That's actually one of the issues I like McCain. He's got a loooooooong record of fighting earmarks and promisis to throw nasty vetos at anything crossing his desk with them in it.Tsukiyumi wrote:sunnyside wrote: I still can't understand how that's even allowed. "Let's vote on subject A. Oh, wait, the senator from *insert state name* wants to add subject B to the same vote... Uh, NO! We'll vote on subject B seperately, as it has no bearing or connection to subject A." Wow. That was hard.
They shouldn't be allowed to toss whatever crap they want onto an unrelated bill. Hell if they'd ever vote to make that a law, though...
I googled to actually see how Hillary and Obama do and found this.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cli ... 06-13.html
And this.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 32145.aspx
And I think this might speak to the experience issues. Both Hillary and Obama use earmarks for further their agenda and bring money to their States, however from the first article Hillaries political clout and ability to build political alliances makes her a heck of a lot better at it. It would seem she out porks Obama by something like 6 to 1 cash wise.
Can we really be that confident Obama can pass all the stuff he says he will if he can't "bring home the bacon" very well? I mean he does a little. Getting in 65 million for Chicago's commuter rail system.
(Note that Obama doesn't oppose earmarks. His thing is that they should be disclosed and transparent).