The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


The Rundown

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

By Ben Pershing
You can't please everyone, particularly in politics, but it's also not easy to alienate everyone. Yet that may just be what President Obama managed to do yesterday when he announced a new set of earmark reform proposals.

Irritate his fellow Democrats by making them look bad? Check. Disappoint reform groups who say he didn't go far enough? Check. Give Republicans an opportunity to call him a hypocrite? Check. Put the earmark-laden omnibus bill on the front page again, when it probably wouldn't have been otherwise? Check. Obviously, Obama wanted it known that he wasn't a fan of the $410 billion spending measure and that things would be done differently in the future (though it's not clear which of his proposals really would have made a difference on this bill). But it's a tough sell, when you're the president, to throw up your hands and say you just HAVE to sign this bill and there's nothing you can do about it, particularly when your party wrote the measure and you control Congress. And it appears that Obama didn't make the sale Wednesday.

Continue reading at Political Browser »

Posted at 8:25 AM ET on Mar 12, 2009  | Category:  The Rundown
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: POTUS Events: Getting Down to Business | Next: D.C. Official Arrested in Federal Bribery Sting

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Vegas(Which is it REALLY?):

Animosity is the Cry of the Wounded LOSER!

As far as attacks on our Dear Legal Expert Mr. Mort;

You are Waaayyyyy out of your League!

Like him or Not;

JakeD has time and again displayed an intricate knowledge of Facts!

LOL! I might have to WikiWikiPedia Mr. Mort and see what I might find! :-D

Inquiring Minds Don't Ya know! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | March 12, 2009 7:23 PM

Does anyone else who VOTED FOR OBAMA have Buyers' Remorse yet?

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 7:16 PM


OK -- and while we're at it, let's impeach Bush, too.
(oh, but let me guess: you love the Dear Leader, because he just everything *so* perfectly, right?)
Your post reeks of hypocrisy and outright delusion.
However, thanks for the biggest laugh I've read all day, poster. Now, take it back to the Freepers, OK?
The adults (well, with the exception of bitter loser and GOP apologist JakeD) prefer to be here.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | March 12, 2009 7:16 PM

make NO sense!
You're not clever -- you just sound like someone who might have had too much fun in the 70s. Please give it up, OK?
You betcha! ;- )

JohnQuimby: Thanks for a being a breath of fresh air on this forum, by presenting the facts -- some of the reactionary posters won't like that, of course -- but too bad for them.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | March 12, 2009 7:12 PM

"Does anyone have Buyers' Remorse yet?"

Yeah -- 8 years ago, poster.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | March 12, 2009 7:09 PM

Prove he does not have a Clue;


Prove he is in waaayyyy over his Head;


WISH he could re-tract his Statements like he usedtato when Campaigning;

You Betcha! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | March 12, 2009 7:04 PM

I look forward to the "big secrets" reveal on Obama, brought about by the investigations of
Vivek Kundra's employees Yusuf Acar and Sushil Bansal.

Remember when names surrounding the President were the same as kids you grew up with,
instead of foreign names that sound like pet elephants?
No Confidence = Obama.
No Confidence = Pelosi.

President "Bull dog smile" Biden would pen all of this pork Obamanomics out of exsistance,
and Confidence would quell the TEA (no on spending) Party, to bring money out of their
matresses and return to their businesses.

Impeach Obama , the sooner the better.
If California won't recall Pelosi, indict her too.

Posted by: dottydo | March 12, 2009 7:00 PM

Does anyone have Buyers' Remorse yet?

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 5:33 PM


No, McCain campaigned on earmark and military procurement reform (that would have been Day One). Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 5:30 PM

Exsqueeze me Mr. Bubba?

Did you not read about the 36 earmarks the great Republican fraud Mitch McConnell wrote into the bill for $51 million?

The GOP leader is the single largest porker of them all!

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 12, 2009 4:32 PM

McCain would have saved more than that on Day One.

Posted by: JakeD

why? Would wifey have loaned him the money?

Posted by: LABC | March 12, 2009 4:20 PM

Obama ran for President on reducing earmarks. He lied.

His remarks about the Ominbus earmark-loaded bill he signed makes him a hypocrate as well.

Oh, yea. Change we can count on.

Posted by: BubbaRight | March 12, 2009 3:20 PM

Mr. Pershing, please earn your pay and make a little more effort at writing an article or should I say, pure punditry.

Our new President and the democratic Congress do not want a fight over this "last year" budget. Obama will except a little criticism to move on quickly to the next big thing which is his own budget. That is where the BIG fight will be. Healthcare, energy, education.

Pershing, you are shooting at tin cans and missing the whole point.

Posted by: lucy2008 | March 12, 2009 2:39 PM

He doesn't seem to have alienated the voters, me included.

Posted by: david48 | March 12, 2009 2:29 PM

McCain would have saved more than that on Day One.

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 1:59 PM

Didn't Obama just find a way last week to save 40b in wasteful military contracting expenses?

and the Repubs are screeching about what amounts to 1% of the budget?


Posted by: JRM2 | March 12, 2009 1:27 PM

McCain is a Republican. A stop gap would be needed as to military combat (I thought that was "off budget" anyway?). Next question.

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 12:30 PM

Gotta go,

I'm volunteering in a classroom (don't worry, I'm only helping with grade school math).

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 12, 2009 12:29 PM

Yes, until Abel Maldonado voted to break the deadlock and raise taxes. See, that's the point. The people need government to work.

And just for discussion, how do you expect that McCain would have been able to veto legislation written by his party leaders
and then face the country with the fact that our troops are high and dry in the desert - just so he can make a point about earmarks?

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 12, 2009 12:04 PM

Sometimes, government has to be shut down. We are having a tax revolt out here in California.

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 11:53 AM


If McCain had vetoed this bill he would have been BBQ'd for shutting down the government during a financial meltdown and cutting off funding to our combat troops in 2 wars.

That's the set up here in the "gotta prove that Obama is a failure" strategy of the GOP.

Meanwhile Senate leader McConnell got 51 million dollars from the 36 earmarks he wrote. Then he says, "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime".

What about Inhofe? He got 35 million dollars and said yesterday, "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."

These guys are committing fraud in broad daylight.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 12, 2009 11:45 AM


McCain ZERO earmarks $0 million.

He would have VETOED this bill as President (and not used signing statements either). Does anyone have Buyers' Remorse yet?

Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 11:30 AM

Mr. Pershing, please get outside the echo-bubble and READ the bill you are commenting on. Look at who wrote some of the largest earmarks in the bill.

The loudest GOP critics of the president are responsible for loading the omnibus bill with pork. They voted "no" because they knew it would pass anyway.

They get to appear to be against pork while they write earmarks and bring home the bacon. It's the same strategy they used on the bailout.

Pershing writes that Obama had a problem declaring himself apart from the bill, "...particularly when your party wrote the measure and you control Congress."

Mr. Pershing that is factually WRONG.
Look who wrote the earmarks:

Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
Bayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million)
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)

Thanks MSNBC for the data.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | March 12, 2009 11:09 AM


Posted by: JakeD | March 12, 2009 11:04 AM

So Obama is a tool of the establishment for not hitting the omnibus with a veto, but he's going too far with "change" by hitting members of his own party for earmarks? The media has such double standards...

Posted by: parkerfl1 | March 12, 2009 9:47 AM


The Bush Justice Department "torture memos," some still secret, apparently have been used to provide legal justification for the covert use of classified, silent microwave radiation weapons on U.S. citizens -- "targeted" under the pretext of the "war on terror" as "undesirables," "mental defectives" and "dissidents."

Victims, including the journalist who authored the articles linked below, say these painful, debilitating and illness-inducing "directed energy weapons" assaults constitute torture and "slow-kill," a military descriptive for prolonged assaults that eventually result in death -- what could be described as an American genocide.

Victims of these assaults say their family finances are decimated by an array of secret "programs of personal financial destruction" that involve the forced cooperation of private enterprise; surveillance and interception of mail and telecommunications; and the forging of billing, utility, banking and mortgage statements -- what they charge is a process of expropriation and theft by deception.

Sources say these covert programs were justified by the Bush Justice Department under legal theories that are said to include a suspected "nexus to terrorism" and, according to a source, the legal theory that weapons and/or medical experimentation on U.S. citizens is permissible if subjects are under federal investigation for suspected offenses.

These microwave weapons assaults have continued under the Obama administration, and are facilitated by an "extrajudicial punishment network" enabled by federal agencies; local police nationwide; and "community gang stalker" citizen vigilantes fronted by government-funded community policing and volunteer organizations.


Victims have asked the FBI/Justice Department to launch a civil rights investigation. They say officials have told them they see nothing to investigate, and hint that victim accounts are delusional.

Victims maintain that marginalizing the persecuted as "unstable" or "mentally ill" is a tactic being used to cover up crimes against humanity, a highly organized and well-funded social genocide.



* Silent, covert microwave radiation weapons assaults on innocent but "targeted" U.S. citizens;

* Terroristic vigilante community gang stalking, surreptitious home entry, police-tolerated vandalism;

* Secret federal "programs of personal financial destruction" that use the IRS as an ideological tool of "social cleansing."

OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 12, 2009 9:33 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company