With the release of Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue, I do have some thoughts on her.
Overall, there are some things I like about her (she seems to be a small government conservative), and other things I dislike (her fundamentalist beliefs make me question how fiscally conservative she truly is, since most fundamentalists have no problem with using government to their own ends, much like liberals).
During last year's election, I found it humorous how political pundits basically classified her as a rube, while promoting a presidential candidate with even less experience than Palin. I think we would do better with the rube in the White House, since the intellectually elitist Obama has proven to be a complete failure.
But that was never the choice, which is why the Republican ticket lost. John McCain had the taint of Washington on him, as he flip-flopped and nuanced his way to a loss. While Palin made plenty of mistakes, I can't look at them and say I wouldn't have made a few of them myself. McCain's mistakes were in their subtlety, whereas Palin's mistakes were more from her brutal honesty.
One can question whether Palin is smart enough to be president, and one can question her qualifications based on specific issues, but I don't think one can disqualify her based on honesty.
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Monday, November 16, 2009
Monday, November 03, 2008
My Endorsement
Time once again for my official endorsement in the race for President of the United States.
After reviewing all the candidates thoroughly, I have come to one conclusion: They all stink.
Let us start with the worst of the lot, Barack Obama. As I have never knowingly voted for a Marxist in my life, I see no reason to start now.
Number two has to be Bob Barr. I discounted him in July after he waffled on Global Warming. I don't mind voting for a third party candidate, but he/she better be PERFECT! Barr is far from perfect.
Finally, there is John McCain. If this ticket were reversed, I would happily take a chance on voting for Sarah Palin, even with her inexperience. She seems driven, and ideologically on the money. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to endorse someone whom I wish dead, and that would be the only reason to vote for McCain. He lost me during the debates with all his talk of "bipartisanship", and "reaching across the aisle". If I wanted a Democrat, or a Democratic Party solution, I could have voted for the real one!
That left me in a quandary: I have no one for whom to vote. But then, last week, I saw him: The man who would make the perfect president: Mike Singletary, interim head coach of the San Francisco 49ers.
I first arrived at this conclusion while watching his first press conference after his first game as head coach, when the 49ers lost. Singletary was fearless, even sending his starting tight end Vernon Davis to the showers in the middle of the game after Davis mouthed off to him after a penalty.
On top of that, Singletary's raw and honest emotion and integrity was just so refreshing after months of listening to John and Sarah and Barack and Joe:
After watching that, I was ready to throw myself on a grenade for Singletary. Vote for him for president? No problem!
Frankly, all Singletary would have to do is change a few words, and that press conference would make a killer stump speech. He even has the beginnings of a platform in it:
Good national defense.
No altruistic government under President Singletary!
Pro-capital punishment. Good for dealing with terrorists.
On top of this, Mike Singletary is inspirational, in a way that Barack Obama could only dream of being. Note that at no time during that press conference was Singletary using a teleprompter! Truly a man who speaks from the heart.
As for any comparisons to John McCain, Singletary's war record speaks for itself: 10 times sent to the Pro Bowl and won a Super Bowl as a middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears. All while playing under MIKE DITKA! The Vietcong only WISH they had someone who could torture like Ditka!
Singletary even has Bob Barr topped: Singletary has not even been nominated by a party, let alone a third party!
Tough times like we live in now call for tough leadership. We need a president who is not afraid to send Nancy Pelosi to the showers, or hit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the mouth. This is why I endorse Mike Singletary for President: Change you BETTER believe in!
After reviewing all the candidates thoroughly, I have come to one conclusion: They all stink.
Let us start with the worst of the lot, Barack Obama. As I have never knowingly voted for a Marxist in my life, I see no reason to start now.
Number two has to be Bob Barr. I discounted him in July after he waffled on Global Warming. I don't mind voting for a third party candidate, but he/she better be PERFECT! Barr is far from perfect.
Finally, there is John McCain. If this ticket were reversed, I would happily take a chance on voting for Sarah Palin, even with her inexperience. She seems driven, and ideologically on the money. Unfortunately, I cannot bring myself to endorse someone whom I wish dead, and that would be the only reason to vote for McCain. He lost me during the debates with all his talk of "bipartisanship", and "reaching across the aisle". If I wanted a Democrat, or a Democratic Party solution, I could have voted for the real one!
That left me in a quandary: I have no one for whom to vote. But then, last week, I saw him: The man who would make the perfect president: Mike Singletary, interim head coach of the San Francisco 49ers.
I first arrived at this conclusion while watching his first press conference after his first game as head coach, when the 49ers lost. Singletary was fearless, even sending his starting tight end Vernon Davis to the showers in the middle of the game after Davis mouthed off to him after a penalty.
On top of that, Singletary's raw and honest emotion and integrity was just so refreshing after months of listening to John and Sarah and Barack and Joe:
After watching that, I was ready to throw myself on a grenade for Singletary. Vote for him for president? No problem!
Frankly, all Singletary would have to do is change a few words, and that press conference would make a killer stump speech. He even has the beginnings of a platform in it:
1. We go out and hit people in the mouth.
Good national defense.
2. We are not a charity.
No altruistic government under President Singletary!
3. We execute from the very start...to the very end.
Pro-capital punishment. Good for dealing with terrorists.
On top of this, Mike Singletary is inspirational, in a way that Barack Obama could only dream of being. Note that at no time during that press conference was Singletary using a teleprompter! Truly a man who speaks from the heart.
As for any comparisons to John McCain, Singletary's war record speaks for itself: 10 times sent to the Pro Bowl and won a Super Bowl as a middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears. All while playing under MIKE DITKA! The Vietcong only WISH they had someone who could torture like Ditka!
Singletary even has Bob Barr topped: Singletary has not even been nominated by a party, let alone a third party!
Tough times like we live in now call for tough leadership. We need a president who is not afraid to send Nancy Pelosi to the showers, or hit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the mouth. This is why I endorse Mike Singletary for President: Change you BETTER believe in!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The Not-so-great Political Debate
Have you noticed that on practically EVERY campaign issue between Republicans and Democrats, there is no longer a question of WHETHER government intervention is needed. It is now only a question of how much government intervention.
Even when politicians use the buzz words "free market", it is usually followed up with some government program. Take John McCain's global warming solution. He says we need a free market solution in one breath, while in the very next breath he calls for a "cap and trade" carbon emissions system. And don't even ask about Barack Obama's solution, which offers just about every environmental government program imaginable, short of having "carbon emissions police" carrying CO2 detection devices, breaking into private homes in the middle of the night (although check back next week. Obama might change his mind).
Consider taxes. Do we need an income tax system where we have to report to the government every detail of how we, as individuals, make money? Do we need tax breaks for every special interest lobbyist in D.C.? No one in either party asks whether we should eliminate the income tax for an alternative form of revenue collection (i.e. the FairTax). No one in either party talks about eliminating corporate taxes, even though it would revive the U.S. manufacturing sector. McCain's idea to cut the corporate rate from 35% to 25% is a nice start, but that should be the argument from the Left, not the Right.
Look at healthcare. We got this problem when the government gave companies tax breaks for providing health insurance to employees. Now we have a large segment of the population which expects someone else to pay for their healthcare costs. But nobody asks if we should completely remove government's role from the healthcare issue.
Of course, we cannot forget high gas prices. Nearly every aspect of the high prices can be traced to government actions:
Aside from numbers 1 and 3 above, no one asks about the other three government interventions. And the taxes are only mentioned in McCain's absurd "summer gas tax holiday" (why not a year-round gas tax holiday?).
This is NOT to suggest getting government out of these issues is the only way, or even a good way. Rather, it begs the question of WHY the possibility is NOT even part of the political debate. Why would politicians ignore it? Unfortunately, this is a question that answers itself. Politicians from both parties can see that their own power rests in the expansion of government. The more government expands, the more power they have over the people.
Even people who think we need more government (i.e. liberals and socialists) would look at the period earlier this decade when the Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress in disgust. But they would happily give the Democrats that kind of control, even though we could expect the same levels of unchecked corruption?
The great irony is that socialism was descended from a political theory, Marxism, which was born from a healthy distrust of aristocratic European government's abuses of power. The even greater irony is that the anti-establishment leftists of the 1960's have become the modern day Democrats who LIKE the idea of more government.
How did we go from a society with a healthy disrespect for government power, as exemplified by millenia of monarchical abuse of power, to one where we happily hand over the keys to our lives to government, without even asking "why?"
Even when politicians use the buzz words "free market", it is usually followed up with some government program. Take John McCain's global warming solution. He says we need a free market solution in one breath, while in the very next breath he calls for a "cap and trade" carbon emissions system. And don't even ask about Barack Obama's solution, which offers just about every environmental government program imaginable, short of having "carbon emissions police" carrying CO2 detection devices, breaking into private homes in the middle of the night (although check back next week. Obama might change his mind).
Consider taxes. Do we need an income tax system where we have to report to the government every detail of how we, as individuals, make money? Do we need tax breaks for every special interest lobbyist in D.C.? No one in either party asks whether we should eliminate the income tax for an alternative form of revenue collection (i.e. the FairTax). No one in either party talks about eliminating corporate taxes, even though it would revive the U.S. manufacturing sector. McCain's idea to cut the corporate rate from 35% to 25% is a nice start, but that should be the argument from the Left, not the Right.
Look at healthcare. We got this problem when the government gave companies tax breaks for providing health insurance to employees. Now we have a large segment of the population which expects someone else to pay for their healthcare costs. But nobody asks if we should completely remove government's role from the healthcare issue.
Of course, we cannot forget high gas prices. Nearly every aspect of the high prices can be traced to government actions:
1. Gas taxes which account for more government revenue than oil companies make net profits from the sale of gas.
2. The devaluation of the dollar, which leads to higher prices when we buy gas from overseas.
3. The government's refusal to allow drilling for oil in places like Alaska and off the coasts of Florida and California.
4. The government's support of the biofuel industry (which has also led to higher food prices). Unfortunately, oil companies have no incentive to build new refineries in the U.S. when they see the government supporting an industry which could take a large chunk of their market share in the near future. Why build a refinery which will take 20+ years to see a profit when you may not need it in 20 years? In addition, our insufficient refinery capacity for our oil consumption forces the oil companies to order oil from overseas refineries (also adding to our cost).
5. Whether you agree or disagree, environmental regulations add to the cost. Everything from drilling for oil to refining oil has environmental regulations on it. These costs are all passed along to the consumer.
Aside from numbers 1 and 3 above, no one asks about the other three government interventions. And the taxes are only mentioned in McCain's absurd "summer gas tax holiday" (why not a year-round gas tax holiday?).
This is NOT to suggest getting government out of these issues is the only way, or even a good way. Rather, it begs the question of WHY the possibility is NOT even part of the political debate. Why would politicians ignore it? Unfortunately, this is a question that answers itself. Politicians from both parties can see that their own power rests in the expansion of government. The more government expands, the more power they have over the people.
Even people who think we need more government (i.e. liberals and socialists) would look at the period earlier this decade when the Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress in disgust. But they would happily give the Democrats that kind of control, even though we could expect the same levels of unchecked corruption?
The great irony is that socialism was descended from a political theory, Marxism, which was born from a healthy distrust of aristocratic European government's abuses of power. The even greater irony is that the anti-establishment leftists of the 1960's have become the modern day Democrats who LIKE the idea of more government.
"That government is best which governs not at all" - Henry David Thoreau
How did we go from a society with a healthy disrespect for government power, as exemplified by millenia of monarchical abuse of power, to one where we happily hand over the keys to our lives to government, without even asking "why?"
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Comparing the Candidates Part 2: Iraq
Following is part 2 in a continuing series comparing the presidential candidates and where they stand on the issues. (part 1 link)
While all three candidates are pretty clear on their overall view of Iraq, they each have subtleties in their positions which are not as well known (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):
HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary's position is clear: Get the troops out of Iraq. However, her position relies on a diplomatic initiative which will require the support of the U.N. and cooperation from "key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq."
BARACK OBAMA
Obama's position is similar to Hillary's, with one key exception:
Based on that loophole, Obama could conceivably keep troops in Iraq for the entirety of his presidency.
JOHN McCAIN
Everyone knows about McCain's "100 years" comment about Iraq. His position supports that view, as he plans to INCREASE the number of troops we have in Iraq:
SUMMARY
If Iraq is your primary issue going into the election, the choices are pretty clear. McCain wants to fix Iraq, Clinton wants us out of Iraq, while Obama wants us out but is willing to consider staying there if circumstances require it.
While all three candidates are pretty clear on their overall view of Iraq, they each have subtleties in their positions which are not as well known (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):
HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary's position is clear: Get the troops out of Iraq. However, her position relies on a diplomatic initiative which will require the support of the U.N. and cooperation from "key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq."
BARACK OBAMA
Obama's position is similar to Hillary's, with one key exception:
He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Based on that loophole, Obama could conceivably keep troops in Iraq for the entirety of his presidency.
JOHN McCAIN
Everyone knows about McCain's "100 years" comment about Iraq. His position supports that view, as he plans to INCREASE the number of troops we have in Iraq:
More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.
SUMMARY
If Iraq is your primary issue going into the election, the choices are pretty clear. McCain wants to fix Iraq, Clinton wants us out of Iraq, while Obama wants us out but is willing to consider staying there if circumstances require it.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Comparing the Candidates Part 1: Energy/Environment
Beginning today, I will be writing on where the three remaining candidates for president stand on the issues.
The first issue covered will be Global Warming, arguably the greatest scam of our time. Let's see how much damage the candidates will do in order to save our country (and the world) from nothing (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):
HILLARY CLINTON
Sounds lovely, doesn't it? But as usual with anything Clintonian, the devil is in the details:
Read: more government regulation, which you will pay for at the pump and in your electricity bills.
Read: more oil company taxes, which you will pay for at the pump.
Once the automakers retool their plants, how is this investment paid back? If this operates as a loan to the automakers, what if they don't take the loan? It is still an intriguing idea, but I am not sure how it will work, or if it can work.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae work so well, why not do the same thing for green houses? In the middle of a housing crisis which was brought on by loans to people who shouldn't have been buying houses in the first place, is adding more government loans a good idea?
A new reporting requirement for ALL public companies which we can all pay for in the higher cost of goods! I can't wait!
What does she think companies do when they are impacted by "climate change"? They increase their prices to cover their costs. So we need companies to comply with a new government regulation for what reason?
A new government agency! Woohoo!
Seriously, there isn't an existing government agency to handle whatever it is she wants the NEC to do?
JOHN McCAIN
One thing I like about McCain's issues statement on the environment is that it is light on details. He basically says we have to maintain a strong economy first, which I agree with 100%. He also mentions using more nuclear power, with which I also agree.
A speech he made on April 23rd of last year provides a lot of the details his issue statement is missing:
It is safe to say he plans to leave it up to the free markets to decide how we handle this problem, with a little bit of help from tax breaks.
Cutting BACK on government regulation? Can he do that?
Probably not, but it is refreshing to hear a politician say it.
BARACK OBAMA
All three candidates promote "cap and trade" systems. Obama's is a little different:
In other words, a tax on companies which sell their allowances. It is unclear how much the tax will be.
More government spending. He has more ideas of different ways to spend government money in a lot of different areas, but no specific energy direction. From biofuels to solar to wind to others, he hits all of them with our tax dollars.
Aside from the spending aspect of this, is he SURE we can get this done in 5 years?
I will give Obama some credit for mentioning geothermal as a possibility. Of all possible energy sources, we really don't hear much about geothermal.
This sounds good on the surface, but is a lot more difficult in practice.
Coal energy is derived from the carbon in coal. Low carbon coal provides less energy. Therefore, you have to burn more low carbon coal in order to get the same amount of energy as you would from high carbon coal.
The problem is NOT the coal, but HOW we burn it to produce energy.
SUMMARY
The three candidates show some marked contrasts in energy/environmental policies. As expected, McCain is the farthest from the other two, in that he plans to leave most of it to the free market. Obama wants to spend, spend, spend. Clinton wants to spend too, but she seems to rely on government regulation a bit more than Obama.
The first issue covered will be Global Warming, arguably the greatest scam of our time. Let's see how much damage the candidates will do in order to save our country (and the world) from nothing (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):
HILLARY CLINTON
To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.
Sounds lovely, doesn't it? But as usual with anything Clintonian, the devil is in the details:
An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs
Read: more government regulation, which you will pay for at the pump and in your electricity bills.
A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy.
Read: more oil company taxes, which you will pay for at the pump.
An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards
Once the automakers retool their plants, how is this investment paid back? If this operates as a loan to the automakers, what if they don't take the loan? It is still an intriguing idea, but I am not sure how it will work, or if it can work.
A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae work so well, why not do the same thing for green houses? In the middle of a housing crisis which was brought on by loans to people who shouldn't have been buying houses in the first place, is adding more government loans a good idea?
A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
A new reporting requirement for ALL public companies which we can all pay for in the higher cost of goods! I can't wait!
What does she think companies do when they are impacted by "climate change"? They increase their prices to cover their costs. So we need companies to comply with a new government regulation for what reason?
Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.
A new government agency! Woohoo!
Seriously, there isn't an existing government agency to handle whatever it is she wants the NEC to do?
JOHN McCAIN
One thing I like about McCain's issues statement on the environment is that it is light on details. He basically says we have to maintain a strong economy first, which I agree with 100%. He also mentions using more nuclear power, with which I also agree.
A speech he made on April 23rd of last year provides a lot of the details his issue statement is missing:
Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas, and other technologies are all promising and available alternatives to oil. I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I've never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn't rather compete for sales than subsidies.
...I want to improve and make permanent the research and development tax credit. I want to spend less money on government bureaucracies, and, where the private sector isn't moving out of regulatory fear, to form the partnerships necessary to build demonstration models of promising new technologies such as advanced nuclear power plants, coal gasification, carbon capture and storage, and renewable power so we can take maximum advantage of our most abundant resources.
It is safe to say he plans to leave it up to the free markets to decide how we handle this problem, with a little bit of help from tax breaks.
The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We've let the fears of thirty years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting.
Cutting BACK on government regulation? Can he do that?
Probably not, but it is refreshing to hear a politician say it.
BARACK OBAMA
All three candidates promote "cap and trade" systems. Obama's is a little different:
Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
In other words, a tax on companies which sell their allowances. It is unclear how much the tax will be.
Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
...Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
...Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
...Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
More government spending. He has more ideas of different ways to spend government money in a lot of different areas, but no specific energy direction. From biofuels to solar to wind to others, he hits all of them with our tax dollars.
Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Aside from the spending aspect of this, is he SURE we can get this done in 5 years?
Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
I will give Obama some credit for mentioning geothermal as a possibility. Of all possible energy sources, we really don't hear much about geothermal.
Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
This sounds good on the surface, but is a lot more difficult in practice.
Coal energy is derived from the carbon in coal. Low carbon coal provides less energy. Therefore, you have to burn more low carbon coal in order to get the same amount of energy as you would from high carbon coal.
The problem is NOT the coal, but HOW we burn it to produce energy.
SUMMARY
The three candidates show some marked contrasts in energy/environmental policies. As expected, McCain is the farthest from the other two, in that he plans to leave most of it to the free market. Obama wants to spend, spend, spend. Clinton wants to spend too, but she seems to rely on government regulation a bit more than Obama.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
John "Kerry" McCain
There is a good editorial in the Wall Street Journal today by Kevin Stach about John McCain's fiscal record.
There is an interesting tidbit about the infamous Bush tax cuts which McCain voted against:
In other words, McCain voted for it before he voted against it. But I guess we won't hear him saying that.
There is an interesting tidbit about the infamous Bush tax cuts which McCain voted against:
"In 2001, with the bitter primary battle still fresh, Mr. McCain voted against the final Bush tax-cut package. Why would he deviate from a pro-growth, tax-cutting position, built up over 17 years in Congress and dozens of votes, even after running on a tax-cut plan himself in 2000?
Mr. McCain's protest that he wanted spending cuts to accompany the Bush tax cuts has persuaded few conservatives. But what is not remembered is that, two weeks earlier, Mr. McCain voted to approve the final version of the Budget Resolution -- the blueprint used by congressional committees for spending and tax bills -- which included $1.35 trillion in tax cuts (the Bush proposal) coupled with a $661 billion cap on discretionary spending. When the promised spending cap never materialized, Mr. McCain denounced the wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending that he felt jeopardized the budget, and lodged the now famous protest vote against the tax cuts."
In other words, McCain voted for it before he voted against it. But I guess we won't hear him saying that.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Primary Endorsement
Today, I voted for John McCain.
I know my blog buddy Myrhaf would object to my selection. While I would agree with Myrhaf that McCain is not the best choice, he IS the best choice available among the major candidates from both parties.
In choosing McCain, I had to first look at my own political values. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative. I want the government to take less of my money and be more frugal about how they spend it. Of all the candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who is, and has always been, a fiscal conservative.
McCain has been "porkbusting" since before his failed 2000 presidential campaign. Even though McCain has since said he was wrong, he was at least against the Bush tax cuts for a good reason. Most importantly, McCain was against the Bush Medicare fiasco for one simple reason: we didn't have the money for it.
What about the current economic stimulus package? As Bill Barker pointed out in the comments section over at Ragged Thots:
To this I respond: Are there EVER circumstances where our government should borrow money? I am sure most of us would agree that war is one of those circumstances. What about an economic recession? I can only speak for myself, but pulling money out of the government and giving it back to the public during economic hard times seems like a smart thing to do. (Pulling it out of the government permenantly is even smarter, but that's another topic.)
According to some economists (from an article at CNNMoney.com), we are already in a recession. The last time we were in a recession, the government used a similar economic stimulus package, and it worked quite well. Even a fiscal conservative such as myself has to defer to history where it shows that government spending CAN be effective. In this case, I tip my hat to our government, and I applaud McCain for also being willing to stifle his fiscal conservatism in the face of needed government spending.
All in all, McCain is still the best choice. Romney and Huckabee are nowhere close to fiscal conservatism. And don't even consider using the word "conservative" in any context related to Clinton or Obama.
That said, I still reserve the right to change my pick in November.
I know my blog buddy Myrhaf would object to my selection. While I would agree with Myrhaf that McCain is not the best choice, he IS the best choice available among the major candidates from both parties.
In choosing McCain, I had to first look at my own political values. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative. I want the government to take less of my money and be more frugal about how they spend it. Of all the candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who is, and has always been, a fiscal conservative.
McCain has been "porkbusting" since before his failed 2000 presidential campaign. Even though McCain has since said he was wrong, he was at least against the Bush tax cuts for a good reason. Most importantly, McCain was against the Bush Medicare fiasco for one simple reason: we didn't have the money for it.
What about the current economic stimulus package? As Bill Barker pointed out in the comments section over at Ragged Thots:
...but I do have a problem - a lack of respect - for anyone who would simply ignore McCain's support of this $150-billion mainly middle class giveaway using borrowed (with interest due!) money for the largess by a man who you claim to support mainly because he's supposedly a budget hawk.
To this I respond: Are there EVER circumstances where our government should borrow money? I am sure most of us would agree that war is one of those circumstances. What about an economic recession? I can only speak for myself, but pulling money out of the government and giving it back to the public during economic hard times seems like a smart thing to do. (Pulling it out of the government permenantly is even smarter, but that's another topic.)
According to some economists (from an article at CNNMoney.com), we are already in a recession. The last time we were in a recession, the government used a similar economic stimulus package, and it worked quite well. Even a fiscal conservative such as myself has to defer to history where it shows that government spending CAN be effective. In this case, I tip my hat to our government, and I applaud McCain for also being willing to stifle his fiscal conservatism in the face of needed government spending.
All in all, McCain is still the best choice. Romney and Huckabee are nowhere close to fiscal conservatism. And don't even consider using the word "conservative" in any context related to Clinton or Obama.
That said, I still reserve the right to change my pick in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)