Barack Obama's earmark threat flusters Democrats (Senate Dems upset over earmark veto threat)

Politico ^ | 01/26/2011 | Manu Raju

[SeekAndFind]

President Barack Obama picked a fight Tuesday with his Senate Democratic colleagues over earmarks – and he’s well-positioned to win this battle against the parochial projects.

After Obama surprised lawmakers in his State of the Union address with a bold threat to veto all bills with earmarks, Democrats in the Senate grew visibly frustrated, denouncing the president’s call as a power grab that’ll have little-to-no impact on the federal budget deficit.

But the reality is that Democrats face a political climate that makes it virtually impossible to get any earmarks through this Congress if Obama and Republicans in Congress maintain their opposition. Abandoned by their president, Democrats in the Senate have essentially become boxed-in on the issue. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says no appropriations bills with earmarks will pass the House, and Senate Republicans have also embraced a moratorium on the pet projects. That means House Republicans, Senate Republicans and the president would have to cave in if any earmarks are to become law this year.

Democrats aren’t happy about it, even if they know they have little chance of winning the fight.

[SeekAndFind]

RELATED :

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/26/reid-to-obama-on-earmarks-pound-sand/

Reid to Obama on earmarks: Pound sand

Harry Reid tells ABC News that Barack Obama’s vow to veto any bill with earmarks was “only for show,” which is more or less the consensus anyway. After all, Obama never followed through on his earlier threats to veto pork-laden bills, did he? Reid said that Obama most assuredly will get the opportunity if he desires to whip out his veto pen, saying about earmarks, “Of course they’ll be back”:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR VIDEO

[screaminsunshine]

Democrats are out of our money. They are becoming pathetic snivelers.

[Bob Buchholz]

‘Bold new threat’ my patootie! He has been SAYING that he wouldn’t sign any bill with earmarks since before he was elected.

Same old lie.

[Baynative]

Baraq didn't mean what he said about earmarks and the dems know he didn't mean it.

(...and they know he knows they know...)

[Hoodat]

Why would Senate Democrats be flustered over what Obama said? Surely, they must know that he is lying. He said two years ago that he would ban earmarks, yet the very first bill he signed contained 9,000 of them.

Baraq Obama - Truth simply is not in him.

[Pearls Before Swine]

It’s an empty threat. Remember when he said there would be no lobbyists in his administration? Or when he said that all bills would be published on line for 3 days before any vote? This guy is a continual liar. I didn’t listen to the SOTU, but if he said “let me be clear” at any point, disregard what follows.

[RC2]

Now get rid of foreign aid, the EPA, and dept of Education.....good start.

[webstersII]

He will cave on this promise.

He will whine about how he has no choice and all that junk but in the end he will bow to his political masters on this one.

[Venturer]

Just more BS from the Kenyan.

It doesn’t mean a thing.

[parisa]

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says no appropriations bills with earmarks will pass the House, and Senate Republicans have also embraced a moratorium on the pet projects.

Oh oh, heads-up murkowski voters!

[K-Stater]

Since John Boehner has promised that he won’t allow a bill with earmarks to reach the House floor then this shouldn’t be a problem for Obama.