in their states and districts. Earmarks take many forms, including road projects, improvements to home district military bases, sewer projects, economic development projects. A key trait is that they are projects that haven't been sought by the administration in power...

        ...The $200 million in Kyl's measure would be used to construct and maintain a drinking water project on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, including a dam, reservoir, treatment plant and delivery pipelines....

        ..."I do know an earmark when I see it. And this, my friends, is an earmark," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a prepared floor statement. He said Kyl's project would help the White Mountain Apaches "make snow at their ski resort, improve water flow to their casino and build fish hatcheries to improve local fish production."

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112400488.html

        It's an earmark.

        • 3 votes
        #20.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:21 PM EST
        SuperSaiyan

        I forgot to put this in my previous post...

        Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government.

        • 3 votes
        #20.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:25 PM EST
        Reply
        UnAmericanLiberal

        Yep this is an earmark. This just proves that Republicans are against everything unless THEY want it for themselves.

        Reconciliation votes are the same in that regard. Republicans called them tyranny when the Democrats used it, but now that they're elected they've already said they'll use reconciliation to pass their agenda.

        • 4 votes
        Reply#21 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:29 PM EST
        theralinc

        UnamLib-deal with it, take your meds, finish your pocket pool game and go to lala land.

          #21.1 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:14 PM EST
          SuperSaiyan

          I guess you didn't read posts#20.1 and #20.2, theralinc...

          • 1 vote
          #21.2 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:27 PM EST
          Reply
          theralinc

          Brent, good response. The huff post is a piece of drivel, right up there with algores b.s., but the liberal whiners lap it up. Thanks.

            Reply#22 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:09 PM EST
            gjryurkDeleted
            NativeAmerican-1289371

            I prefer half-assed liberal rants as opposed to full-on dumbass dirt clod dumb Republican talking points--these rightwingnut fools have not had an original thought since Ronald Goddam Reagan was elected to his first term as first actor.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#24 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:01 PM EST
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse |
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com