Great video. People are starting to realize that this man is just a typical politician and that's why he continuously reverts back to campaign mode. Because he craves that public support and adulation.

Lorie, one major problem is that without the power of a constitutional line item veto, any president is forced with having to sign or veto an entire bill. But I understand that that congress is working on such a provision since the Supreme Court struck down the previous law as unconstitutional. Such a law should help a president to remove many wasteful earmarks or objectionable parts of legislation.

Paul, are you saying that it was the Constitution's failure to have a line item veto provision that led to Obama failing to live up to his promises? That's backward logic. The President clearly stated that he would veto any bill with earmarks and the first chance he got to show Americans that he would fulfill that campaign promise, he turned around and signed a bill with almost 9,000 earmarks and shrugs it off as "last year's business." That, sir, is irresponsible and a broken campaign promise. People need to stop making excuses for him by blaming, of all things, the Constitution.

Nice try Paul, but he could have and should have vetoes the bill. He would have at least impressed those that voted for him. He is a chump. Being used by the very skilled D.C. area. What did you think an empty suit would get you? ww

hooson - so, what stopped barack hussein obama from vetoing the entire bill and telling the despicable trolls in congress to send one back with NO pet projects/"earmarks?"

Even better question hooson - why did he use a 3rd grade level excuse in justifying his action by saying that bill was "last years business," when even a 3rd grader would know it was THIS YEARS money he tossed into the trash can?

Now, away with you. Go back to your little house of ill repute and opine about Bobby Jindal. (And look like a blithering idiot in doing so.)

Not surprising He has complete confidence in tax cheat Geitner.

See how all this power absolutely corrupted His once pure teleprompter?....Its a terrible thing too watch....Maybe thats why He wishes to speak before catholics....So His tele can slip off to confession after the event is thru.

Excellent video!

Dear Jonathan, WildWillie and Marc. A president has to either sign or veto whatever bill is presented to them. They may not support every page of that bill. However a Supreme Court decision struck down a line item veto law passed by congress. Philosophically, Mr. Obama like all presidents may have some objections to some parts of legislation. But the options are limited in what to do about that.

A further problem is that earmarks are a bipartisan problem. Outside of John McCain(R-AZ) and Russell Feingold(D-WI)both parties added substantial earmarks onto the recent Omnibus Spending Bill. In fact according to the official Congressional Record, among the top 10 senators to add earmarks to the bill, six of which were Republicans. Republican Thad Cochran of Mississippi topped the list with $470 million in earmark spending added to the bill, and Republican Rodger Wicker was #2 among senators with $390 million.

There are several problems here. The official Republican Party position may be to oppose earmark spending, however there is serious lack of discipline in their own party to prevent nearly every senator except for John McCain for adding earmark spending onto the Omnibus Spending Bill.

The second problem is that the senators with the largest earmark spending, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, tend to be largely from poor Southern states with huge poverty problems such as Mississippi, Alabama or Louisiana where much of the earmark spending might actually fund some worthwhile projects.

Certainly I see so much earmark spending overall as a problem. I've dealt with this in several of my recent posts on Wizbang Blue. But it's not reality to claim that only Democrats support earmark spending. Both parties clearly do. And further, it was both congress and the senate that wrote the Omnibus Spending Bill, and not the White House. The president only has the option to sign the bill or not. Unlike Newt Gingrich who once tried to shut down the government, by not moving along a spending bill, the president cannot be irresponsible abnd close down the government.

Marc, the problem I have with Gov. Jindal is that he speaks as though he opposes the economic stimulus bill, yet accepted 98% of all the funds with the exception of just $100 million in unemployment insurance extensions that would be funded for three years by the federal government, after which the state of Louisiana would have to extend the program. Employers would have to pay insurance premiums per each worker employed. That's a pretty shallow opposition to the economic stimulus bill, accept 98% of the funds, but attack the bill. That's the problem I have with Jindal's claimed opposition to the stimulus legislation.

In the end it will ultimately be whether the Obama Administration and Democratic sponsored policies work that will decide whether the voters return them to office. But after just 65 days in office, Wall Street is up 20% from where it was days ago. Durable goods orders are up. Existing home sales are up. New home sales are up. Retail sales are better than expected as well. The only lagging indicator is likely to be unemployment which historically lags months behind the performance of Wall Street as it always does. But for just 65 days in office, the other indicators are pretty good signs that these policies helped to blunt a full scale depression, and are slowly turning back the recession. Mr. Obama openly invited the Republican members of congress to vote for these policies and to share in these recovery efforts. However, most chose not to and now await the verdict of the voters in 2012 if these measures ultimately turn around the economy.

Philosophically, I can understand opposition to massive spending or even to 7,500 earmarks. But in reality both parties share a hand in this. So you don't have a legitimate party to support if you really believe in these political views.

hooson - "......yadda.... yadda.... snooooooze!

For readers the above quote is a paraphrase of hooson's rambling nonsense that NEVER answered the question:

"What stopped barack hussein obama from vetoing the entire bill and telling the despicable trolls in congress to send one back with NO pet projects/"earmarks?"

Wanna try again?

Actually, on second thought nevermind. We"ll likely be "treated" to another essay extolling the virtue of your girlfriend, scooters and any one of your dozens of FAILED businesses or a long list on names dropped.

And STILL not get an answer.

Paul,
Yes.....what did stop him from vetoeing and asking that they remove the earmarks (from both sides)? Instead, rather than addressing the earmarks properly, his excuse was "it's last year's business." That is a "cop-out" as they say on the streets.

If the President was half the man he campaigned as, he would have vetoed the sucker and addressed the Nation live to condemn the capricious actions of our legislature. He didn't he isn't, and he deserves to be tea-bagged the rest of his life.

Paul -

Come on, man - shorten it up! Obama COULD have vetoed it until it was de-porked. He COULD have - but how much luv do you think Pelosi would have given him after that?

It really gets pretty binary. If he is/was against pork - he could have vetoed the bill. He passed the bill with no comment about eqarmarks - so it's clearly NOT an issue any more. I think he got the memo - STFU about pork, or lose support.

It's not terribly clear who's got control in the White House. It's fairly clear that Obama doesn't have as much power as he thought he would, or that he'd like to have.

Exactly JLawson. Paul purposely spun our comments. Barry could have stood up like a leader and said that he will veto this earmark loaded spending bill.

Also, where did you read that I said democratic earmarks. I meant all earmarks.

Why does the "poorer" states have to shove earmarks in a bill for their constituency? Does the democratic leadership not care enough to debate funding the states?

You lefties are having a very hard time supporting Empty Suit Barry. You not only got the same ole same ole, you got someone that doesn't have a clue. ww

Paul Hooson:
the problem I have with Gov. Jindal is that he speaks as though he opposes the economic stimulus bill, yet accepted 98% of all the funds

The decision on whether or not government should engage in this huge borrow and spend scheme is a separate question of whether once the government has done so whether the funds should be accepted.

Consider the following...

If I decide to take money from you and 9 friends, but you oppose me doing so. I then decide to divy the money up between the 10 of you as I see fit. Since you did not support me taking it from you in the first place, would it then be wrong for you to accept part of it returned ?