Now I'm not about to get into the debate whether eliminating all earmarks altogether would be a good or bad thing, but I must question the timing of Red State's concern all of a sudden about pork or the Constitution though. I mean, why didn't they ever make this argument during the first 6 years of Bush's term? And if they're going to suddenly discover the Constitution, why not start with other pressing problems like habeas corpus, torture, signing statements, ... ? /sigh
The village Republicans have been torn lately over their love of pork and the idea that they might have to share so much of it now with the Democratic majority. So now their nutroots are clamoring to scream foul over earmarks even though the Democrats have cut earmarks back by almost half since the GOP majority had their way with the purse. I will say this much though. Apparently the wingers may be right about one point. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service took a look at earmarks and they found that "the president possesses the necessary legal and constitutional authority to issue such an executive order" although the CRS essentially advises the president not to do so.
Apparently if Bush decides to start ignoring earmarks just because they are contained in nonbinding report language, it would be another example of his administration's willingness to test the outer limits of executive power.
And in addition to starting an all-out war with Congress over constitutional spending authorities, it might just encourage lawmakers to put all those earmarks directly into the binding portions of the spending laws.
So if that's true, this rightwing "action alert" is probably much ado about nothing except to shake the base and pretend that they are fiscally conservative after all, but there is one thing I'd still reeeally like to know - Which one of you "leftist code monkeys" set up Red State's subscription-based email list and taught the idiot wingnuts how to use it? Fess up!