More Republican fiscal leadership

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the GOP missed a winner when they nominated Bush over McCain. here's a man who represents true fiscal conservative ideals. He proudly served his country (rather than going AWOL to work on a political campaign). He would have brought integrity back to the White House. We'd be in the process of rebuilding just one nation. The war on terror would not have ended to persue a personal war in Iraq. Al Qaeda would be on the ropes instead of back in operating mode again.

McCain Lashes Congress, Bush for Overspending[/font size]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican Sen. John McCain on Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor" and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, McCain lamented the closing actions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives before recessing for the year, most notably passage of a massive overhaul of the Medicare insurance program for the elderly.

He also decried a $31 billion national energy bill, still pending until at least next year, much of which would fund industry tax breaks.

"The numbers are astonishing," said McCain, an Arizona Republican. "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has."

It was a rare admonition from a member of Bush's own political party, which hopes to benefit from a series of wins this year in the U.S. Congress -- which in addition to the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit, included more tax relief, funds to rebuild Iraq and a law to restrict abortion.

Bush is hoping the record will help him and fellow Republicans keep control of the White House and Congress in next November's election. Democrats, however, have bemoaned the rising price tags, a sentiment shared on Sunday by McCain, a member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee.

McCain said Bush, who has never vetoed a spending bill, was in large part responsible for this year's spending levels exceeding prescribed caps of 4 percent growth, at a whopping 8 percent.

"The president cannot say, as he has many times, that I am going to tell Congress to enforce some spending discipline and then not veto bills," McCain said.

"We are laying a burden of debt on future generations of Americans. ... Any economist will tell you, you cannot have this level of debt, of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation," he added.

McCain, who challenged Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, took particular issue with the massive energy bill, which in beginning stages cost $8 billion, a total that rocketed up with dozens of provisions inserted to benefit the districts of individual lawmakers to win their support.

"There was no policy initiatives in the energy policy. It was just one pork barrel project larded onto another," he said. "... And the administration is still saying it is one of its highest priorities, I don't know how you rationalize that."

Despite the bills that were passed, however, lawmakers recessed last week without passing a roughly $375 billion year-end federal spending bill.

The failure will not shut down the government, which can operate under stopgap funding until Jan. 31. But it was a setback for Republicans, who had vowed to get the budget process back on track this year.

You know, I thought the very same thing earlier today, and often do with many of his statements. McCain is not afraid to break ranks with the Collective and speak his mind. Then again, he sees a train speeding towards a brick wall with the break broken.

He actually seems like a decent person.

guess what? i've wondered if we maybe didn't make a mistake in choosing bush over mccain. i've mentioned many times here in the message centre how disappointed i've been with bush (HEY! remember that election promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem??? how 'bout ya quit pulling a bill-fucking-clinton and DO IT?!?!) and his administration. oddly enough, the problem i had with mccain was that i saw him as too unpredictable. i was worried about him going off the reservation & doing something whacky. it looks like my fears were misplaced. but, the one thing that STILL bothers me about mccain is his gleeful use of the word gook. in any event, i'm really glad mccain is in the senate. i hate to borrow from o'reilly, but i think john is in there "lookin' out for the folks."

There are lots and lots and lots of conservatives who are saying the same thing as Sen. McCain said. GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, also a war hero, wrote an essay which was published over the past weekend, the primary point of which was that Republicans genearlly, and this Adminsitration particularly, have "lost their way" by becoming completely untethered to conservative principles, first and foremost the notion of fiscal responsibility and, secondly, limited international entanglements.

As Sen. Hagel pointed out, Republicans have adopted the former Democratic tactic of buying votes through hugely expensive entitlement programs, while at the same time adopting enormous tax cuts and embarking upon wildly expensive national security and nation-building schemes. There is no way that recipe can result in anything but disaster and collapse - to the point, Sen. Hagel said, where our nation may be able never to recover. Numerous conservative "think tanks," such as the Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute, have begun vigorously blasting Bush on the same ground.

That's what I think is so ironic about this upcoming election. The mindless morons in the media are trying to depict Howard Dean as some sort of McGovernite anti-war leftist radical, when in reality, both his past record as Governor as well as his current platform make him, by fact, the most truly conservative candidate in the field with regard to economic and foreign policy - certainly miles and miles more conservative than George Bush.

Once moderates and even conservatives start paying more attention to the campaign, they will start to see that, and that will make Dean, particularly with his forever-loyal liberal base, an extremely formidable candidate.

McCain never had a chance because he has no party. He is nominally a Republican but votes Democrat much of the time and is more vocal when opposing his party that in agreeing with it. His support came from independants and from Democrats hoping he would be the Republican candidate. And Hagel is no more than a nominal Republican as well. He certainly is no conservative and seems to disagree with his party far more than he agrees with it.He undoubtedly intends to run for the Presidency in 2008, but may find that his support is eroded even in his own very Republican state, Nebraska.

>McCain never had a chance because he has no party. He is

>nominally a Republican but votes Democrat much of the time and

>is more vocal when opposing his party that in agreeing with

>it.

This just isn't true. Sen. McCain was probably the single most vigorous advocate of the war in Iraq - he was all over the place supporting the Administration's efforts there.

The fact that someone doesn't fall obediently into line with every wish of George Bush doesn't call into question their conservative credientials.

In fact, given the half-trillion dollar defecit and the massive increase in governmental DOMESTIC spending (independent of foreign policy and homeland security items) under this Administration - combined with the unprecedented expansion of federal power in virtually every area of government -- I'd love to know where anyone gets off calling George Bush a "conservative." He is a lot of things - but conservative isn't one of them, at least as that term has been used since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

> And Hagel is no

>more than a nominal Republican as well. He certainly is no

>conservative and seems to disagree with his party far more

>than he agrees with it.He undoubtedly intends to run for the

>Presidency in 2008, but may find that his support is eroded

>even in his own very Republican state, Nebraska.

This is such garbage. Tell me one position that Sen. Hagel has that you think makes him something other than a conservative or a "Republican." If George Bush adopts a non-conservative position, and Hagel or McCain refuse to fall into line, you think that makes them ideologically suspect?

Take a look at the deficit. Take a look at the increase in domestic spending over the last 3 years. Take a look at the increased power of the Federal Government in the past 3 years in every sector.

Other than the fact that George Bush mentions God a lot, what is remotely conservative about this Administration?

Merlin has fallen in line with the Collective's directive that those against George Bush are traitors.

The truth is that George Bush abandoned the conservative ideals a long time ago. He only appears conservative when it suits his purposes.

The thing I want to know is: when did the Republicans become Democrats? Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responisbility and less government. They used to be for civil liberties and keeping the government out of people's lives. This President and Congress, as McCain has pointed out, has abandoned all pretense of conservatism. They have been the most fiscally irresponsible group in decades. They have passed a patriot Act that seeks to erode civil liberties. They are working on a Constitutional amendment that would put government in our lives even more.

The problem with the Democrats is that they haven't become Republicans in response. Perhaps what they should do is dump the naive nine and draft John McCain. Liberal republicans? Conservative Democrats? Not so long ago that would have been laughable. Now I'm not so sure.

Other than the fact that George Bush mentions God a lot, what is remotely conservative about this Administration?

That's easy sweets: tax cuts for the wealthy

The truth is that George Bush abandoned the conservative ideals a long time ago. He only appears conservative when it suits his Karl Rove's purposes.

>

Other than the fact that George Bush mentions God a

>lot, what is remotely conservative about this Administration?

>

>

>That's easy sweets: tax cuts for the wealthy

"Tax cuts for the wealthy" is such a dishonest and stupid phrase.

It's dishonest because middle class families also received a tax cut, so it isn't just "tax cuts for the wealthy." When you say that, you're lying.

And it's stupid because the wealthy pay the vast bulk of taxes in this country, so who the fuck do you expect will receive the vast bulk of the tax cuts? The Democrats' constituents in the inner cities can't get tax cuts because they don't pay any taxes to cut.

And welcome to the Board - just what we need - yet another smug boring standard mindless liberal who runs around spewing buzzphrases and cliches ("Collective" - "Karl Rove" thinks for Bush - "tax cuts for the wealthy") and then convinces himself that he's oh-so-knowing and sophisticiated. Would you mind terribly if I go ahead and puke on your repugnant face?

And welcome to the Board - just what we need - yet another smug boring standard mindless liberal who runs around spewing buzzphrases and cliches ("Collective" - "Karl Rove" thinks for Bush - "tax cuts for the wealthy") and then convinces himself that he's oh-so-knowing and sophisticiated. Would you mind terribly if I go ahead and puke on your repugnant face?

My my my... don't conservatives who label others as "shrill" get dreadfully shrill? Meanwhile they banter endlessly about Democratic cliches... oh! bantering endlessly about Democratic cliches is a Rethuglican cliche, isn't it?

Please try again.

Poor poor Doug69... obviously has to make everything personal. Doesn't take more than 5 clicks on these forums to see that... as well as the remaining 2.5 Repiglicans on here

>"Tax cuts for the wealthy" is such a dishonest and stupid

>phrase.

>And it's stupid because the wealthy pay the vast bulk of taxes

>in this country, so who the fuck do you expect will receive

>the vast bulk of the tax cuts?

So if the bulk of taxes are paid by the wealthy, and we cut taxes, isn't that tax cuts for the wealthy?

>So if the bulk of taxes are paid by the wealthy, and we cut

>taxes, isn't that tax cuts for the wealthy?

No, because "bulk" is not the same as "all." The tax cuts are for everyone who pays taxes. Since the middle class pays taxes as well as the wealthy, the middle class receives tax cuts also. So the tax cuts are NOT "for the wealthy" - they are for everyone who pays taxes, including the middle (and even lower-middle) class.