Guy who requested $740 million in earmarks on Palin: You can’t really be for change if you’re pro-earmark
posted at 3:58 pm on September 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Indeed. To truly represent change, you have to request earmarks for your wife’s employer.
I was hoping against hope that he’d come after her on this point. And now, my dream’s come true.
Obama then went point by point through education, tax policy, energy policy and health care telling voters why McCain’s version of change is not change like the kind he will bring.
Obama then opened up rare criticism on VP nominee Sarah Palin, “I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change. And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person. That is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear.”
She’s not the “champion anti-earmark person,” Barry. McCain is. The ball having been placed on the tee, Team Maverick swings away:
Barack Obama has requested the equivalent of one million dollars in new pork barrel spending for every working day he’s been in the U.S Senate, while John McCain has never once asked for an earmark, and Governor Palin has vetoed hundreds of millions in government spending including killing the infamous “bridge to nowhere”. Just like so many other issues Barack Obama is all talk, has no record to back it up and isn’t ready to make change. — Tucker Bounds, spokesman McCain-Palin 2008
This makes two prominent examples of Palin’s own political liabilities leaving The One in no position to criticize. Serious exit question: Am I missing something or is he actually suggesting that opposing earmarks after initially taking them is more grievously offensive to Change than the pork parade he’s been running for his cronies and bundlers ? Because if he is, if he thinks opportunistically changing one’s mind about earmarks for political gain is some kind of cardinal sin, then this critique is even more gloriously nuanced than we thought.