NoaIzumiKyle-Anne Sweetie, Can We Talk about Lying about Hypocrisy?
February 19th 2009 17:52
Kyle-Anne Shiver, of the American Thinker, is back with another of the “Barry Honey” series. (I love these.)
Barry Honey, Can We Talk About Hypocrisy?
There’s something I noticed in this piece, in her complaints about the timing of the vote and the president’s signature. Noting the three day gap between the passage of the final bill and President Obama signing it into law, Shiver writes:
“Couldn't our legislators have read the bill while you and Michelle were gadding about in Chicago on the V-Day weekend, then hold the vote on Tuesday?” (the day the president signed it)
But then she later complains that the gap should been longer:
“You promised -- quite explicitly -- that you would post online every single bill passed by the Congress for five whole days before you signed it into law. Now, any way one adds it up, this 1,400 page, biggest-lump-sum- spending bill in the history of these United States was only passed 3 days before it got your Denver-hoopla signature”
So, which is it, Mrs. Shiver? It’s bad that the president waited three days before he signed, or it’s bad that he waited only three days before he signed?
(Personally, I’m with the author on the second point. The five day waiting period was a strong campaign pledge, and this is the third bill of the Obama administration so far that has not had it. But although she makes a good case for hypocrisy on this particular issue, Mrs. Shiver doesn’t get to have it both ways.)
Then the story’s onto specific provisions of the stimulus itself, and examples of claimed earmarks. Unfortunately, they’re both found wanting.
“As far as we know, $30 million to restore the wetlands around San Francisco is still in the bill, and at least a large chunk of that will go to one of Imperious Nancy's long-championed, favorite causes: saving the salt marsh harvest mouse.”
Mrs. Shiver’s source is a Feb. 12 article in the Washington Times (which should probably raise red flags right there). According to a Fresno Bee article on Feb. 17, the stimulus bill “does not include $30 million supposedly to protect Bay Area mouse habitat near House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district. The bill does include wetlands-restoration funding, but does not specify where it will be spent”
Really Long Link
This story of “Pelosi’s mouse” has been making the rounds for a week now. Apparently, it started with a Republican staffer who has since backed off from the claim.
Really Long Link
“Harry Reid, not to be outdone by Madame Speaker, managed to sneak in $8 billion for modern rail projects, which could be used for one of his own pet projects: to build a 269-mile magnetic levitation train line between Las Vegas and Anaheim, Calif”
Wait, wait, hold up. Whaddya mean, “could be”? So, the part that specifically directs the money to Harry Reid’s desired rail line isn’t in the bill? And somehow, that’s still an earmark? Talk about your stretched logic.
Kyle-Ann Shiver also doesn’t seem to realize who’s in charge of that $8 billion. It’s not Harry Reid, and it’s not Congress. According to the section of the bill titled Federal Railroad Administration (page 94 of the House version), the money is not currently allocated to any specific project, but is handled at the direction of the Secretary of Transportation. In the current administration, that would be Ray LaHood, Republican.
A blogger at ThinkProgress had this to say about it, and brought up some good points.
Really Long Link
As bad as these examples are, I can understand the temptation to choose them. Mrs. Shiver saw things that she could connect to Pelosi and Reid, two of the right’s favorite boogeymen, and simply could not resist.
Let’s hope she has a little more self control next time (though I doubt it).
Barry Honey, Can We Talk About Hypocrisy?
There’s something I noticed in this piece, in her complaints about the timing of the vote and the president’s signature. Noting the three day gap between the passage of the final bill and President Obama signing it into law, Shiver writes:
“Couldn't our legislators have read the bill while you and Michelle were gadding about in Chicago on the V-Day weekend, then hold the vote on Tuesday?” (the day the president signed it)
But then she later complains that the gap should been longer:
“You promised -- quite explicitly -- that you would post online every single bill passed by the Congress for five whole days before you signed it into law. Now, any way one adds it up, this 1,400 page, biggest-lump-sum- spending bill in the history of these United States was only passed 3 days before it got your Denver-hoopla signature”
So, which is it, Mrs. Shiver? It’s bad that the president waited three days before he signed, or it’s bad that he waited only three days before he signed?
(Personally, I’m with the author on the second point. The five day waiting period was a strong campaign pledge, and this is the third bill of the Obama administration so far that has not had it. But although she makes a good case for hypocrisy on this particular issue, Mrs. Shiver doesn’t get to have it both ways.)
Then the story’s onto specific provisions of the stimulus itself, and examples of claimed earmarks. Unfortunately, they’re both found wanting.
“As far as we know, $30 million to restore the wetlands around San Francisco is still in the bill, and at least a large chunk of that will go to one of Imperious Nancy's long-championed, favorite causes: saving the salt marsh harvest mouse.”
Mrs. Shiver’s source is a Feb. 12 article in the Washington Times (which should probably raise red flags right there). According to a Fresno Bee article on Feb. 17, the stimulus bill “does not include $30 million supposedly to protect Bay Area mouse habitat near House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district. The bill does include wetlands-restoration funding, but does not specify where it will be spent”
Really Long Link
This story of “Pelosi’s mouse” has been making the rounds for a week now. Apparently, it started with a Republican staffer who has since backed off from the claim.
Really Long Link
“Harry Reid, not to be outdone by Madame Speaker, managed to sneak in $8 billion for modern rail projects, which could be used for one of his own pet projects: to build a 269-mile magnetic levitation train line between Las Vegas and Anaheim, Calif”
Wait, wait, hold up. Whaddya mean, “could be”? So, the part that specifically directs the money to Harry Reid’s desired rail line isn’t in the bill? And somehow, that’s still an earmark? Talk about your stretched logic.
Kyle-Ann Shiver also doesn’t seem to realize who’s in charge of that $8 billion. It’s not Harry Reid, and it’s not Congress. According to the section of the bill titled Federal Railroad Administration (page 94 of the House version), the money is not currently allocated to any specific project, but is handled at the direction of the Secretary of Transportation. In the current administration, that would be Ray LaHood, Republican.
A blogger at ThinkProgress had this to say about it, and brought up some good points.
Really Long Link
As bad as these examples are, I can understand the temptation to choose them. Mrs. Shiver saw things that she could connect to Pelosi and Reid, two of the right’s favorite boogeymen, and simply could not resist.
Let’s hope she has a little more self control next time (though I doubt it).
| 90 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
