McCain: I won’t be a rubber stamp for Obama
posted at 9:07 pm on January 25, 2009 by Allahpundit
Ed got here before I did but we give McCain enough grief for his maverickiness that we owe him a little extra attention when he stands on principle. Sort of: As Ed noted, the “principle” in this case isn’t an objection to a stimulus per se but merely to the current porky incarnation. Boehner and Lindsey Graham are also sour on it, but I think they’re bluffing to increase their leverage knowing that Reid and Pelosi want Republicans on the hook too when they lay their trillion-dollar bet. Even so, I think the GOP has more to lose by opposing it than the Democrats do by supporting it; if the economy’s showing even faint signs of recovery by 2010 — for whatever reason — the media will credit the Messiah’s plan with having saved the world and Republicans will reap the whirlwind in the midterms. To oppose the stimulus is essentially to wager that the recession will still be raging two years from now. Expect something like a 75-25 vote.
Link: 
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
Look even if every republican voted for it the media would still give all the credit to Obama and the Dems. It doesn’t matter what they do, the media will always demonize Conservatives and praise Liberals. Changing what you do because they might badmouth you for it is what, in my opinion, got us into the minority in the first place.
Look at it this way: Reagan ran as an uncompromising conservative and won by two of the largest Margins in US history (9% and 18%). McCain ran as a moderate and lost by a very large margin (7%). I know the situation wasn’t exactly the same but there’s a very clear lesson here. Conservatism wins elections, being a Moderate does not.
Kronos on January 25, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Government doesn’t create wealth. Only private business can create wealth. Government merely redistributes money from the makers to the takers.
Mojave Mark on January 25, 2009 at 11:00 PM
So the GOP must support this massive bailout. If the economy does not show signs of a rebound the Republicans will be just as much to blame.
No matter which way it goes if economy rebounds BHO and Democrats get credit, if not it will be Bush’s and the Republicans fault.
jevica on January 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM
It is precisely this kind of reasoning as to why the country is in trouble. Basing a vote on a future possible outcome rather than what is right based on study.
When are we going to take a stand and quit borrowing more money. Whether you ‘fail ‘em’ in 1929 or ‘bail ‘em’ in 2009 the outcome is the same. Banks will not loan money because of fractional reserve banking.
With a 10:1 ratio, the banks are stuck with not only the $1 they were supposed to have in reserve, (most likely from the Fed), and now stuck with the other $9 they loaned out. Further, the real estate on those loans is valued significantly less to boot. How long do you think it will take the banks to make up the $9 @ 6% interest. Forever. The market did not return to its pre-1929 levels until 1954. The Fed can print all the money it wants, but we are just mortgaging ourselves to the Chinese and Saudis.
Failure brings market forces, cheap asset sales, loaning for purchase, (because it is a steal), and punishment for bad behavior and judgement. Someone needs to be man enough to say ‘no’ before we have no choice due to the interest cost swamps the budget.
Starlink on January 25, 2009 at 11:03 PM
The recession might be over by then but probably not because this is not your garden variety recession so past metrics about the lengths and depths of previous downturns are not applicable. Even if the recession is over by then unemployment is going to stay high for awhile after the recession ends.
The Republicans need to stand for fiscal responsibility and contrast themselves with the Democrats because that is the only way they will attract support in elections. The Democrats knew this and stood opposed to Republicans on almost every level and it finally worked for them.
Bill C on January 25, 2009 at 11:03 PM
You’re joking right? Clinton had one of the largest tax increases in history in 1993.
Grayson on January 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM
There is no ‘faint’ recovery by 2010.
It will be 10 years at least. The banks will not loan money, businesses are scared and laying off, and most of all, consumers are dramatically cutting back. No amount of sweet talk or pork spending is going to change that.
Starlink on January 25, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Using the ‘let’s roll over’ logic, hell, let’s bury conservatism and just vote Democrat from now on. NO STUPID! You have to take a stand when something is WRONG! Screw all that happy horse shit about ‘getting some credit if things turn out right down the road’. THERE WON’T BE ANY CREDIT TO SHARE. But you can damned well bet the Obamassiah will be spreading alot of blame around when his plan fails.
GarandFan on January 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Empirical evidence and analysis shows that you are wrong.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.html
There’s a third component in the equation, which is spending and that needs to come down. I know it’ll mean tough times for the people who are only fit for government work, but they’ll just have to get some real skills.
venividivici on January 25, 2009 at 11:32 PM
The recession will still be raging two years from now.
jgapinoy on January 25, 2009 at 11:35 PM
GDP will grow by 2010. Government spending will offset any decline in the private sector. Over the short run we will have higher GDP…the longer term problems are many.
But as Keynes said, in the long run we’re all dead. Or as Barney Frank probably says, don’t worry, be happy. Or as most American have been saying for the last 20 years, live for today.
From Wikipedia:
The most common approach to measuring and quantifying GDP is the expenditure method:
GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
r keller on January 25, 2009 at 11:38 PM
I cant believe no one mentioned Sarah Palin as a real republican. Heck she has become the de-facto conservative leader.
ousoonerfan15 on January 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Government expenditures will offset some, but not all, of private sector declines. Household wealth has gone down by $10 trillion dollars in the past year or so. People have to rebuild their portfolios and nest eggs and are staring down the barrel of retirement and/or job insecurity, in many cases. That is not conducive to growth in consumer spending, which, as we are constantly told, is about 70% of GDP. The most likely outcome is an L-shaped recovery, with growth being about 1% for a few years after the recession ends and periodically dipping into negative territory. Technically, we will have positive GDP, but it won’t feel like it.
venividivici on January 25, 2009 at 11:55 PM
It would stimulate me to see some of the thieves who brought about this economic disaster~ both in our government and in the business sector~ indicted, tried and hopefully jailed for corruption, malfeasance, and assorted criminal acts which have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, so far.
The lack of accountability is stunning.
They are all covering each other’s crooked asses (and assets).
profitsbeard on January 26, 2009 at 12:18 AM
What kind of stamp will he be?
29Victor on January 26, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I am sorry sir:
With all due respect to your many years of service
Sir: your a closet liberal
thats why you lost..
So please hand this crap off to aliberal gullible enough to believe it..
I dont
jcila on January 26, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Arrow…………
……….. meet “Bull’s Eye”!
Seven Percent Solution on January 26, 2009 at 12:24 AM
The hard learned strategy for conservatives and Republicans is to stand as far away from McCain as possible since it’s only a matter of time before he stabs us in the back and sides with the Democrats.
RJL on January 26, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Jaibones: Yes, you will. Douchebag.
Jaibones on January 26, 2009 at 12:45 AM
OK, How much was the Iraq War bill that the Dems opposed on principle because it was too much? Wasn’t it something like 150 billion dollars? Remember when the mantra was 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq?
So now, in one fell swoop, everyone is supposed to be OK with the 7 years worth of Iraq War spending?
AP I don’t understand why these people have to vote for this. Why limit it to 1 Trillion? Why not just double the debt? I mean if 1 Trillion is ‘good’, the 10 Trillion must be GREAT.
It is a bad idea to throw good money after bad. It is the equivalent of shooting all your bullets at an enemy you know is there but can’t see. You might hit it, but if you don’t, you run out of bullets and get eliminated.
The ‘stimulus’ won’t work. The economy will still be down after they spent 1 trillion. When is the Medicare, SS program going to be in crisis? Aren’t we talking about 50 Trillion (give or take) in unfunded liabilities there? So what’s another Trillion (give or take)?
They shouldn’t be spending the money. They aren’t economists. They are politicians who know nothing about the economy. . . and certainly can’t fix it.
ThackerAgency on January 26, 2009 at 12:58 AM
“we owe him a little extra attention when he stands on principle.”
It is impossible to stand on what you have none of.
His ping pong support of bail outs, throwing Sara under the bus and Obama Hillary love fest all show that he is crazier than an outhouse rat.
America1st on January 26, 2009 at 1:04 AM
No rubber stamp, just a stain on conservatism…
Gohawgs on January 26, 2009 at 1:14 AM
75-25 vote? Sounds rather optimistic to me, AP. I say at least 85-15 or better in-favor.
gryphon202 on January 26, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Didn’t McCain say the other day that he was going to be meeting with Gov. Palin? Maybe she slipped some conservative into his drink.
I just wish it didn’t wear off so quickly.
Mr. Wednesday Night on January 26, 2009 at 2:04 AM
The problem is when business decides to play a role that is already filled – The Almighty.
sethstorm on January 26, 2009 at 2:42 AM
If fiscal irresponsibility is seen as saving the world in the midterms, then there won’t be any reason for Republicans to field any candidates. Will the Republicans be running on promises of being more fiscally irresponsible than Democrats in the midterms? If not, why would anyone vote for them after the glorious success of Obamarxism?
In other words, why sign onto something for which you can’t benefit from and can only share the blame for? If the Republicans manage to get the “stimulus package” trimmed down, then no matter where the economy is in two years, the media will argue it would have been stronger but Republicans prevented an appropriately muscular stimulus package from going through.
Buddahpundit on January 26, 2009 at 3:12 AM
No stamp, just a rubber.
LegendHasIt on January 26, 2009 at 3:12 AM
I thought this was a good interview on both sides. Rather than ranting, McCain is saying exactly what is wrong with the bill and is justifying a GOP rejection of it. So the senate vote will be 58-41 and the democrats will have to suck it up.
At some point Pelosi and Reid have to put-up or shut-up.
gh on January 26, 2009 at 5:38 AM
It’s sadly telling that McCain has to go around reminding people that he won’t be a rubber stamp for Obama.
I haven’t heard Pelosi or Reid say that.
Cylor on January 26, 2009 at 6:06 AM
The Republicans have more to gain in opposition then support, on that I assure you any political calculation that substitutes good policy for a future talking point will bite the GOP in the backside.
rob verdi on January 26, 2009 at 6:11 AM
Maybe not a rubber stamp but a big ole’ Monica now and then will do just fine you old dick head…
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Can you imagine Ronald Reagan telling the American People “I will not be a rubber stamp to Tip O’Niel”!
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 6:18 AM
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 6:18 AM
McCain lost.
gh on January 26, 2009 at 6:42 AM
No because Reagan was never a house representative or senator.
Bradky on January 26, 2009 at 6:46 AM
PAUL KRUGMAN actually laid it all on the line yesterday so simply for any high school student to grasp yesterday on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”.
Carly Fiorina put in her $.02, but Krugman stole the show.
THE BOTTOM DOLLAR WHERE THE BUCK STOPS–
that was a panel discussion worth watching!
Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in economics
maverick muse on January 26, 2009 at 7:05 AM
Are you kidding me Allah? The Republicans have more to loss by opposing the stimulus package because things will get better in two years? Have you seen the world economy? Wow! What statement! Let’s gamble with one trillion bailout that is in ADDITION to the governments current budget? Unbelieveable!
So the Republican Party is about looking at polling data on voter blocks who listen to media that doesn’t provide the facts or world news and are generally uninformed and ignoring fiscal responsibility and principals and do, not what’s in the best interest of the country but what these uninformed voters feel in the moment is right so we can be sure they will vote for unprincipaled Republicans who can continue to act like Democrats? WTF? This isn’t American Idol!
Even if we opposed this crap I’d be happy if the economy got better in two years but The One got to take credit for it. I’m not hopeful though. Based on the world economy, a for sure increased entitlement with healthcare within those two years and definite tax increases and states going bankrupt yet not cutting spending EXACTLY WHAT in any of this is going to pull us out of a recession? People within these two years are just going to automatically get financially optimistic and starting pumping funds they were hiding under their mattress into the market and magically cure our problems? What is supposed to make things better when we’re all in debt and have to borrow from the government? You do realize that the government gets it’s funds from us right? REPEAT: we are in debt. We are asking the government to give US money to get out of debt. We want the government to borrow the money to pay ourselves so we can ALL get out of debt. See the logic?
Sultry Beauty on January 26, 2009 at 7:11 AM
When I heard “loyal opposition” from McCain,
IT RANG OUT AS OPPOSITION TO LOYAL CONSERVATIVES.
Actions speak louder than words.
maverick muse on January 26, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Maverick
Paul Krugman, Socialist Liberal Economist that the UN & Noble love because he’s study economics forever that he can talk circles around talkheads who never took a economics class in their life so can’t argue his premises, actually agreeing with me that things aren’t going to get any bert in two years and there should be 8% unemployment by 2010. His solution? The stimulus would be good because the US needs I frastructure and those jobs will offset the layoffs. Brilliant! But what the hell do we need infrastrucure jobs for when there’s no other businesses producing goods? The trucks won’t be using that infrastructure! How does he expect the government will fund this debt during an extended recession? He’s a socialist idiot who thinks the Soviet Union was a good thing, it just didn’t last long enough to prove him right. Oh yea, FDR’s New Deal stopped the depression!
Sultry Beauty on January 26, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Richard Kimball (Dem.), McCain’s original opponent in the Arizona senate race, now heads an IT internet resource on politicians and their records. It is of interest to note that despite McCain’s claims to have ALWAYS been for amnesty of illegal aliens via immigration reform overhaul, McCain was originally against the immigration reform that he since sponsored in the Senate. The snag between “that was then, this is now” regards EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION that he would not originally support as he saw no realistic way of implementing employment verification during Reagan’s presidency.
With the IT revolution, McCain fights to legalize illegal aliens to remove any restraint on their employment.
Making illegal aliens American citizens so that employers can lay-off the present American citizen workforce and rehire cheap labor without any legal repercussions is the DEMOCRAT MANTRA that RINOs enable, but that Conservatives oppose.
Logic would reason that UNIONS would fight this; except that union leadership is merely the Socialist aristocracy. They realize that the current union members are balls-and-chains dragging unions and big business employers either bankrupt or out of our national borders.
With absolutely no reciprocation from the Mexican government, the Democrats and RINO enablers will legalize illegal laborers. Legalize the cheap laborers who can and do own property in Mexico, and grant dual citizenship rights that the Mexican government denies to Gringos wishing to relocate south of the border. Unless I am mistaken, American businesses can not invest as owners of ventures in Mexico; and American citizens without grandfathered dual citizenship can not securely own private real estate property in Mexico.
maverick muse on January 26, 2009 at 7:47 AM
Umm… You miss the point ma’ boy…
If Ronald Magnus acted like McCain acts today, as POTUS he would have spent his time on his knees, willing to “Monica” Tip at every turn rather than setting the agenda himself!
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 7:58 AM
Tax cuts leading to economic activity will generally result in increased revenues. After the Reagan cuts (the top rate dropping from 70% to 28%), revenues almost doubled by the end of his second term (DOUBLED).
Of course, in static terms, a cut will lead to an initial drop in revenues and a tax increase will lead to an initial increase. But economic policy cannot be based on a static analysis (such as throwing a trillion dollars of borrowed money out there to “stimulate” the economy).
I forget which economist said it, but one stated that if you cut taxes and government revenues increase, you haven’t cut them enough! The problem with the economy is the bloated and tyrannical federal government. It needs to be starved into submission… but we can’t do that… because if we reduce the money flow to Washington they will merely borrow what they need to maintain power instead of shrinking as they should.
mankai on January 26, 2009 at 7:59 AM
The problem with government-created jobs is that to fund these jobs government must take money out of the private sector (the sector which responds to the laws of economics.
So if the government (which has no income and which has no need to reduce administrative costs) creates a job to fill a pothole, it must get its funds for that position by weakening the true job market by taxing the funds away from the economy which creates real, longterm jobs (jobs in demand in that economy – the kind of jobs that will encourage competition for labor, skills and wages).
And there is no need for government to reduce a bloated system. That is, to create that pothole “job” they can also create layers of useless administrative “jobs” which add no value to the economy and do not respond to the market. The public school system is a great example of this… massive administrative overhead with extremely high paid administrators continually offering a grossly inferior product at taxpayers expense.
So while infrastructure expenditures are necessary, using that system to “create jobs” reflects short-term, naive and historically ignorant thinking.
mankai on January 26, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Why is this human piece of garbage still around? Johnie Mac, you’ve done enough damage. Please go away.
angryed on January 26, 2009 at 8:14 AM
McCain, Graham and crew should be ignored. They are whats wrong w/the GOP. Lets not give them any kudo’s. DD
Darvin Dowdy on January 26, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Good for you, Allahpundit, for giving John McCain credit for standing on principle; and if John McCain continues to stand on principle, then he will be faithful to his fiscal conservatism and oppose Obama socialism. McCain, as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, should be in opposition to Obama socialism.
John McCain’s statement in the video can be viewed as his answer to Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh and others who have expressed concern that McCain will act as Obama’s ally. I have not thought so. To me, McCain’s saying that Obama should have the Secretary of State of his choice in Hillary did not mean anything, that what mattered were positions on the legislation that would be before the Senate and the issues before the country in terms of national security.
As I wrote under Ed Morrissey’s post on this subject, while McCain played team player with the Bush Administration’s bank bailout, McCain has since opposed the auto bailout and voted against the release of TARP funds as requested by Bush and Obama. My guess is that he regrets supporting the bank bailout. Before the financial “crisis,” the McCain-Palin ticket had gone ahead in the polls.
So good for you, John McCain, for opposing the fiscal stimulus package (so far). To the posters here, my recommendation is to focus your energies on opposing Obama socialism and calling for realism in foreign policy to temper the idiocy spoken on the subject by Democrats. Scapegoating about the 2008 election does not help now.
If the 2008 election had centered on foreign policy, military matters and national security, you would all feel differently about John McCain. When the world goes crazy, as it will, you might find yourself appreciating having John McCain’s knowledge and experience in foreign policy, military matters and national security on our side.
Phil Byler on January 26, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Exactly. In 1992 the recession was over 6 months before the election. Yet unemployment was still high and the sense out on the street was that the economy was still in bad shape, leading to Clinton’s win. And this was after a relatively minor recession that wasn’t all that bad when you look at it objectively.
In 2010 no matter what the technical indicators say, the average Joe 6 Pack will still see the economy in the crapper.
2010 elections are 21 months away. Recessions act like Newton’s law. Takes the same amount of time to fall as to go back up. The economic downturn started about 14-18 months ago depending on how you measure it. Even assuming the most optimistic scenario that says we are now at the boottom – and we’re nowhere near the bottom – that means it will be 14-18 months before even the slightest hint of a recovery takes shape. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, which means that in Nov 2010, unemployment will be at its peak for this business cycle.
Republicans should stand together and say no to the stimulus. And in 2010 when unemployment is in the double digits their campaign will basically be this: “See we told you massive spending doesn’t work. Vote for us and we’ll try something new”.
angryed on January 26, 2009 at 8:23 AM
If McCain survives his re-election bid watch him then join Senator Joe Lieberman as an Independent.
albill on January 26, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Not a rubber stamp, just a rubber…
stenwin77 on January 26, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Buy what you need
while you have money
and it is worth something.
Oppose raising taxation.
Oppose government socialism.
THE FORGOTTEN MAN
Read it.
maverick muse on January 26, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Actions speak louder than words.
What McCain is up to has already become obvious.
McCain will say whatever it takes.
VOTE NO RINO.
Support conservatives.
maverick muse on January 26, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Allah- stop givin’ the RINOs cover.
It hurts our cause and makes you look stupid.
Sometimes politics comes down to doin’ what is right- not just what is politically expedient.
GOP-Oppose this POS “stimulate the dems” bill, or lose me forever.
ExTex on January 26, 2009 at 9:02 AM
I wonder if Obama has a clue as to whether or not the last stimulus has had any positive results. It would seem prudent to have concrete facts on that before going forward with another one. I got my stimulus check last year and all it went for was to pay a few bills. If I get another it will go for the same thing, or I’ll save it. A CNN poll this morning shows most people will do the same. So if they’re banking on people going out and buying a bunch of stuff, I’d say poppycock.
scalleywag on January 26, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Just look at the price of gold in the last week and you’ll know where this president and his stimulus package are having an effect.
Gold prices
Not a good sign for most of us.
BrianA on January 26, 2009 at 9:18 AM
OBTW: Look at the 5 year gold chart as see when the price of gold started really climbing. I give you the answer: Just after the 2006 elections when the Dems took control of congress. Just a coincidence?
BrianA on January 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM
That’s more of an accounting identity than a measurement, but you’re certainly still correct. GDP may well increase “by definition.”
The tax-rate elasticity of the tax take is always an empirical question. While there is a theoretical possibility to which Art Laffer alerted us, whether we are at any given moment at a place on the rate-revenue curve corresponding to that possibility is a matter for measurement — not for categorical statements.
There are matters where I’d defer to Krugman, but traditional macroeconomics probably isn’t one of them — Bank of Sweden Prize or no.
I’m more or less OK with the infrastructure spending (highways, bridge repair, updating the grid) since this has the potential to lower costs for individuals and businesses in the future and for the most part you’re updating publicly owned assets people already take into account. Some of the other spending seems superfluous, however, especially since with control of all three branches the Ds can bring up whatever new programmatic spending they want under regular order (rather than emergency bills).
DrSteve on January 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Is McCain going to get a primary challenge?
Kjeil on January 26, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Hence the words, “generally result.” :)
My concern is more the starvation of government than whether or not revenues increase. My post was in response to the “categorical” statement from DeathToMediaHacks that tax cuts must always lead to deficits.
mankai on January 26, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Yes, of course. Sorry!
DrSteve on January 26, 2009 at 9:50 AM
McCain sounds wimpier and more impotent every time I hear him.
whitetop on January 26, 2009 at 10:07 AM
McLame needs to go away. A honorable and brave man, but he shafted his country in 2008 by being an idiot.
notagool on January 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM
It’s over, John. Even Letterman is tired of you. Time to step aside. Let the young bloods take a crack at it.
argos on January 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM
He rolled over on Hillary’s confirmation in spite of her obvious conflicts of interest. I just don’t think John McCain is ever going to stand on principle for anything.
cheeflo on January 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Oh, and McCain is rolling over for William Lynn’s confirmation, in spite of Obama’s about-face on naming lobbyists to his cabinet, which he, himself, commented on — “I think it’s a bit disingenuous to announce strict rules and then nominate someone with a waiver from the rules that you just announced.” Get a clue, John. If you don’t like it, vote against it.
cheeflo on January 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM
John McCain has announced that he’s officially changed his name to Ben Dover in honor of his new relationship to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and our new President. “I considered Dick Smoker but I’ve always been a Ben type of guy” said Ben during his announcement ceremony…
sabbott on January 26, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2