« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Josh - How is it a "fib"?
For some reason, we have to take roundabout methods to reply to the mainpage posts.
Earlier today, they did some kind of half-hearted backtrack for an unfair attack on scientific research and though the original mainpage post wasn't linked, a lot of people including myself scrolled down and followed the first post over to Muckraker, where the comments are still pouring in at this hour.
Now, they've posted one of those videos to the mainpage on the same subject, but this time the meaning of "fib" is stretched so thin, it has no meaning.
The video starts with a clip of McCain saying that if he's elected, the government will no longer pay $3m to research DNA in grizzly bears; Then Josh appears and says that an earmark is headed to Alaska to study the DNA of seals, followed by a replay of the McCain clip and the sound of laughter.
As I posted back during the primaries and have said since this whole earmark nonsense started; McCain has vowed to veto every bill containing an earmark that crosses his desk. Obama has said that he'll roll earmarks back to the 2001 level. Earmarks have been the signature issue of John McCain's career and attacks on the subject plays to one of his strengths.
Clearly, McCain hasn't said that he'll retroactively veto earmarks from previous Congresses, so his statement isn't a fib by any definition. If he's true to his word, then if he's elected, there will be no more earmarks. It's not a lie.
Now, I don't write all of this to bolster McCain, but because of this irrational fear of campaigning against Palin, we're playing to McCain's strength and leaving Obama in a bad position. After all, if earmarks are bad, then what's so special about 2001? And, what does that say about all those Democratic Congresspeople (Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, etc) who have hundreds of millions in earmarks under their belt?
Not to mention, why are liberals opposing wildlife research?
Comments (3)
YOu were good until the last sentence. As soon as I read that I realized you didn't read what Josh wrote, what a shame. Republicans never see the facts before they react.
September 11, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on. Josh Marshall always says something like "not that there's anything wrong with that" after he's made an absurd charge.
September 11, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Republican and I'm a strong advocate for the environment and science.
Josh covered his self by saying something about peer-reviewed research with grants administered by federal gaencies is the way to go. And, as I pointed out in the Muckraker thread that they may be the preferred way, the agency's budgets would have to be increased by an amount equal to all of these earmarks and that's not going to happen in this political environment.
Also, I pointed out (because I have extensive dealings with several of these agencies) that earmarks are considered just another funding mechanism and I gave a specific example of a local NSF laboratory that basically couldn't have been built any other way.
And, though I didn't put it in my Muckraker comments, but for example, the last that I heard, the National Park service has more than a $100m in maintenance backlog. If their budget were to increase enough to cover the earmarks which benefit them, they might be more prone to applying it to their more pressing needs, rather than research.
But, again, I'm a Democrat and eliminating earmarks is a Republican issue.
September 11, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment