March 10th, 2008, 02:39 PM
Don't mind the title, chosen purely for attention
. I think he's probably the most devoted crusader against wasteful spending, but it seems in this case he's pulling a fast one.
But, what's this? He actually voted for the bill, and introduced no amendments to block it's passage.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00034
And he didn't even show up to vote for his own amendment on the museum.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00377
Hmmm, he might want to drop those cracks before the Dems pick up on that.
Don't mind the title, chosen purely for attention
. I think he's probably the most devoted crusader against wasteful spending, but it seems in this case he's pulling a fast one.Quote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...eef-with-bears
"233 million for a bridge to nowhere. Outrageous… Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable… A million dollars for a Woodstock Museum—in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton. Predictable… Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man. John McCain."
Currently the front-runner for the GOP nod, McCain also hits the research in speeches on the stump, cracking jokes about bear paternity tests and criminal investigations. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money," McCain railed last month during a campaign stop in Clawson, Mich. Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.
Currently the front-runner for the GOP nod, McCain also hits the research in speeches on the stump, cracking jokes about bear paternity tests and criminal investigations. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money," McCain railed last month during a campaign stop in Clawson, Mich. Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.
But, what's this? He actually voted for the bill, and introduced no amendments to block it's passage.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00034
And he didn't even show up to vote for his own amendment on the museum.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00377
Hmmm, he might want to drop those cracks before the Dems pick up on that.
Electoral Member
Posts: 333 
Location: California
Location: California
March 11th, 2008, 11:16 AM
The "Earmarks" business is a form of vote buying. All incumbents ckaim it is "the thing to do." Not in my book. If they are blowing money irresponsibly like this we need to get a suitable replacment in that office during the next election. It is a thing of our doing and blind consent when we just keep returrning these elected jerks back to office. Look at Ted Kennedy, Stevens and others. What do you think will happen with Larry Craig? If he does run again I'll bet the lops from his state will re-elect him too! We are the cause and the enemy!
The "Earmarks" business is a form of vote buying. All incumbents ckaim it is "the thing to do." Not in my book. If they are blowing money irresponsibly like this we need to get a suitable replacment in that office during the next election. It is a thing of our doing and blind consent when we just keep returrning these elected jerks back to office. Look at Ted Kennedy, Stevens and others. What do you think will happen with Larry Craig? If he does run again I'll bet the lops from his state will re-elect him too! We are the cause and the enemy!
