If you don't like reading the facts in National Review, then find an article on a site of your choosing. Michelle Obama did not just get a raise, her salary nearly tripled within a year. I don't know about you, but my salary has never come close to tripling in a single year.

 

If you are still undecided about Obama, I encourage you to research his earmarks for yourself. This is a losing issue for Biden and Obama. McCain has crusaded against earmarks for years and Palin has not been in position to put any earmarks into spending bills.

 

Obama has hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks to his credit in only three years. Apparently Obama sees throwing rocks in glass houses as a challenge.

 

If I understand correctly, she got a promotion. Therefore her salary increased to the level of the new promotion. That is different then one's salary tripling "on a whim."

 

As for your ire at my pointing out the bias in the article, I find it quite funny. How many times have others been denounced for quoting the Huffington Post and other such sites of liberal media? The article certainly contains more then just the facts. :lol:

If you don't like reading the facts in National Review, then find an article on a site of your choosing. Michelle Obama did not just get a raise, her salary nearly tripled within a year. I don't know about you, but my salary has never come close to tripling in a single year.

 

You need to marry a senator!

You need to marry a senator!

 

:D

If I understand correctly, she got a promotion. Therefore her salary increased to the level of the new promotion. That is different then one's salary tripling "on a whim."

 

As for your ire at my pointing out the bias in the article, I find it quite funny. How many times have others been denounced for quoting the Huffington Post and other such sites of liberal media? The article certainly contains more then just the facts. :lol:

The National Review is not the Huffington Post. If you want to dispute any of the facts in the article, then post your own supporting documentation. This story is not new and I have read it many other places before. The article just appeared near the top of a Google search.

What were her job requirements in the first job?

 

Did she do any post grad work wo earn the new job?

 

What were the job requirements in the second job?

The National Review is not the Huffington Post. If you want to dispute any of the facts in the article, then post your own supporting documentation. This story is not new and I have read it many other places before. The article just appeared near the top of a Google search.

 

I'm not disputing the facts. I simply pointed out the bias. Then I pointed out the irony of the many discussion of overt bias in the Huffington Post. I apologize for ruffling your feathers.

 

Back to the point. In being promoted to a new job, Mrs. Obama shouldn't get a raise in salary? The hospital shouldn't get funding for cancer research?

Not sure where the cancer story came from. The story I read said it was for construction of a pavilion. Where this hurts Obama is that he can't win if he can't sell the idea that he is different from how Washington has worked in the past. Earmarking 1 million for your wife's employer after she's received a big promotion sure seems to be the same old Washington politics.

Not sure where the cancer story came from. The story I read said it was for construction of a pavilion. Where this hurts Obama is that he can't win if he can't sell the idea that he is different from how Washington has worked in the past. Earmarking 1 million for your wife's employer after she's received a big promotion sure seems to be the same old Washington politics.

 

The promotion came long before the earmark. Don't know about you but I usually don't pay for products or srvices before I get them.

I'm not disputing the facts. I simply pointed out the bias. Then I pointed out the irony of the many discussion of overt bias in the Huffington Post. I apologize for ruffling your feathers.

 

Back to the point. In being promoted to a new job, Mrs. Obama shouldn't get a raise in salary? The hospital shouldn't get funding for cancer research?

The issue was not bias with the Huffington Post it was blatant fabrication as it was with the Daily Kos. I have posted links to the Huffington Post myself here - not because it is a legitimate source but because liberals seem to think that it is.

 

If you honestly believe that Obama becoming a US Senator, Michelle getting a promotion that tripled her salary, and Obama setting aside a $1,000,000 earmark for her employer does not bear a strong appearance of impropriety, then I don't know what to say.

The promotion came long before the earmark. Don't know about you but I usually don't pay for products or srvices before I get them.

 

But shortly after he became senator. I've heard of long term strategic planning, haven't you? It still has the appearance of old time washington politics when your wife's employer gets earmarks you pushed for. It goes to his credibility as a change in washington's environment.

It could be taken as appearing improper, yes.

You know, the thing is, I always thought elected officials were supposed to go to Washington to represent the interest of their constituents and stear money to their respective states. The check was supposed to be the other congresspeople looking out for their states' interest and a balance was created where everyone knew there was only a certain amount of money to be doled out.

 

What has happened is that no one is saying no to anyone else b/c we have forgotten the art of compromise. It is now everyone gets what they want or no one gets anything (gridlock).

 

If we are really, honestly worried about earmarks, then we will vote out McConnell and Hal Rogers. They flat bring home the bacon.

Good post. I don't think that elected officials are supposed to do what is best for the country, not bring as much money home as possible. FWIW, I'd agree with what you are saying 100% especially if the money to be doled out was significantly less than what it is now.

 

Spending is a huge problem, and I don't know what solution will work. People vote on taxes, but even the party that promises lower taxes hypocritically spends a lot. Transparency might help, but I doubt the electorate is informed or interested enough for it to work.

ANCHORAGE — As she introduced herself to the nation Friday as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin touted her record as a reformer who worked to end the "abuses of earmark spending in Congress."

 

But earmarks have never been a dirty word in Alaska, a huge state dotted with small communities that have enormous dollar needs for sewers, roads and other projects.

 

Instead, earmarks — pet projects that members of Congress fund but that no federal agency has requested — have become a mainstay of political life here, and one that Palin embraced from early on in her career as a mayor of Wasilla to the governor's mansion in Juneau.

 

Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html

FWIW, the middle name Earmark scares me more than Hussein.

 

:thumb: