Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Typical NRO "reasoning" on Obama's earmarks
With the release of Senator Obama's earmarks from 2005 and 2006, hasty scrambling for evidence of corruption comes as no surprise. NRO spared what appears to waste not a moment's hesitation (or thought) before jumping on one such "gotcha" item. Jim Geraghty at NRO writes:
As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office."
In 2006 Michelle Obama's salary was only $273,618. Following NRO's logic, are we to presume that Ms. Obama was rewarded by the hospital for successfully procuring the earmark with a pay cut?Looks like that raise was worth it.
Advertisement
Comments (4)
HA! That's funny. Should cross reference this on some other sites where it's been getting coverage.
March 14, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
A special VP position was created for her.
The timing is bad, it can certainly be seen as rewarding her for political connections as much as a good job, but then again, organizations quite frequently spend lots of money to bring in well-connected people to represent them. Part of it's called lobbying, part of it's called advertising, it's part of our system. She got lucky, cash the check, what else do you want to say?
March 14, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The implication by NRO is clear yet completely falls apart when followed to its logical conclusion. Additionally, given her work at the hospital prior to Obama's US Senate win, there is no evidence to suggest that she earned her title and the pay increase that accompanied it.
The Ms. Obama's involvement and the decrease in pay also runs contrary to any notion that this was a money making scheme, especially given that Obama at that point could have made much more than that on a another book deal (advance + royalties) alone.
March 14, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
here is no evidence to suggest that she earned her title and the pay increase that accompanied it.
Should have read "by any means other than her own merits" at the end.
I wish there was a preview function for these comments.
March 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment