Why we lose.

While defending the Stimulus Shit Sandwich Act of 2009 yesterday, President Obama said the following:

"But what I — what I’ve been concerned about is some of the language that’s been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth.

…

But when they start characterizing this as pork without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package — something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years — then you get a feeling that maybe we’re playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people."

Now, I recognize that the President is technically correct. Traditionally, pork is defined as earmarks specifically submitted by Congressmen for projects usually in their own state. But anyone with any common sense recognizes that pork is much less about who is asking for the spending, and much more about how it is being spent.

Now, I won't go over the long and depressing laundry list of wasteful spending in this bill. We all have heard about the golf carts and health insurance for bees. But Obama's tactic of redefining terms is at best, intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately for Republicans, we are hesitant to resort to such lazy mechanisms for political debate.

And that, among many other reasons, is why we lose.