March 15, 2009
Cathy McMorris Rodgers Leading Effort on Earmarks

Eric Cantor discussed it on Meet the Press today. The relevant exchange begins at 1:37, the specific mention of her work at 3:20:

Posted by Eric Earling at March 15, 2009 12:48 PM | Email This
Comments
1. If I were Cantor I would have said the following:

Cantor - You know David, it wasn't obstructionist to oppose the Nazi Party in 1932.

Gregory - Are you implying the Democrats are Nazis?

Cantor - No David, I'm not implying anything. I'm just citing a historical example. *snicker*

Posted by: Crusader on March 15, 2009 02:20 PM
2. So, what's she doing... leading the way on screwing us with them?

She's NOT the one to take the lead on this.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/favorfactory_2008/lawmaker.php?id=H4WA05077

Earmarks by this lawmaker
Recipient Amount Earmark

* Institute For Systems Medicine Planning Authority (WA) $1,600,000 Epigenetic Disease Research

* General Dynamics Itronix Corp. (WA)
$1,600,000 Warfighter Pocket XP-Next Gen


Campaign contributions from earmark recipients
Recipient Amount
E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. (HQ) $500
Raytheon Co. (HQ) $3,000
General Electric Co. (HQ) $2,000
General Dynamics Corp. (HQ) $18,500
Caterpillar, Inc. (HQ) $2,000
Deere & Co. (HQ) $1,000
General Motors Corporation (HQ) $1,000
Battelle Memorial Institute, Inc. (HQ) $250
Boeing Co. (HQ) $14,500
Northrop Grumman Corp. (HQ) $2,575
Agilent Technologies, Inc. (HQ) $750
Honeywell International, Inc. (HQ) $9,500
TRIDENT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (HQ) $3,400
BAE SYSTEMS PLC (HQ) $1,000
Exoxemis, Inc. (HQ) $2,000
Lockheed Martin Corp. (HQ) $2,000
General Atomic Technologies Corp. (HQ) $1,000?

Posted by: Hinton on March 15, 2009 02:26 PM
3. We don't GIVE A DAMN.

It is just too little to even start to win back the trust that Republican politicians have lost over the last couple decades.

How about bringing some attention to some of Obama's Czar nominees like Johnny Jihad's mouthpiece?

Oh, but that would indeed be controversial. That would indeed be behaving like a TRUE opposition party. That would indeed be doing something because you actually care about this country instead of just "playing the game".

Yeah easy to attack earmarks when one is in the party that is not in power but we saw after 1994 how fiscally responsible Republicans were when after 40 years they got control.

So, not that what she is doing is wrong, but she knows she doesn't have a chance of really effecting anything so it is just typical expected grandstanding of the out party. Just same olde same olde and same olde same olde got here in the first place.

So often when I see Republicans on the Television these days I just want to tell those SOBs to STFU. It isn't that the person isn't necessarily telling the truth for often that person is but the person present no real alternative. We saw what they were made of after 1994. And they have done nothing to prove to me they have changed one bit. In fact in everything they have done they have continued to prove that they haven't changed. And the clearest symbol of that is Michael Steele.

So, Cathy McMorris - STFU. You haven't won back my trust. And for the most part you haven't even tried. We don't give a damn about your little game here as that is what we know it is for you.

Posted by: Max on March 15, 2009 02:26 PM
4. We already know where a lot of the earmark money is going ... BELLEVUE.

Ironic? Perhaps, or perhaps it's something else. It wouldn't shock me in the least if Reichert someday changed parties.

That wouldn't surprise me at all. The only interesting thing would be what lowlives like Eric Earling will be saying on that day!

Posted by: Max on March 15, 2009 02:34 PM
5. Hinton @ #2:
Oh yes she IS a good MOC to take the lead on this.... and you should be careful cherry-picking statistics to try and make a point that is not valid; when it is so easy to go and get the full picture:

Here are the reported 2008 DEFENSE Earmarks for the entire WA State Congressional delegation; in highest earmark to lowest order. Everybody take note that my Congresswoman McMorris Rogers is at the very BOTTOM of this list; and by a huge margin. Also she is close to the bottom in recipient contribs (why any Defense contractor would give Baghdad Jimmy even ONE dollar escapes me, but whatever):

=================================================

Patty Murray:
Earmarks: $62.5M Recipient contribs: $286.6K
Maria Cantwell:
Earmarks: $55.7M Recipient contribs: $193.6K
Norm Dicks:
Earmarks: $47.2M Recipient contribs: $510.2K
Jay Inslee:
Earmarks: $21.2M Recipient contribs: $ 44.3K
Brian Beard:
Earmarks: $13.6M Recipient contribs: $ 68.8K
McDermott:
Earmarks: $13.6M Recipient contribs: $ 22.2K
Adam Smith:
Earmarks: $10.6M Recipient contribs: $ 97.2K
Rick Larsen:
Earmarks: $ 8.0M Recipient contribs: $108.6K
Dave Reichert:
Earmarks: $ 8.0M Recipient contribs: $ 67.6K
Doc Hastings:
Earmarks: $ 6.9M Recipient contribs: $ 66.9K
McMorris-Rogers:
Earmarks: $ 3.2M Recipient contribs: $ 65.0K

=================================================


And WRT ''Max'' @ #3 + #4:

Congresswoman McMorris-Rogers is smart, hard working, accessible, and has earned the respect of her constituents and her colleagues in Congress. She and other rising stars in Congress like Eric Cantor are just the kind of people we need in leadership positions and in front of the media right now.

And I sure hope (and expect) that the RNC isn't dumb enough to replace Michael Steele; he's still the right guy for the job as far as I'm concerned. And if I ever get a chance to vote for Eric Earling for a political office, I will. IOW Max:

Why don't you give us all a break and crawl back under whatever rock you normally inhabit. You, ''All Facts'', ''Demo Kid'' and etcetera others can meet on the dark side of the political nether-world.

Posted by: Methow Ken on March 15, 2009 07:51 PM
6. Cathy McMorris-Rogers is a very late convert to the anti-earmark crusade, her total earmarks for 2008 (just last year) totaled over 43 million.

Posted by: correctnotright on March 15, 2009 08:10 PM
7. In this instance, God help me, I agree with CNR.

I stand by my position.

It is sheer hypocrisy to utilize someone who has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations for her earmark skills, as the "face" of suddenly being against earmarks.

That she has restrained her abuse of our money does not mean that she HASN'T abused it... it just means that she hasn't done it AS MUCH.

And as a result, that will weaken any effort she engages on the issue precisely like Gov. Romney's flips on abortion hurt him.

Find a member of congress that has NEVER abused us with their theft of our money to be that face, EVEN IF THEY ARE BRAND NEW. Otherwise, when you add that 40% of the earmarks were GOP... and you hand the hypocrisy issue to Rahm Emanuel... and he will beat us to death with it.

I "cherry-picked" NOTHING. NOTHING that I wrote is inaccurate.

I'm reminded of the Churchill joke:

You know the old joke about Winston Churchill seated next to a woman at a posh dinner party? Churchill says “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” The socialite responds: My goodness, Mr. Churchill. . . . Well, I suppose I would.” Adjusted for inflation were talking tens of millions of dollars after all. Then Churchill replies, “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”

Lady: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”

Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

I get that you and Eric have the mistaken belief that CMR would walk on water if she didn't mind wet shoes.

But do NOT hold her out as someone capable of being a champion of the little guy, opposed to earmarks THAT SHE HERSELF USED WHEN IT SUITED HER.

Posted by: Hinton on March 15, 2009 08:43 PM
8. And, BTW... the Congressional Pig Book shows McMorris Rogers was into 22 projects for $17.7 million 1n 2008.

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/House_-_alpha.pdf?docID=3021

So, yeah. She's earmarked millions... and YOU people want HER to take the lead in this?

MK, what say you relax and let the adults discuss this... OK?

MY politics actually concern the politics of reality.

If you can find something I posted that is inaccurate, then say so. Otherwise, take you lame characterizations and shove them up your ass.

Posted by: hinton on March 15, 2009 09:01 PM
9. The bottom line is that you will never be able to completely do away with earmarks. Cantor said it as well as possible - there needs to be transparency in any perceived earmarks, so people can see what they are getting. McCain dwelled on that issue too much where he could have focused on other issues better, like cap and trade and illegal immigration.

Max - would it be correct to say that you are progressive (neo-Marxist) ? Your lack of tolerance is a dead giveaway.

Posted by: KS on March 15, 2009 10:02 PM
10. If I get this discussion right, CMR would be a saint if she did not take any earmarks. Right?

Ok if she was to completely ignore them, would you be saying she is not representing her constituents and bringing home anything to her district? Would you call her "ineffective"?

We sure spend a lot of time thinking this out!

All I see posted is slamming Republicans by the trolls. Covers the destruction to our Republic by the majority party both State & Federally, but sure doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

Eric keep up the posts, Although I don't have time to post often, I think you pick perfect subjects to discuss.

Posted by: Ken Howard on March 16, 2009 10:33 AM
11. "Ok if she was to completely ignore them, would you be saying she is not representing her constituents and bringing home anything to her district? Would you call her "ineffective"?"

It's a sad sign of today's entitlement mentality when anyone believes that the only way to get money into your home district (or any other) is to do it through earmarks.

FIND SOME OTHER WAY, like in the light of day and thru the regular expenditure process.

And then don't take a fricking dime from ANYONE who has benefited from any expenditure.

If she had done that... then the answer to your question concerning "ineffectiveness" would be "no."

Posted by: hinton on March 17, 2009 05:48 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?