Arugula for All

McCain promises to "veto every beer" which can't go over well with the white working class.

He also promises to veto every bill with earmarks in it. This is certainly something he likes to talk about, but it seems like a potential disaster to me. Isn't the crack Obama organization going to be able to send out customized mailers to everyone in America featuring a list of locally popular projects that McCain's promised to get rid of? Seems like something a good database and a dozen interns could pull off.

Comments

And isn't the proper response from McCain to say that those local projects are worthy, and would of course be approved in a rigorous and impartial process, and the problem of course is all those projects in other districts.

I mean, dishonesty works for both sides, doesn't it?

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 11:10 AM

While a dedicated non-profit could do this, I doubt this is something Obama himself wants to get involved in.

Right now, earmark reform is a relatively arcane issue that few voters care about outside the Republican base, and has widespread support among the punditry elite.

If Obama made himself strongly on the side of keeping earmarks (which I imagine is unpalatable to him anyway), it would instantly become a high-profile issue where the media could come back home to showcasing McCain's anti-corruption image.

But, a random 527 mailing out those fliers, could certainly get some traction.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 10, 2008 11:10 AM

so it may not be great politics, but it's definitely great policy. shouldn't the local governments have to make the case for raising taxes to pay for these projects if they're really necessary?

Posted by jamie | June 10, 2008 11:10 AM

so it may not be great politics, but it's definitely great policy. shouldn't the local governments have to make the case for raising taxes to pay for these projects if they're really necessary?

Posted by jamie | June 10, 2008 11:10 AM

so it may not be great politics, but it's definitely great policy. shouldn't the local governments have to make the case for raising taxes to pay for these projects if they're really necessary?

Posted by jamie | June 10, 2008 11:12 AM

apologies for the multiple posts

Posted by jamie | June 10, 2008 11:15 AM

No TV and No Beer make Homer something something.

Posted by BFR | June 10, 2008 11:21 AM

The fact that the subject is hard means it'd be hard for McCain to articulate his defense to any such attack by Obama. He'd be left stammering "But, but, but", while Obama nails him for promising to veto medical services for dehydrated babies (who need more than bottled hot water).

It'd be a little cynical by Obama, but McCain's "princpled" stance here is ridiculous. Earmarks aren't the problem; wasteful earmarks are the problem. Congress shouldn't get out of the business of prioritizing public spending by the executive branch; it should just get better priorities. McCain's solution is nothing of the sort, and he should get called on it.

Posted by phil | June 10, 2008 11:24 AM

Hmmm, I wonder what Cindy-the-Bud-distributor thinks of huggy bear's gaffe?

Posted by Bragan | June 10, 2008 11:27 AM

McCain's in a bit of a tight spot--he has to try to keep his "deficit hawk" cred while proposing an economic plan that will cost far more than anything proposed by Barack Obama. Why doesn't McCain just say, "Screw huge tax cuts, let's balance the budget!"? That has, historically, been his stance, and I do think it could be a good issue for him politically as it draws a contrast with Bush and Obama. People do care about the deficit, of course.

The problem is that McCain has no money, and I'm convinced that he's changed his tune on taxes because he can't offend the Norquist wing of the GOP (and, more importantly, their coffers) as he's already tanking in fundraising compared to Obama, and he can't afford to lose any more. The Patron Saint of Straight Talk, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Lev | June 10, 2008 11:34 AM

McCain's in a bit of a tight spot--he has to try to keep his "deficit hawk" cred while proposing an economic plan that will cost far more than anything proposed by Barack Obama. Why doesn't McCain just say, "Screw huge tax cuts, let's balance the budget!"? That has, historically, been his stance, and I do think it could be a good issue for him politically as it draws a contrast with Bush and Obama. People do care about the deficit, of course.

The problem is that McCain has no money, and I'm convinced that he's changed his tune on taxes because he can't offend the Norquist wing of the GOP (and, more importantly, their coffers) as he's already tanking in fundraising compared to Obama, and he can't afford to lose any more. The Patron Saint of Straight Talk, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Lev | June 10, 2008 11:37 AM

McCain's in a bit of a tight spot--he has to try to keep his "deficit hawk" cred while proposing an economic plan that will cost far more than anything proposed by Barack Obama. Why doesn't McCain just say, "Screw huge tax cuts, let's balance the budget!"? That has, historically, been his stance, and I do think it could be a good issue for him politically as it draws a contrast with Bush and Obama. People do care about the deficit, of course.

The problem is that McCain has no money, and I'm convinced that he's changed his tune on taxes because he can't offend the Norquist wing of the GOP (and, more importantly, their coffers) as he's already tanking in fundraising compared to Obama, and he can't afford to lose any more. The Patron Saint of Straight Talk, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Lev | June 10, 2008 11:38 AM

I don't know if I can agree, Phil: If all earmarks were banned, those that stood on their own merits would simply become bills in their own right.

On the other hand, I think earmarks are pretty much inevitable in a two-party system like the US where there is no party discipline. Earmarks are the horse trading that allows laws to be made. Getting rid of earmarks seems like a recipe for a do-nothing term of government; you'd just never get to a majority on anything substantial.

Posted by dete | June 10, 2008 11:41 AM

McCain's in a bit of a tight spot--he has to try to keep his "deficit hawk" cred while proposing an economic plan that will cost far more than anything proposed by Barack Obama. Why doesn't McCain just say, "Screw huge tax cuts, let's balance the budget!"? That has, historically, been his stance, and I do think it could be a good issue for him politically as it draws a contrast with Bush and Obama. People do care about the deficit, of course.

The problem is that McCain has no money, and I'm convinced that he's changed his tune on taxes because he can't offend the Norquist wing of the GOP (and, more importantly, their coffers) as he's already tanking in fundraising compared to Obama, and he can't afford to lose any more. The Patron Saint of Straight Talk, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Lev | June 10, 2008 11:41 AM

I'd vote for McCain if he promises to fix this fucking comment software.

Posted by James | June 10, 2008 11:41 AM

I'd vote for McCain if he promises to fix this fucking comment software.

There's a very simple solution. Type your comment, and press post. That's it. Really easy. It may load for a long time. It may return a server error message. But instead of hitting "post" eight more times, just re-open the page in another window and see if the comment is there. 99% of the time, it will be.

The software clearly isn't great, but the problem could easily be solved by people showing a little patience.

Posted by Seitz | June 10, 2008 12:02 PM

Seitz,

I didn't multiple post, but I have to read them.

If one person does it, then yes, it's that person - if countless people do it, many of whom are pretty smart, then its actually The Atlantic's appalling software which needs fixing.

This is hardly a new problem either.

I didn't actually think it would be a campaign pledge.

Posted by James | June 10, 2008 12:06 PM

Just lost my vote.

*hic*

Now, I have to go git some schlitz.

GOBAMA!

Posted by jerry | June 10, 2008 12:11 PM

I didn't multiple post, but I have to read them.

I'm not saying the software is perfect or doesn't need to be fixed. It does. But anyone who has commented on blogs or message boards has probably encountered this at sometime or another. Until such time as it is upgraded, it's pretty easy to NOT post multiple times. People just need to be patient.

In the alternative, perhaps they need to put some sort of message somewhere that says a post will go through, and that one only needs to hit post once.

Posted by Seitz | June 10, 2008 12:35 PM

Seitz,

Agreed - it would take literally ten minutes to put a bold message above the comment box. Problem solved.

Posted by James | June 10, 2008 12:45 PM

As Phil noted above, the problem isn't earmarks per se, but rather the use of earmarks to fund unworthy projects.

The case for eliminating earmarks entirely rests upon a view of government agencies that assumes that a) they are operated by objective, apolitical technocrats and thus b) any funding specified in earmarks would therefore have been funded anyway if it were worthy.

With the example of the current administration before us, (a) is clearly laughable. And (b) is only relevant if one believes that the executive branch should have full authority over how funds are used, and that there are no legitimate areas to disagree over funding priorities.

Posted by BP in MN | June 10, 2008 1:05 PM

Apologies in advance for the multiple post.

Isn't the crack Obama organization going to be able to send out customized mailers to everyone in America featuring a list of locally popular projects that McCain's promised to get rid of?

That isn't how I'd work it. I'd have congressional candidates send out customized mailers featuring a list of locally popular projects that McCain's promised to get rid of. Of course, Obama's campaign could always help with the research...

Posted by Tom Hilton | June 10, 2008 3:05 PM

Actually, I have no problem with Presidents using their veto pens aggressively to shape the budget. For too long, Presidents have pretended that they need line-item vetoes to control the budget, when in fact, the veto power gives them all the power they need. Clinton used it very effectively when Republicans were trying to force Medicare cuts.

I suspect that if McCain follows through, Congress will quickly learn to get along without earmarks.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 10, 2008 3:42 PM

The solution to the multiple posts problem is simple: it's called the scroll wheel on your mouse.

Posted by Al | June 10, 2008 3:49 PM

I like how at the end of this clip, he pulls a Sharpie marker out of his pocket. That's what he intends to use in the Oval Office? Can we get him some finger paint and some crayons too? Dude totes a Sharpie around in his suit? What fer? Is he writing bathroom graffiti or something?

Posted by The Critic | June 10, 2008 4:24 PM

He'll have to pry my Guinness from my cold, dead hand.

Posted by Alex | June 10, 2008 5:39 PM

I have always figured that McCain, in one final act of desperation, will open up Cindy's warehouse on election eve and declare "Free Beer for Everybody" night.

Posted by Tom | June 10, 2008 6:36 PM