Obama keeps some earmarks 'All in the Family'

Rick Moran
I wish I could say that this kind of thing will make a difference, that the American people will rise up in their righteous anger at this fakir, this rookie with radicals as his friends and mentors and smite him so powerful a blow that he would slink back to Chicago on election day with his tail between his legs - a beaten cur.

But it won't. Barack Obama funneled money to friends and family while a Senator and yet has run a campaign trumpeting his opposition to "corrupt lobbyists."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has the story of how Obama steered $75,000 to a relative who headed up a social services agency. This is not the appearance of impropriety. This is as basic as corruption gets - enriching those closest to you. Claiming that he didn't know his wife's uncle ran the agency is such an unbelievable prevarication that it rivals Obama's lies about his other associates. Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Meeks - a whole list of people that Obama claims he didn't know about their criminal behavior or radicalism. It is beyond belief.

Morrissey:

Nothing demonstrates the corrosive nature of earmarking, and why that process leads to runaway government spending, better than this example.  Edgar couldn't get that public-works bill passed without spreading pork around the legislature.  (It should be remembered, though, that Edgar is known for having reduced government overall.)  Pork greases the gears that allow big spending bills to pass, and even worse, it creates a permanent class of legislators who rarely face significant challenges in their districts.  It's not the amount of money wasted in pork spending that undermines democracy - it's the mechanism itself.

Barack Obama reveled in that system.  He sent money to friends and family (Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright were two more recipients of his largesse) as an Illinois state senator, and as a US Senator, he sent money to his wife's employer.  Obama requested more than a million dollars a day in earmarks in his first three years in the Senate.  He's not part of the solution to Washington's corruption - he's part of the problem.

But as I said, none of this matters to the voters at this point. The economy and what might happen in the future has them spooked - for good reason, I might add. And when people have a sense that their money and livelihood is in danger, everything else pales in comparison. Obama could be the devil himself and it wouldn't matter if voters believe he has the answers to our current economic crisis.

It is apparent by McCain's tumbling fortunes in the polls that the people believe Obama and not John McCain.

(I have more on why these radical associations of Obama's are not resonating with voters here ).






I wish I could say that this kind of thing will make a difference, that the American people will rise up in their righteous anger at this fakir, this rookie with radicals as his friends and mentors and smite him so powerful a blow that he would slink back to Chicago on election day with his tail between his legs - a beaten cur.

But it won't. Barack Obama funneled money to friends and family while a Senator and yet has run a campaign trumpeting his opposition to "corrupt lobbyists."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has the story of how Obama steered $75,000 to a relative who headed up a social services agency. This is not the appearance of impropriety. This is as basic as corruption gets - enriching those closest to you. Claiming that he didn't know his wife's uncle ran the agency is such an unbelievable prevarication that it rivals Obama's lies about his other associates. Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Meeks - a whole list of people that Obama claims he didn't know about their criminal behavior or radicalism. It is beyond belief.

Morrissey:

Nothing demonstrates the corrosive nature of earmarking, and why that process leads to runaway government spending, better than this example.  Edgar couldn't get that public-works bill passed without spreading pork around the legislature.  (It should be remembered, though, that Edgar is known for having reduced government overall.)  Pork greases the gears that allow big spending bills to pass, and even worse, it creates a permanent class of legislators who rarely face significant challenges in their districts.  It's not the amount of money wasted in pork spending that undermines democracy - it's the mechanism itself.

Barack Obama reveled in that system.  He sent money to friends and family (Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright were two more recipients of his largesse) as an Illinois state senator, and as a US Senator, he sent money to his wife's employer.  Obama requested more than a million dollars a day in earmarks in his first three years in the Senate.  He's not part of the solution to Washington's corruption - he's part of the problem.

But as I said, none of this matters to the voters at this point. The economy and what might happen in the future has them spooked - for good reason, I might add. And when people have a sense that their money and livelihood is in danger, everything else pales in comparison. Obama could be the devil himself and it wouldn't matter if voters believe he has the answers to our current economic crisis.

It is apparent by McCain's tumbling fortunes in the polls that the people believe Obama and not John McCain.

(I have more on why these radical associations of Obama's are not resonating with voters here ).