Can't speak for everyone else but I don't see any need for you to apologise for putting your life ahead of a blog. It would be wrong to expect anything else.

Perhaps disingenuous of me, but not exactly irrelevant, since at least the GOP was willing to commit to a time period (any time period), whereas Dems were being coy.

Well now that you've cleared that up a bit for me, I can see your point, and it definitely is relevant. It hadn't occurred to me that specifying a time period would have the effect of "goading" for a permanent move; excellent point.

you're relatively new here so you may not believe me up top there, but "reality-based" is what I promise, and what I try to deliver.

Oh, I believe you. Like I've said before, this is the first blog that's ever made me question if I'm right of centre or left of centre (since I'm economically on the right, but socially on the left). I was just joshing with you ;-)

He defines the two as "bias means if I can find a legal reason to rule for you, I will," as compared to "prejudice means I will rule for you no matter what." Call me biased if you will, but I tend not to prejudge things in politics, rather calling them as I see them.

Interesting distinction. Like you, I'd consider myself biased but not really prejudiced, and when the Democrats are right, I've been honest enough to say so.

McCain's anti-earmark thing was a gimmick in the election. But I do have to agree with him that the practice is odious. I can believe both things simultaneously, and don't see an inherent contradiction -- perhaps showing my bias.

I can definitely recognise that. I've said the same about many Democrat policies that I think were designed to win votes. McCain was clearly using the anti-earmark thing to attempt to undercut Obama's "change" stance.

McCain is in an ugly situation right now, as he is facing the first serious primary challenger in a long time, who is challenging him from the right. Because of this, he has tacked severely right over the last six months or so.

Can you blame him? Obama shifted several times during the Presidential campaign. In fact, I even had an Obama campaigner convince me that his "leftist" stance was just to get elected and he'd move to the centre once he was President. I bought it too! Obviously that was a load of hooey, but it worked; Obama got elected. McCain's just doing the same.

it is beyond my ken what Republicans will change their minds on in this political season.

They're doing what any minority party does; positioning themselves for the election in November. They have to win back some seats to be an effective opposition. Anti-earmarks is a great election platform for the GOP. After all, it worked for them in 1994 ;-)

Interesting how Republicans want to extend the ban to non-profits in the midst of a recession.

Surely for-profits do more good in a recession than non-profits? I've never been a fan of the "give a man a fish" approach; the "teach him how to fish" approach is much better.

a lot of important community development projects in there.

I've yet to see "community development" that helps communities more than it hurts them. Tends to be middle-class guilt syndrome in full effect.

Because, ultimately, it's the American people who are the winners.

If they follow through, yes. Otherwise, it's all been for show.

Because, ultimately, it's the American people who are the winners.

Michale.....

OK, everyone, I've been busy with other things in my life for about the past week, so I apologize for being absent here in the comments for a while. And since tomorrow's Friday (always busy around here), it may be the weekend before I catch up on things. Sorry about that.

As for your point, M, it's not entirely clear exactly how long the Dems are extending their "ban" so I had to be a bit cagey about it. It started out as one year, but then kind-of sort-of moved to open-ended, but was never sold as "permanent" so I was a bit confused myself. The bit about the Republicans was to specify that they were actually being specific -- one year only -- in a weak attempt at goading both sides into raising the ante to "permanent" instead. Perhaps disingenuous of me, but not exactly irrelevant, since at least the GOP was willing to commit to a time period (any time period), whereas Dems were being coy.

As for McCain, and Republicans in general, you're relatively new here so you may not believe me up top there, but "reality-based" is what I promise, and what I try to deliver. I praise good ideas no matter where they originate, and condemn stupidity, irrespective of party. Or at least I attempt to.

There's a passage in a Frank Herbert book (not the Dune series, the Jorj X. McKie "sabateur" series) where he explains Gowachin law, where "bias" is allowable but "prejudice" is not. He defines the two as "bias means if I can find a legal reason to rule for you, I will," as compared to "prejudice means I will rule for you no matter what." Call me biased if you will, but I tend not to prejudge things in politics, rather calling them as I see them.

McCain's anti-earmark thing was a gimmick in the election. But I do have to agree with him that the practice is odious. I can believe both things simultaneously, and don't see an inherent contradiction -- perhaps showing my bias.

McCain is in an ugly situation right now, as he is facing the first serious primary challenger in a long time, who is challenging him from the right. Because of this, he has tacked severely right over the last six months or so. This is not to his credit, because almost everyone can see it's just another gimmick. But I have to give him credit on the earmark thing, as he came out in support of the Dems' action before the GOP made their move. Meaning his heart is actually in the right place, and he's not just scoring political points. So I give credit where credit is due.

As for the GOP's move being inevitable, you might think so, but at this point it is beyond my ken what Republicans will change their minds on in this political season. Which is why I felt it needed another look in today's column.

In the Senate, it's not so much getting votes as it is getting people to start making public pledges on the issue. We'll see....

-CW

All jokes aside, since 2008, Democrats, especially those who supported Obama, have generally considered McCain to be persona non grata.

Chris, your article yesterday was actually unclear on whether the Democrat ban was for a year or longer. First you wrote:

announced that for the upcoming budget, no earmarks will be allowed which are directed to a specific for-profit company. (emphasis added)

That seemed to suggest it was a one-year only ban. But then you wrote:

And it started out as only a one-year (coincidentally, also an "election-year") ban, so you'll have to forgive me if I take a wait-and-see approach to what actually happens in the future. (emphasis added)

Which seemed to suggest that it was initially a one year ban and the future was unclear, but certainly didn't suggest a Democrat commitment beyond this year. Unless I'm mistaken, then, the fact that the Republican proposal is "only specifically for "this year"" seems a little irrelevant when comparing the two.

The unwritten rule of decorum was "everybody does it,"

Sounds a lot like our MP's expenses scandal over here in the UK.

Back to the topic at hand, this announcement by the Republicans was about as surprising as the sun coming up this morning. It was the inevitable next step.

Like you, I'm not sure how much of this, from either party, will amount to much in the way of real reform. I'm still not sure I see there being a real desire to change much in the Senate; not as many of them are up for reelection as in the House.

McCain'll probably want reform, and Feingold too (they tend to have similar views on "cleaning up Washington" type reform), but are there 60 votes? I suspect not.