So President Obama is catching a lot of flak for signing the spending bill. Well, two thoughts on that.
First, it was McCain, not Obama, who called for the vetoing of any bill with earmarks in it (the president can't stop Congress from including them, so it's the veto or suasion, or nothing). Obama called for earmark reform today in terms reminiscent of those he used during the campaign. Obama never sought to prohibit earmarks outright; he sought to reform the process by which they were enacted.
So, good government fans may be asking, why not just veto the spending bill?
Well, in part because the spending bill completes funding for this year that was extended last week, for 6 days. In other words, if the President vetoed the bill, we'd have a government shutdown tonight. At midnight.
So, let's see if I get this: President Obama is betraying a campaign promise (well, McCain's, not his, but what the hell) because he's not willing to shut down the federal government over earmarks comprising 1% of the bill.
I think that move makes better drama than policy:
In reel life, even the fictional Bartlet needed a brilliant stunt to get out of that particular hole:
In real life, the opposition are rarely that obliging--although the current GOP is running close.