McCain: I’ll balance the budget by cleaning up entitlement programs
posted at 9:29 am on July 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
John McCain will send a message to fiscal conservatives this week: he’ll take on entitlement programs in his first term. Pledging to balance the budget in four years, McCain will cut waste and begin overhauling Social Security and Medicare, a bold vision that presents an opportunity and a risk for the Republican. George Bush saw his second term run aground on the shoals of Social Security reform:
McCain is making the pledge at the beginning of a week when both presidential candidates plan to devote their events to the economy, the top issue in poll after poll as voters struggle to keep their jobs and fill their gas tanks. …
McCain’s emphasis on balancing the budget is likely to excite conservatives, who have remained skeptical of his candidacy, and provoke derision from Democrats, who will argue that it’s a warmed-over version of proposals that President Bush failed to enact.
The Democrats shrug off McCain’s pledge as unrealistic. He has a $400 billion gap to close, as the CBO predicts that kind of deficit in 2013 under current budget plans. Can McCain possibly do that with a combination of entitlement reforms and surgical excision of waste? McCain believes he can, and points to the essential problem in a speech he will deliver this morning:
This Congress and this Administration have failed to meet their responsibilities to manage the government. Government has grown by 60 percent in the last eight years. That is simply inexcusable. When I’m president, I will order a stem to stern review of government, modernize how it does business and save billions of dollars. I will veto every single bill with wasteful spending. We aren’t going to continue mortgaging this country’s future for things Americans don’t want or need.
My opponent has a very different record on this issue. He has sought millions upon millions of dollars in earmarks since his election to the Senate. In 2007 alone, Senator Obama requested nearly $100 million for earmark projects. I have never asked for a single earmark in my entire career. He supported the $300 billion pork laden agricultural subsidy bill. I opposed it. He voted for an energy bill stuffed with give-aways to oil companies at a time of record profits. I voted against it.
We grew spending by over 35% from 2000, when we had a $2.0 trillion budget. Some of that went to the war effort, but plenty of it came in other discretionary spending. And, as McCain tells Politico, the real spending problem isn’t in discretionary programs but in entitlements. The explosion of spending threatens to overwhelm the federal budget over the next few decades, but already accounts for 58% of federal spending.
In real terms, we have increased entitlement spending by 759% over the last 43 years. In 2007 dollars, we spent $582 billion in 1965, and in 2007 that has transformed into a $2.5 trillion boondoggle. What’s worse, the rate of increase has speeded up. We have added more than a half-trillion dollars over the last five years. It took 43 years to add a half-trillion 2007 dollars to discretionary spending.
McCain at least puts entitlements on the table as a problem in the bloated federal budget. Barack Obama has only mentioned entitlements in terms of expanding them, adding new taxes as a way to redistribute capital through the federal government. A real agent of change would offer solutions rather than the hair of the dog.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 8 Next »
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I posted the same questions at the beginning of the thread and honestly would like some thoughts.
I have said as much in these forums before, I was hard pressed to support McCain, still am whole-heartedly.
But I see contradictions is what is said about policy. These proposals don’t live in a vacuum. How can one say they are “going to take on entitlements” with a policy of supporting the addition of millions more to those entitlement roles?
I know some would argue there will be that many more people paying social security tax, and that may indeed help, but the question is still a valid one I think.
Same goes for cap and trade and environmental policies while saying “I want to cut taxes”, they are not mutually exclusive and I think are legitimate issues.
catmman on July 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM
He has said unequivocally that he will veto any earmark bill, I am betting that the balanced budget veto pledge will be coming.
He beat dems over the head about earmarks, why would he not veto if he has the pen.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Good grief! I didn’t know it was that bad.
And what did the Republican Party purchase with these dollars? Almost total defeat.
PattyJ on July 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The special investigator, and the Senate went along, found no evidence.
You finally found the evidence, it must be rock solid, take it to the papers, you can charge him still for this crime…wait, he was already found not guilty.
Darn those facts…
You see, you can’t convict him with two paragraphs…you have to look at the body of evidence, and a special prosecutor did. I am assuming he had the same info as you, and more…it take more then a cut and paste to convict someone.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM
because McObama will so discredit ‘conservatism’ that there won’t be any real conservative movement in this country for a generation.
and I’d rather have moderate republicans lose.
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Awww, sorry, I know it hurts your widdle feelings to not be able to set everyone’s agenda. It’s ad nauseam, btw, since you’re trying to sound all smart and intelligent-like with the Latin. The sentiment is accurate though; your tired, repetitive, overly self-involved postings certainly are redolent of barf.
No need. You’re doing such a good job of it yourself!
Gilda on July 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Quit while you are behind in the argument department. Just a suggestion.
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM
if you haven’t guessed, right2Bnuts is a mental case…
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Ok, Mr. Bright, I’ll keep this real simple for you. No links, no rants, just one very simple request.
Show me one spending increase John McCain prevented while a member of congress.
Did he block another members earmark?
Did he negotiate a lower increase in an entitlement program?
Anything, anything at all that demonstrates that John McCain does anything other than talk about restraining spending.
rockhauler on July 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I’m sure he has a few drinks, and maybe some bimbos, with uncle Ted!
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Good question, the illegal immigrants are not a 100% drain, they do put back some money into the system (not enough). However, the legal immigrants do, and in fact the legal Hispanic immigrants are the fastest growing middle income class in America.
We have to figure a way to lock down the borders, and control immigration. At the same time figure what to do with the illegals we have now. Some maybe we allow to stay (the productive ones), and set up a work to citizenship program. We limit the amount of money they can send out of the country (although that is dropping drastically), we remove the non-productive illegals. We treat this as a triage, stopping the bleeding, taking care of the most urgent needs first. Having 20 million non productive illegals is devastating, having 5 – 10 million productive aliens is an asset.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Good god, if I wanted to be given orders by talk radio hosts, I’d be listening. How will you feel when President Obama signs the Fairness Doctrine?
What kind of conservative movement will be left, if the Democrats own all three branches of government?
What, we can have silly little marches? We can have pointless little meetings where we all get up and whine about what the Democrats are doing to this country?
Goldwater spawned Reagan or so I hear. Do you really think we can allow the corrupt lunatics in the Democrat Party to own the government for the next 16 years waiting for Reagan II?
If you’re not with us, you are against us.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
McCain is a one-eye pitbull.
Obama is a blind poodle.
Take your pick.
profitsbeard on July 7, 2008 at 12:09 PM
In response to BigD, you’re right, that younger people probably aren’t counting on it (for good reason) but they probably think they have time to adapt to planning their own retirement (or consider themselves immortal, as many young people do). They may resent paying lots of their hard-earned money for old folks, which McCain, despite his age, should play into, by proposing an alternative for government-mismanaged retirement financing.
Yes, it is “stressful” for people in the 40 to 60 range to make changes in their retirement planning. I’m in that group (age 52), but many people in that range have been feeding IRA’s and/or 401K’s ever since they’ve been legal, and they’re probably not counting on Social Security either.
The real crunch is for 40-to-60-year-olds who could not afford to feed IRA’s and 401K’s over the past 20 or 30 years. You can’t tell a 60-year-old that the Social Security they’ve been promised for decades won’t be there, but a 40-year-old with 25-plus years of work ahead would be receptive to switching some payroll taxes from a going-nowhere government program to investing in stocks and bonds, with double or triple the money at retirement.
Any plan that includes private accounts needs to be accompanied by a proportional sacrifice in benefits–if a person diverts part of his/her payroll taxes into a private investment account, they forego some of their later Social Security benefits in proportion to what they did NOT pay into the government system. This would involve some risk, but many Americans under 50 or so would take the risk, if they’re aware that, over the long term, they would receive much more net money than if they stayed in the government program. Most people over 40 remember that, even though 1987 was a horrible year for stocks, they had rebounded above pre-crash levels by mid-1988, so that anyone who doesn’t plan to retire within two or three years can weather a bear market and retire richer than on Social Security.
Older Americans should be given the option of retaining their currently promised Social Security benefits. But as time went on, more and more now-younger people would “opt out” of the government program and into private investments, which would reduce the long-term liabilities of the system, and eventually balancing the program.
In order to work, the “private accounts” have to be sold as a means by which low-income people could profit from the stock market in the same way their richer neighbors do from IRA’s and 401K’s, using money they currently pay to the Government. They need to be told that they, too could have hundreds of thousands of dollars at retirement, if they’re willing to take some risk and invest wisely, with money they’re already paying out in taxes. But, it would have to be VOLUNTARY, so that those who prefer relying on the Government could do so, so no one can complain that Social Security is being “taken away”.
Steve Z on July 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM
and the differnce between ‘MCCAIN-FEINGOLD’ mccain, and obama is???
the same that produced Reagaon in the late 70s.
I guess all those ’silly’ little radio monologues by Reagaon were just pointless…
and the last 12 years of republicans have done nothing to restrain government, rather just increase the rate of government spending, and control of our lives…its like asking me to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.
I’m totally against you squishy ‘moderate’ republicans…ie liberals in conservative clothing. you’re a plague and curse upon real conservatives.
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM
You have my vote, misterpeasea.
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:12 PM
its going to have to collapse, along with with mediscam, to finally convince people that the government cannot play god, and take care of people.
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:13 PM
The only way to save big money in the entitlements is means testing. We all know it, but the politicians duck it. If McCain will sell the idea based on the fact that we cannot have only 2 wage earners per social security and medicare recipient without have a tax rate that would cause revolt or idleness it might work. We may be able to get enough parents and grandparents who do not want to crush their children and grandchildren it might work.
Fiscal prudence is McCain’s pedigree he can get some credibiity on this that Obama never will.
KW64 on July 7, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Classy
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Look, I don’t like McCain much either as a man or as a conservative. However, if he’s serious about taking on the entitlement system and about balancing the budget, I’ll get behind him, because this is a very serious issue, and needs to be addressed. No Democrat is going to do it, that’s for sure, and George W. Bush made a complete hash of it. Even Ronaldus Magnus didn’t manage to make this happen.
Of course, the instance of Ronaldus Magnus shows us why McCain won’t be able to carry it off, either. Tip O’Neill is the real culprit behind the “Reagan Deficit” (just ask Chris Matthews!) McCain will have to deal with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and they’re not going to touch their dear little babies in the federal entitlement bureaucracy.
Still, I’d rather have a President attempting to hogtie the budget deficit and failing, than one who’s looking for new opportunities to extend government power.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture.” Thanks.)
philwynk on July 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Wow. Have we really been reduced to policing grammar? That’s pretty pathetic, really. I used to proofread for a marketing company that did half the ads in the US for L’Oreal, and I wouldn’t lower myself to tear apart someone’s argument based on their GRAMMAR. That’s stooping, people. No one is perfect; we all have at least one glass room in our houses.
LickyLicky on July 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
A plaugue on both your houses…
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:15 PM
So I should just shut up vote for McShamnesty and like it. Who are you, Queen?
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:15 PM
yeah probably too classy…given that he bends over for teddy at every opportunity…
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Sorry
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Did I say that? Nope. But if you want to attract people to the “if we loose we win” argument, cute little names are not going to help.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:17 PM
This is a joke, right? Gotta be. I mean, come on. Resorting to… smiting?
Ah well. Go ahead invoke the locusts and boils if it makes you feel better about yourself. It really is funny though.
Gilda on July 7, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I wish it was a joke, but look what has happened to the country under ‘conservative’ republican rule during the last 8 years or so.
spend like drunken sailors. fix none of the problems facing this country. they’re a joke, and have discredited conservatism.
with mccain, conservatism will be totally discredited.
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Stop persecuting right4life, he has every right to resort to Biblical rhetoric, or is it Shakespearian?
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I thought McVain admitted economics isn’t is not his strong suit….
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
McOMAHDI will be a disaster of biblical proportions…
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Oh now he is a secret Muslim too.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Nice to see the McCain-deranged are out in force once again…
Remember, the primaries are over. It’s OK to question McCain’s stance on some issues, but let’s get him elected first…for the alternative should be unacceptable.
And is immigration really still the number one issue with so many of you?
JetBoy on July 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Paulian by way of Obaman methinks. Indistinguishable therefrom, in terms of goals and end results.
In any case, comedy gold.
Gilda on July 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Speaking of straw-man arguments. I haven’t claimed that he’s voted for tax increases or earmarks. But he certainly will advocate for an energy tax, he already has – McCain-Lieberman. And he was conveniently absent for the vote on Warner-Lieberman.
My question was, how is he going to balance the budget, or even reduce spending on entitlements, while giving access to the welfare state to tens of millions of illegals? (He has voted to allow illegals to have Social Security already.)
Speaking of straw-man arguments. You asked for evidence, that’s evidence. You may naively assume that he was innocent. Hence “apologist.”
More insults and avoidance of any substantive response. And I’m the troll. Check.
misterpeasea on July 7, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Mr. Bright welcomes the newest member of the McCain supporters. Seeing as you asked for “anything, anything at all”
Here it is(I have more if you need it)
Unfortunately, probably most of the people you support wouldn’t support this bill.
The McCain Fiscal Record By Kevin Stach, Wall Street Journal
February 14, 2008
*
Welcome to the fold rockhauler, now that you have shed the MDS, and are now a McCain supporter.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Because McVain is more about his own ego and sucking up to the Dems (e.g. voting against the American Tax payer to “punish” Bush for beating him for the nomination.)
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM
awesome
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Why is the pledge always to “balance the budget”?
I’m still waiting for the candidate that’s going to say, “Hey, the government is spending way too much of your money. I’m going to get rid of all the spending that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in, and, when I’m done, this budget is going to be a small fraction of it’s currently bloated self.”
JadeNYU on July 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM
You come here with your admitted cut & paste, repeated “ad nauseam” demands! for! responses! from people you name-call and insult.
You demand attention so I’m giving it to you. What, not the kind of attention you were hoping for? Awww. Pity.
Careful what you ask for. You might just get it.
Gilda on July 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM
The difference is that Bush won’t be signing Pelosi’s Fairness Doctrine and neither will McCain. Obama will.
So we get to live through Jimmy Carter except this time the Iranians have nukes? Who will be left to vote for Reagan II?
They will be once your beloved Democratsa reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. They’ll be “balanced” by keeping them off of the air.
So you’ll vote against a proven fiscal conservative to show your agnst at other Republicans? And weren’t you the one who lamented how McCain “won’t campaign for Republicans”? According to your logic, why should he?
“Real” conservatives – the kind who want to put Obama into the Oval Office. Brave Americans fought and died for your right to place horrible candidates into office, just so you can “send a message” to the better candidates.
The only thing you are “conserving” is brain power. Obama will be a disaster for this country, there is no doubt about it. Knowing that and letting it happen and in fact working for it, doesn’t make you a conservative at all.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Excuse me, but if that was “evidence”, then it was overlooked by the special prosecutor. Get it?
I don’t “naively” think he was innocent, the special investigator and the sub-committee thought that.
I get it, if you were a lynch mob you would have hung him, but this is America, a land of laws. He was found innocent…whether you like it or not. We have laws that protect us from people who think like you (and they were created for people just like you). If you were in the South, you would have been the one out in front yelling “it was the black man, I knows it”.
Hence that name “apologist” does not apply to someone who believes a fair trial and investigation took place (where 4 others were found guilty). Once again, you have no evidence of his guilt, two paragraphs do not convict a man, I knows it.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Stopping making sense. The apologists here, Squidsomething, RightNotorsomething et al may have their false reality questioned and from my vantage point they may not be stable enough to handle the truth. :-)
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Your logic is good, but politicly it would not work.
With the decrease in the Stock Market in the last few months, and the devaluation of the dollar, any 401K money you had is now has about HALF of the worldwide buying power it had a few years ago.
With the Republican transition to a Worldwide market with no trade barriers, more and more of our economy is tied up with foreign interests, thus by the time you retire, it will be the worldwide worth of your 401K which will dictate your lifestyle…
Thus, pravatising Soc Sec, would have to have some saftey net in it as well to prevent the Government and Fed Res Bank from destroying the WORTH of your retirement… as they have just so ably demonstrated that they can.
Romeo13 on July 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM
wishful thinking. He hates rush with a passion. and he’s already PROVEN that he will restrict speech.
you think either will stand up to the iranians? not a chance.
even if he is as you say, which I doubt, he’s open borders, gun-grabbing, eco-nut. I won’t vote for moderates for any reason.
I wouldn’t have voted for Ford over Carter. mcvain is another Ford…who will advance the agenda of the LEFT, in the name of conservatism, and totally discredit conservatism for another generation.
no thanks.
so will Mccain. there is not a dime’s worth of difference between these 2 clowns.
yeah son, bet I was conservative before you were born. I’m not here to work for tax-increasing, no drill in anwr, carbon tax, gun grabbing mcpain.
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 12:45 PM
There are entitlements, and then there are entitlements.
Let’s start with cutting welfare to stay at home loafers. If McCain keeps the “Reform” on his logo, let him take on welfare so that recipients only get funds from work accomplished from gov’t work projects. God help us there, as well, as the loafers are the WILLFULLY INCOMPETENT who f*ck whatever system they’re in, sanitation dept. included. But evict the illegal aliens, and put the loafers to work with the jobs Americans gotta do whether they like it or not if they want to eat Uncle Sam’s rock stew.
As it is now, our government PAYS students to attend school via GRANTS, not just loans. Students are ripping off that system of benevolence by signing up for full-time credits, getting the grants, then dropping credits and keeping the government funding. Grants should NEVER be provided prior to completion of a semester with a 3.0 GPA minimum, and paid in reimbursement to a student loan, not directly to a student’s pocket. Completion of school if on grants and loans should have a deadline when the diploma must be documented completed.
As far as Social Security, quit charging and let folks save and invest according to their own code of choice. Regarding money taken from Americans and spent illegitimately by our government: IT MUST BE REFUNDED. Cut the damn welfare and refund Social Security funds so that what has been paid into will be given back to the citizen that paid. The “safety lock box” initial feature needs re-enactment. That’s not reform so much as rescinding intermittent thieving of funds. Prosecute any legislator sticking hands into that cookie jar. (Same with the FUEL TAX–100% spent on transporation, no borrowing funds for other issues. REVERT to original context and usage.)
$.02
maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM
And what truth is that – that the perfect politician can be found and that we must agree with him on every issue?
Or else we punish him by electing his opponent, the guy who we agree on nothing.
Seems to me “conservatism” is about making the best of a situation. Liberalism is about stamping your feet, playing the victim and taking your ball and going home.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Your mission if you so accept it.
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Wrong. Keep the personal comments to yourself. If you are too obtuse to ascertain someone’s motivations, then speculating publicly only makes you look foolish and shallow-minded.
fossten on July 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Remember the movie Dave? I want Dave for president. He found what, like 450mm bucks, overnight, with his friend, sitting at a desk. Just by doing sane things. Why can’t things really happen like that?! GAH!
LickyLicky on July 7, 2008 at 12:50 PM
you mccain apologists get more and more like the liberals every day. which is no surprise since johnny is more liberal than conservative.
so now the party line is anyone not supporting mccain is a rabid obama supporter? wow, you guys are really pathetic. but keep trying to use your liberal tactics to suppress any real debate about what damage mccain will do to the conservative movement. ad hominem attacks are all y’all got. never once will any of you engage in a discussion of the issues.
chasdal on July 7, 2008 at 12:51 PM
that alone shows you have absolutely no idea of what conservatism is.
chasdal on July 7, 2008 at 12:51 PM
My admitted cut & paste? Is that a crime? If I re-type it each time, will that be better?
I’m not demanding responses. But it’s telling when I get none.
I name-called and insulted in response, Pot.
I wasn’t demanding attention. I was participating in a thread. Only my participation has been substantive, while I have yet to see anything other than the merest fluff from you.
Are you threatening me with a response that consists of something more than insults and name-calling? While not, of course, providing one? That’s precious.
misterpeasea on July 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I dont think that the T.C.’s are showing a hell of alot of stability these days either.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
FINALLY, a candidate who is promising to eliminate waste in government! McCain’s got the election in the bag with this brand new and completely innovative strategy.
…Well, unless his opponent promises something even more innovative, like “hope” or “change.” Then he’s totally screwed.
A promise to veto all spending bills with earmarks in them is precisely the same thing as promising to veto all spending bills. In practice, IF any President actually did that, he would simply take himself completely out of the equation and Congress would work around him – piling on the pork until they could get a supermajority for every bill. If that’s what we wanted, we may as well have voted for Ron Paul.
logis on July 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Open borders guys: no wonder!
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Lemme see. I’ve heard this BS from presidential candidates how many times? Oh, you can’t count that high either?
This is bullshit plain and simply. Politicians need to keep people hooked on the tit of government to keep getting elected, and McCain is no different.
RWLA on July 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
you have passed pathetic and gone to disgusting. you certainly arent a conservative, i think your barely a republican.
chasdal on July 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM
You do not support the Republican and are trying to actively convince others to join you in your opposition. By default you are actively campaigning for Obama.
We are not the ones sitting in a corner and crying in our beer.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Mr. “Dan Rostenkowsi” of republicans in the House Checking SCANDAL? Fabulous. Can’t make this pathetic stuff up if I tried for a thousand years. Blinders off people….
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I’d've said conservatism had nothing at all to do with making the best of a situation. More to do with classical liberalism: individual freedom, rule of law, limited government,
etc.and so forth (sorry, Gilda!).Silly me, I also think that conservatism means supporting Republicans when they’re conservative, and not supporting them when they aren’t conservative.
Reward McCain for being a maverick, and you’ll get more mavericks.
misterpeasea on July 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM
What really is the difference?
We have two choices.
Working to depress Republican votes will help to elect Obama. That’s the stark truth.
So not only are you so-called “conservatives” not going to vote for the alternative to Obama, you are actively trying to persuade others to follow your lead.
Whether it’s because you secretly heart Obama or because you harbor some silly illusion that “punishing” Republicans today will ultimately get you what you want in the future, you achieve the same end – electing Obama.
There is no difference between you anti-McCain posters and the dope smoking granola Obama supporters down at the local Community College. You’re all doing your best to elect Barak Obama President. Your “reasoning” is irrelevant.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Wow, could you have been any more clumsy with that straw man.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Discussion is ended. NoDonkey has spoken. The rest of you are infidels! /s off
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 1:00 PM
No, you’re about NOT supporting conservatives when they are not conservative on each and every issue. As if you will ever agree with any politician on each and every issue.
That’s the stamp your feet, victimology card, take my ball and go home mentality I expect from liberals.
You have two candidates in the next election. This silly notion that defeating McCain will usher in some new conservative movement will not work.
But I’m sure Barak appreciates all of your hard work on his behalf.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 1:01 PM
This makes me happy.
John McCain is nailing him exactly where it counts.
Sir Andrew on July 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I like your attitude.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM
That is very funny coming from one of the T.C.’s who by your nature pretend to be the arbiters of conservatism.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 1:03 PM
He is counting on it, in fact.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I see an interesting bit of hypocrisy.
Ron Paul suggested we fix our budget problem by cutting military programs overseas while strengthening our borders. He was called a nutjob by many conservatives.
McCain suggests we fix our budget problem by cutting medicare and social security, leaving our military overseas and providing shamnesty and love for the la raza types.
McCain is the sane one, right…
/sarc
fossten on July 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I sure hope so! with mcpain elected, the republicans will go along with all his loony-left ideas, and the democrats will be thrilled with his ‘outreach’ (bending over)
at least with Obama as pres, the republicans may get a backbone and stand up to him.
there is no difference between obama and mccain.
right4life on July 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Brilliant! Using an anachronism stereotype to diminish an entire section of the USA to further a petty political point shows what we have in store from the McVanites….
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I’ve seen too many of these “real conservatives” not to think that many of them are coordinated by the Obama campaign to depress Republican turnout.
And if they haven’t before, any quick reading of these blogs would get them motivated. Why waste precious time on the Soviet style groupthink that passes for discussion on the Daily Kos, when you can infiltrate conservative pages and depress the base?
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Ad hominem.
I’ll ask again (and I’ll type it, not cut-and-paste, Gilda!):
Who do you want blamed for the stupid and costly policies that will be enacted, McCain and the Republicans, or Bambi and the Democrats? Who do you want to lose seats in the mid-terms, Democrats or Republicans?
I’m not trying to punish Republicans. It looks to me like I have their best interests at heart, while you are short-sightedly trying to do serious damage to the Republicans and the country by getting Republicans blamed for those stupid and costly policies.
misterpeasea on July 7, 2008 at 1:12 PM
There is no difference between an anti-McCain “conservative” and a long haired hippie type pinko frootloop Obama supporter either.
So right4life, your a-OK with Obama’s record of supporting the murder of infants born alive during abortion procedures, which is exactly the same as McCain’s pro-life record?
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Conservatives spent 8 years “holding our noses” and supporting George Bush, even when we doubted his policies. So why are we now surprised that some people leap to the conclusion that conservatism is synonomous with lacking core principles?
And why are we surprised when the nominees for President this year are the most liberal Democrat Senator and (not counting Jim Jeffords), the third most liberal Republican Senator?
As far as I’m concerned, being a conservative means taking responsibility for your own actions – instead of blaming “the world” for being so mean to you. WE brought this on ourselves; WE deserve the choice we ended up with; and WE need to do everything in our power to make sure WE don’t let this happen again.
logis on July 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM
The way to stop “speculation” is to state what you believe.
You are against McCain on the borders
You are against McCain against his economics because of the border
What positions are you supporting McCain in?
what a cool sentence with some great words, obtuse, ascertain, someone’s, are you sure you wanted to use those words like that?
You may have wanted to say “If you are to stupid to ascertain…”, or “If you are not smart enough to ascertain…”, I really thing “obtuse” doesn’t fit the insult you were trying to imply, it just so bourgeoisie. You can do better.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Sorry, but the disconnect is pretty fundamental, and one that many don’t want to admit.
I am a CONSERVATIVE, with some Libertarian and Federalist leanings… I have, at times, been a Republican.
I support the Republican candidate when he on the preponderance of issues, agrees with me… as long as there is not a “deal breaker”… ie a stand on an important issue that I consider a true threat to the US itself.
I see the act of voting as giving my support to the candidate, to validating HIS views on issues. I have, in the past, voted for candidates who did NOT support my views, because I considered the other guy worse, but will no longer to so. Bush did NOT reflect my political views, yet got a “mandate” from the people for his policys. I will no longer participate in that process. I choose to vote FOR someone, not against the other guy…
Face it, BOTH parties have are part of the problem. They have invested all the power in a proffesional political class, made up of rich folks who stay in power for decades. They are so used to playing beltway games that they have no idea whats going on out here in America, and they are destroying MY country because of it.
And all your ranting and raving saying this means I support Obama just further cements me into my position. It shows that the two party system IS broken… and I will no longer support the partys finding worthless candidates.
The key is that I am an AMERICAN first, not a Repbulican…
Romeo13 on July 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM
And now the circle is complete. From beclowning yourself to whiny victimhood in just a few short minutes.
What’s next, running to Mommy?
Genuine thanks for the laughs though. You discredit yourself more than I ever could. Keep up the good work!
Gilda on July 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM
So who would have you supported?
See the trap, anyone you would have supported had their weaknesses.
Ronald Reagan is dead, and he ain’t coming back.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM
right2bright: “If you were in the South, you would have been the one out in front yelling “it was the black man, I knows it”.
Quit over heating your McCain defense mechanism. As though racism isn’t as prevalent in NYC or the Midwest or where ever!!! Dang it, I think better of you than to find a basher of the American South since your scapegoat example could happen ANYWHERE.
Don’t inadvertently revert to racist or carpet bagging bigotry just because it might apply to the troll. The Civil War ended too long ago to dredge up skeletons that have long deserved to RIP honorably.
Feeding the trolls = casting pearls before swine.
$.02
maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM
You forgot stabbing pro-lifers in the back with embryonic stem cell research.
John McCain: like Nixon without the ethics. /s off
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM
You mean like how Democrats have been blamed for the price of gas doubling since 2006? Or all the things Democrats have been blamed for since their takeover of Congress?
I remember “conservatives” like you telling us how wonderful everything would get once the Republicans lost Congress. We’d have Reagan II to vote for in 2008.
How’s that working out for you?
Losing begets losing. The Arizona Cardinals have had countless first round draft picks in their history and they are still a horrible team.
Ask the Tories how yearning for Mrs. Thatcher worked out for them. They gave up the good in a quest for the perfect and now they are completely marginalized in the UK.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I think you put things clearly and very well and wonder why our politicians can’t do the same.
BigD on July 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Wow… cool… I didn’t know I was an Obama shill… part of a “conspiricy”!
I guess all of my posts pointing out Obama’s flaws are just camo????
Wow, I must be smarter than I thought!
Romeo13 on July 7, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Your assumption is based on a false premise. When Reagan took over he had a contentious (who claimed they would never give in to him) democratic congress to contend with. He took it to the people,and kicked their butt. In fact to get elected, they had to bow to Reagan. Bush never brought “it” to the people.
When we need oil, he should have taken it to congress…well we see what happens when people get involved. No Democrat congress will stop the people from getting oil if they want it.
McCain can bring tax increases, earmarks (that congress wants), straight to the people, and the people will back him to defeat the earmarks.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 1:21 PM
UUUMMMMM, because it was Make Believe; nothing but a fabricated MOVIE???
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 1:22 PM
You’re getting incoherent, Gilda. And I’m happy to let the readers of this thread judge who deserves credit or not. You still have not made a single substantive contribution to this thread, and you think I’m embarrassing myself? I’ll take my chances.
Thanks for the answer.
misterpeasea on July 7, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Well, at least you didn’t deny the lynch mob mentality I was referring to.
You want to hang someone when the evidence pointed elsewhere. Guess you didn’t catch the analogy. It had nothing to do with racism, it had to do with the lynch mob mentality of those people. If I would have used an analogy with a gay man, or a woman, or even a dog, you would have yelled, homophobic, gender hater, animal hater.
IT WAS AN ANALOGY…
Man, it gets more difficult to post to you MDS’rs.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Mr. Bright. It appears that you believe that voting for or against something is the same thing as getting legislation passed, and signed into law.
Thank you for clearing up my misconceptions.
In your universe, legislation passes when 37 senators vote for it, and the other senators do something else.
So, Yes, I am now a converted McCain supporter since John McCain is the only person on the planet who can get legislation passed and signed into law with only 1/3 of the senators voting for it.
This really is a waste of time. I’ve got firewood to cut.
rockhauler on July 7, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I don’t have to clutter up the thread with another laundry list of McCain’s liberal policies. That’s already been done in detail here. What I was referring to was your ad hominem attack regarding my family and employment status. If you don’t know what’s behind someone’s opposition, then spewing silly attacks like that makes you look, well, obtuse. It’s interesting that you and many others on this thread have no better decorum than the liberals you apparently despise.
Your presumed comparison of Reagan and McCain is delusional.
fossten on July 7, 2008 at 1:31 PM
My premise is that Barry and McCain essentially agree on the two stupidest and most costly policies: amnesty and global warming. The costs and damage these two things will cause are going to be the next President’s legacy, I think.
misterpeasea on July 7, 2008 at 1:31 PM
On 95% of the bend over issues, at a minimum, McVain would prefer being showered with praises from “moderates” then stand up to the loony Left. Still debating if a twice lost the president annoyed McVain would be more helpful in the senate, especially if taken out by empty-suit B. O., then as president.
Wonder what WFB, Jr. would do? ;)
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Didn’t pick up the sarcasm….
Branch Rickey on July 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM
And will continue to get worse, the closer the election gets, as long as McCain supporters like yourself all those of us who do not support McCain INSANE or MENTALY UNBALANCED.
MDS: McCain DERANGEMENT Syndrome… ie… we are CRAZY to not support McCain. So, by corrolary, only those who blindly support McCain are sane… thus, those who choose to NOT vote for McCain need to be commited…
EXACT same tactic as calling someone an ISLAMOPHOBE because they don’t support Sharia law…
Isn’t it enlightening that McCain supporters are now using the same tactics as those who support the Jihad?
Romeo13 on July 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Nonsense – he’s been right all along on the biggest issue facing this country in Iraq. He’s a proven fiscal conservative and he’s pro-life.
All that really leaves is the issue that frankly most Americans don’t give a damn about, illegal immigration. And on that he far outpaces Obama.
NoDonkey on July 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM
+1
bobama beachball:
blows away with the wind
floats away with the tide
melts in the light of day
truth punctures it
brightly colored for appeal
hollow core
unpredictable
unreliable
malleable
Bobama bubbleboy ‘08
vs.
Team McCain ‘08
Forbes
Guilliani
Huckabee
Palin
Romney
Thompson
McCain is most likely finishing whatever reveling in the spotlight that he may have wanted as soloist. He gets to play conductor; he may even prove to be a competent conductor in time. It is in the teamwork, however, that this victory will be won.
Americans with common sense will vote for McCain’s Team, realizing that their taxes will NOT INCREASE, and their jobs will be more secure as will be our nation with McCain’s Team.
Boobtube Americans with convoluted thought process and tunnel vision anger issues are stuck with bobama the incompetent at everything beyond reading from the teleprompter.
maverick muse on July 7, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Am I missing something?
Both of you are on opposite sides.
NoDonkey is saying we need to keep as much Republican fire power as possible, don’t give up the chance for President.
Misterpeasea is saying, give up everything to the Dems so we can blame them for everything.
So if I am right, misterpeasea is now voting for McCain.
*
Sometimes the posts come fast and furious.
right2bright on July 7, 2008 at 1:37 PM
And there it is Romeo, American first, I put that above everything, that is why I am voting McCain.
Squid Shark on July 7, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 8 Next »