John McCain 2.0 - McCain's Great Earmark Lie

[danarhea]

"I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state..."

-John McCain

But the facts speak differently. McCain inserted an earmark for SunCorp, which is a major Arizona developer, and guess what else? SunCorp is one of McCain's biggest donors.

Read the story here.

When McCain was reprimanded years ago, over the Keating 5 episode, he exclaimed "We came to Washington to change government, but Washington changed us". This now seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does anybody else notice the difference between the John McCain of 2000 and the John McCain of 2008 (Which I will call John McCain 2.0)?

 

[jallman]

"I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state..."

-John McCain

But the facts speak differently. McCain inserted an earmark for SunCorp, which is a major Arizona developer, and guess what else? SunCorp is one of McCain's biggest donors.

Read the story here.

When McCain was reprimanded years ago, over the Keating 5 episode, he exclaimed "We came to Washington to change government, but Washington changed us". This now seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does anybody else notice the difference between the John McCain of 2000 and the John McCain of 2008 (Which I will call John McCain 2.0)?

So wait a minute....they find one "earmark" that was part of a defense bill to purchase land for a military base...that land was purchased from several land owners, SunCorp just happening to be the biggest of which and they received a mere 3 million of the 14 million from a land purchase, which they matched with a donation of an equally sized parcel of land? And his big sweeping reward for this was what? $224,000 over a ten year period? Yeah, I think I would like to see some collaborating stories with less spin put on them.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

"I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state..."

-John McCain

But the facts speak differently. McCain inserted an earmark for SunCorp, which is a major Arizona developer, and guess what else? SunCorp is one of McCain's biggest donors.

Read the story here.

When McCain was reprimanded years ago, over the Keating 5 episode, he exclaimed "We came to Washington to change government, but Washington changed us". This now seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does anybody else notice the difference between the John McCain of 2000 and the John McCain of 2008 (Which I will call John McCain 2.0)?

Even in light of his extremely strong words, one earmark is unimpressive and does not represent a major shift in position

 

[Doc Howl]

Even in light of his extremely strong words, one earmark is unimpressive and does not represent a major shift in position

So how many earmarks does it take to be a hypocrite, precisely?

 

[Kernel Sanders]

So how many earmarks does it take to be a hypocrite, precisely?

There's no clear line, but one earmark from five years ago doesn't mean much to me. I don't smoke, but I've still had a cigarette or two

 

[jallman]

There's no clear line, but one earmark from five years ago doesn't mean much to me. I don't smoke, but I've still had a cigarette or two

It's also of note that the argument that it was a politically motivated earmark was overly contrived and awkward in it's execution. I am not convinced that there were any shady dealings going on here.

I don't have an issue with earmarks for legitimate needs like relief for farmers in drought seasons and rebuilding funds for New Orleans. I'm sure there was the consideration that Luke closing would have been more than a little damaging to the economy of the area.

 

[PeteEU]

Was wondering when someone would post this.

McCain is a hypocrite. He rambles against earmarks yet votes for them. He says he wants to get rid of them, but forgets that the whole funding to Israel (2.9 billion a year) is an earmark! Then he flipflops and says that's okay.

On top of that there are very questionable actions by McCain.

Price of power: McCain action helped Arizona land developer - USATODAY.com

The same as above.. however its not the first time he has helped his buddy in SunCor.

McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer - washingtonpost.com

The New York Times > Log In

SunCor and McCain best buddies!

And then there was the earmark for the University of Arizona

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html

Yes it does not meet the "technical term" of an earmark, but come on..... everyone can see that he is pitching for money for his state for a pet project..

And then there was the 1992 water treatment earmark he was after

An Old Earmark of McCain's Surfaces | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

For a man who is the champion against earmarks, his record say very differently. Sure he has not the same amounts of earmarks as other senators, but he has voted for earmarks and requested earmarks, which he claims he has not.

 

[bhkad]

"I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state..."

-John McCain

But the facts speak differently. McCain inserted an earmark for SunCorp, which is a major Arizona developer, and guess what else? SunCorp is one of McCain's biggest donors.

Read the story here.

When McCain was reprimanded years ago, over the Keating 5 episode, he exclaimed "We came to Washington to change government, but Washington changed us". This now seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does anybody else notice the difference between the John McCain of 2000 and the John McCain of 2008 (Which I will call John McCain 2.0)?

FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 primary debates

 

[Zyphlin]

Was wondering when someone would post this.

McCain is a hypocrite. He rambles against earmarks yet votes for them. He says he wants to get rid of them, but forgets that the whole funding to Israel (2.9 billion a year) is an earmark! Then he flipflops and says that's okay.

And any desire to read your over blown, undoubtably filled with over exaggerated non facts post, ended with that absurd statement (which, even in the first paragraph, is full of over exaggeeration and non-facts).

Honestly, this doens't look like much to me. It looks like the LAST time someone on this forum (Champs) tried to provide evidence that McCain has asked for tons of earmarks and presented 3 things that either didn't fit the bill or were completely overblown.

I go with jall here. Earmarks in general are not bad things. Its the over use of them to puff up things with pork barrel projects that seem the issue. I'm going to delve into this one a bit more, but it seems like an overblown thing that means less to nothing save for the fact McCain's an idiot to ever say "never" about something

 

[PeteEU]

And any desire to read your over blown, undoubtably filled with over exaggerated non facts post, ended with that absurd statement (which, even in the first paragraph, is full of over exaggeeration and non-facts).

Honestly, this doens't look like much to me. It looks like the LAST time someone on this forum (Champs) tried to provide evidence that McCain has asked for tons of earmarks and presented 3 things that either didn't fit the bill or were completely overblown.

I go with jall here. Earmarks in general are not bad things. Its the over use of them to puff up things with pork barrel projects that seem the issue. I'm going to delve into this one a bit more, but it seems like an overblown thing that means less to nothing save for the fact McCain's an idiot to ever say "never" about something

Amazing.. giving McCain a free ride for not saying the truth, and yet people are making stuff up about Obama (not visiting the troops but going to the gym) and that is bad bad bad.

Fact. He said he would never vote for earmarks and get rid of the.
Fact. When told about Israeli funding being and earmark, he flip flops and says some are okay.
Fact. Claims never to have used earmarks for his own state. Yet he has several times requested funding or legislation for political backers. Excuse... they are not "technically" earmarks..

Give me a break, he is a hypocrite and is not being called on it as usual. Pro Right wing media in the US will keep McCain in the run.

 

[bhkad]

Amazing.. giving McCain a free ride for not saying the truth, and yet people are making stuff up about Obama (not visiting the troops but going to the gym) and that is bad bad bad.

Obama wanted to visit the troops in the hospital with all of his entourage and cameras and media. He was told he could go in WITHOUT all of the media and PR and campaign people, as McCain has done many times. But Obama refused.

The troops would have loved seeing him but Obama said no thanks unless I can benefit from it.

There is no mistaking Obama's wanting to make the hospital trip a photo op to help his campaign.

What does that say about Mr. Kumbaya?

kumbaya

1. come by here.

kumbaya - Wiktionary

Mr. Kumbaya don't kumbay anywhere unless he gets a photo op out of the deal.

 

[Captain America]

I don't know what people in Arizona expect from the Senators they elect but up here in Wisconsin, we expect ours to bring as much money from the government, back to our state, as they can. The Senator from Wisconsin supposed to represent Wisconsin and our interests. Wouldn't the Senator from Arizona be expected to represent his state as well?

I agree about the hint of hypocracy here though. But damn, he IS a politician. They all have to screw their shoes on each morning they're so crooked. McCain, IMO, is probably the LEAST crooked of them. But crooked, none the less.

Further, there's earmarks and there's pork barrel. I don't see where McCain has lobbied for a "bridge to nowhere" in Arizona. A wastewater plant sounds to me like something the public needs and uses. And it sounds to me like he might have made a pretty savvy deal for that land for the military base too. (But it could be squirrelly, I dunno.)

As far as Obama and the soldiers and hospitals and cameras. Get over it. Ease up on the Kool-Aid. You're letting Bill O'Reilly and McCain's campaign staff do your thinkin' for ya. Grow yourself a pair and start using your own head.

 

[jallman]

Was wondering when someone would post this.

McCain is a hypocrite. He rambles against earmarks yet votes for them. He says he wants to get rid of them, but forgets that the whole funding to Israel (2.9 billion a year) is an earmark! Then he flipflops and says that's okay.

On top of that there are very questionable actions by McCain.

Price of power: McCain action helped Arizona land developer - USATODAY.com

The same as above.. however its not the first time he has helped his buddy in SunCor.

McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer - washingtonpost.com

The New York Times > Log In

SunCor and McCain best buddies!

And then there was the earmark for the University of Arizona

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html

Yes it does not meet the "technical term" of an earmark, but come on..... everyone can see that he is pitching for money for his state for a pet project..

And then there was the 1992 water treatment earmark he was after

An Old Earmark of McCain's Surfaces | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

For a man who is the champion against earmarks, his record say very differently. Sure he has not the same amounts of earmarks as other senators, but he has voted for earmarks and requested earmarks, which he claims he has not.

Again, for those of you who didn't comprehend it the first time:

Even in light of his extremely strong words, one earmark is unimpressive and does not represent a major shift in position

You got one earmark that you can't even prove was a shady dealing between McCain and Suncor. If it comes to that or the other guys' records, I'll take McCain's on the earmark issue.

 

[jallman]

I don't know what people in Arizona expect from the Senators they elect but up here in Wisconsin, we expect ours to bring as much money from the government, back to our state, as they can. The Senator from Wisconsin supposed to represent Wisconsin and our interests. Wouldn't the Senator from Arizona be expected to represent his state as well?

I agree about the hint of hypocracy here though. But damn, he IS a politician. They all have to screw their shoes on each morning they're so crooked. McCain, IMO, is probably the LEAST crooked of them. But crooked, none the less.

We agree.

Further, there's earmarks and there's pork barrel. I don't see where McCain has lobbied for a "bridge to nowhere" in Arizona.

There was no such thing as a request for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. That is all misinformation promoted by stupid people with no clue what the actual bridge project was and what it was to accomplish.

But that's OK...Alaska might have lost the 200 million grant from the government, but Alaska will get it's 200 million out of the lower 48 in other ways. After all, we've got the biggest natural gas project in the world going right now. I'm going to find it highly amusing when the Canadian Yukon is paying less for our natural gas than the lower 48 is. :mrgreen:

A wastewater plant sounds to me like something the public needs and uses. And it sounds to me like he might have made a pretty savvy deal for that land for the military base too. (But it could be squirrelly, I dunno.)

As far as Obama and the soldiers and hospitals and cameras. Get over it. Ease up on the Kool-Aid. You're letting Bill O'Reilly and McCain's campaign staff do your thinkin' for ya. Grow yourself a pair and start using your own head.

Uh...I think that issue broke here before it was ever addressed on O'Reilly. Grow yourself a pair and man up to the fact that some of us simply do not think Obama is a good candidate and have already thought for ourselves.

It is of note that one who claims others should think for themselves is tossing around contrived buzzwords like "bridge to nowhere", proving his willingness to jump on a position without giving it any thought. :lol:

 

[PeteEU]

Again, for those of you who didn't comprehend it the first time:

So basicly its okay for McCain to have one or two earmarks as long as he says he is against earmarks.. I see. Nothing hypocrital about that.. not at all. So if a murder says he is against murder, then its okay that he murdered someone only once.. or twice.. as he is against murder.

You got one earmark that you can't even prove was a shady dealing between McCain and Suncor. If it comes to that or the other guys' records, I'll take McCain's on the earmark issue.

Give me a break. McCain gets tons of money from the owner, and promotes legislation that directly benefits the company.. several times, and you say there is no shady dealing?... you live in lala land I see.

Let me guess, you totally believed that the Clinton's had shady dealings when they were in White House, despite there being next to no proof, but when it comes to McCain its not an issue...

Gotcha.

 

[PeteEU]

Obama wanted to visit the troops in the hospital with all of his entourage and cameras and media. He was told he could go in WITHOUT all of the media and PR and campaign people, as McCain has done many times. But Obama refused.

The troops would have loved seeing him but Obama said no thanks unless I can benefit from it.

There is no mistaking Obama's wanting to make the hospital trip a photo op to help his campaign.

What does that say about Mr. Kumbaya?



Mr. Kumbaya don't kumbay anywhere unless he gets a photo op out of the deal.

Give me a break. Obama was in Europe on a CAMPAIGN trip. Everything he would do on the trip was campaign related. McCain does not visit wounded troops when he is campaigning (which I respect him for), and Obama also does not.

Its funny.. if he had gone, with no cameras, the exact same people being critical of him now, would slam him for using wounded troops as a campaign stunt..

 

[jallman]

So basicly its okay for McCain to have one or two earmarks as long as he says he is against earmarks.. I see. Nothing hypocrital about that.. not at all. So if a murder says he is against murder, then its okay that he murdered someone only once.. or twice.. as he is against murder.

I'm not indulging your idiotic and slanted hyperboles.

Give me a break. McCain gets tons of money from the owner, and promotes legislation that directly benefits the company.. several times, and you say there is no shady dealing?... you live in lala land I see.

Tons of money? What money did McCain get? (hint: I already pointed it out in the second post of this thread)

There also wasn't solid evidence that he promoted this legislation because of his "ties" to the company.

Let me guess, you totally believed that the Clinton's had shady dealings when they were in White House, despite there being next to no proof, but when it comes to McCain its not an issue...

Gotcha.

Let me guess, you, as usual, don't have the first ****ing clue what you're talking about so you are using ad homs directed at my motives and non sequiturs calling in the Clinton issue when it has 0 to do with this.

Okay, big time, find me one post where I ever supported the notion that the Clinton's had shady dealings in the White House. It's time for you to put up or STFU and sit your ass over across the pond and stay out of American affairs until you learn some honesty. We won't hold our breath, though.

So where's this post that gave you the idea I held the Clintons accountable for shady dealings that were never proven?

 

[jallman]

Its funny.. if he had gone, with no cameras, the exact same people being critical of him now, would slam him for using wounded troops as a campaign stunt..

So now you're a mind reader, too.

No, actually you're a joke around here.

 

[PeteEU]

I'm not indulging your idiotic and slanted hyperboles.

Fine, dont debate.

Tons of money? What money did McCain get? (hint: I already pointed it out in the second post of this thread)

There also wasn't solid evidence that he promoted this legislation because of his "ties" to the company.

Lets see.. McCain gets 100.000k+ form the individuals involved with the company, and McCain promotes legislation or things that happen to fall in the lap of the same company.. ohh.. nothing odd in that.. not at all. But since you do not want to discuss anything, then.

Let me guess, you, as usual, don't have the first ****ing clue what you're talking about so you are using ad homs directed at my motives and non sequiturs calling in the Clinton issue when it has 0 to do with this.

Okay, big time, fine me one post where I ever supported the notion that the Clinton's had shady dealings in the White House. It's time for you to put up or STFU and sit your ass over across the pond and stay out of American affairs until you learn some honesty. We won't hold our breath, though.

So where's this post that gave you the idea I held the Clintons accountable for shady dealings that were never proven?

Oh did I touch a nerve? Sorry, but considering most people on these boards that are vocal, usualy hold a big Clinton issue, then it was a pretty safe bet that you did too.. sorry, my bad. But since that you are calling me names and refusing to discuss things, then ..

 

[jallman]

Fine, dont debate.

There's nothing to debate over your idiotic and slanted hyperbole. It was bull**** and it doesn't take a thesis to prove it.

Lets see.. McCain gets 100.000k+ form the individuals involved with the company, and McCain promotes legislation or things that happen to fall in the lap of the same company.. ohh.. nothing odd in that.. not at all. But since you do not want to discuss anything, then.

Actually, it was 244,000 and some change given to the McCain campaign over a 10 year period. That was from the company, individuals related to the company (which could mean any number of board members from other states), employees of the company, and subsidiaries of the company. That means that he would have had to drum up a mere $24,000 and some change a year over the course of 10 years from this connection. I don't find that evidence to be all that damning.

And I never said I wouldn't discuss. I said I was indulging an idiotic and slanted hyperbole out of you anymore.

Oh did I touch a nerve?

Yeah...I have a sore spot for liars and people who mouth off without knowing what the hell they're talking about. By people, I mean you. In the specific sense, not the editorial "you".

Sorry, but considering most people on these boards that are vocal, usualy hold a big Clinton issue, then it was a pretty safe bet that you did too.. sorry, my bad. But since that you are calling me names and refusing to discuss things, then ..

And here again, you lie. I didn't say I wouldn't discuss issues. I said I wasn't going to indulge an idiotic hyperbole.

 

[Thorgasm]

Obama wanted to visit the troops in the hospital with all of his entourage and cameras and media. He was told he could go in WITHOUT all of the media and PR and campaign people, as McCain has done many times. But Obama refused.

The troops would have loved seeing him but Obama said no thanks unless I can benefit from it.

There is no mistaking Obama's wanting to make the hospital trip a photo op to help his campaign.

What does that say about Mr. Kumbaya?



Mr. Kumbaya don't kumbay anywhere unless he gets a photo op out of the deal.

What a fabrication of events. Obama has visited injured troops without cameras many times.

Desperate.

 

[Captain America]

Y'know... I have a perfect oppertunity to point something out here and now. Obama, McCain and opinions on whatever aside, how come it is that the guys over there on the right, more often than not, cannot discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with them without resorting to all mud-slinging, name calling, and becoming, in general, pricks?

I swear. It's almost like congress. The guy on the right gets frustrated, calls the guy on the left a dookie-bird, then the guy on the left gets offended and calls the guy on the right a bigger dookie-bird and nothing gets done but a bunch of bitching and whining. :roll:

 

[jallman]

Y'know... I have a perfect oppertunity to point something out here and now. Obama, McCain and opinions on whatever aside, how come it is that the guys over there on the right, more often than not, cannot discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with them without resorting to all mud-slinging, name calling, and becoming, in general, pricks?

I swear. It's almost like congress. The guy on the right gets frustrated, calls the guy on the left a dookie-bird, then the guy on the left gets offended and calls the guy on the right a bigger dookie-bird and nothing gets done but a bunch of bitching and whining. :roll:

And y'know, I have the perfect opportunity to point something out, too. The guy on the left makes some wild assertion with no basis in fact and then the guy on the right responds to the lie by calling a spade a spade. Then some other guy on the left pops by and adds nothing to the conversation except to call the guy on the right a "big mean doo doo head". :roll:

 

[Zyphlin]

Oh look, I can join in. Lets see whose thing is more realistic.

Y'know... I have a perfect oppertunity to point something out here and now. Political party's aside, how come it is that the most extreme guys over there on the opposite side of an issue that's brought up, more often than not, cannot discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with them without resorting to all mud-slinging, name calling, and becoming, in general, pricks? And after that, why then does the extreme guys on the same side as the issue brought up resorts to mud-slinging, name calling, and becoming, in general, pricks? And even more so, why is it that BOTH sides extreme guys think that THEY'RE calling a spade a spade and speaking the truth every, single, time?

 

[danarhea]

Give me a break. Obama was in Europe on a CAMPAIGN trip. Everything he would do on the trip was campaign related. McCain does not visit wounded troops when he is campaigning (which I respect him for), and Obama also does not.

Its funny.. if he had gone, with no cameras, the exact same people being critical of him now, would slam him for using wounded troops as a campaign stunt..

Actually, and as I showed in that thread, McCain had 2 negative political commercials made - One to be used if Obama visited the wounded troops at Landstuhl, and another one to be used if he didn't.