Jeff Sessions Shows Hypocrisy On Spending

JeffWartman.com ^ | 02/01/2009 | Jeff Wartman

[wartman]

Jeff Sessions, appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, attempted to explain his opposition to the Obama stimulus plan by stating that, “I don’t think we need to saddle future generations with 1.2 trillion of debt.”

He’s right. It’s wrong to saddle future generations with huge amounts of debt.

Yet it was Senator Jeff Sessions who was giving a rubber stamp to the Bush spending bills that added over 5 trillion dollars to the national debt. Where was Senator Sessions’ outrage when this runway spending was occuring under the Great Spender, George W. Bush?

I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath.

[napscoordinator]

Yieks. What a story. Why are they throwing that in Sessions face? First of all it was a different time and second he was a Republican with a Republican President. I think this is unfair especially coming from Fox News.

[GOP_Lady]

We were/are in the middle of the WOT.

This spending by the dems this time is NOT the same.

[edcoil]

We have a dem here in CA that voted against everything Bush wanted and has voted for everything O wants.

Fox is becoming unwatchable.

[napscoordinator]

Good point that I foolishly forgot.

[wartman]

We were/are in the middle of the WOT.

This spending by the dems this time is NOT the same.

This statement is FALSE.

Bush increased discretionary entitlement spending more than any other President in HISTORY. Much of the new debt is NCLB, Medicare, and other social programs.

[GinaLolaB]

I wish Jeff Sessions was President. Why oh why can’t we have a good president? We keep getting idiots for the presidency.

[Darkwolf377]

While the basic point is fine, this is the trap the libs are counting on—”I voted for overspending before, so now I have to overspend forever in order to be consistent.”

Sessions should just explain his change in position. No big deal. Or live with the idea that there are a lot of smug folks out there who will repeat this kind of thing at every barbecue from now on.

[italianquaker]

The past is the past and stop the spending now. I applaud him for starting now

[Gator113]

“We were/are in the middle of the WOT.”

That’s always left out of the equation. If I explain why it’s left out, I’ll ruin my breakfast, so I won’t bother.

[wartman]

Did you miss the economic numbers of the entitlement spending under Bush? (Medicare, Transportation bill, NCLB, etc.)

His record is on par with LBJ spending.

Pathetic, pathetic excuse for “limited government”

It’s sad, really.

[GOP_Lady]

I'm sorry, I meant to post my comment to #1 (ALL), not you, naps. While I agree that over the past 6 years spending grew and grew and grew, we are/were in the middle of the WOT. The spending the dems want to do now is nothing but a huge, huge, huge “wish list” that will forever change our great country and saddle us with debt for far too many years to come.

[GOP_Lady]

Yeah. I know what you mean. Sorry I brought that up.

[napscoordinator]

No problem. I am still glad that you reminded all of us on that. lol.

[wartman]

saddle us with debt for far too many years to come.

Yet you're responsible for five times that amount in debt our children will be responsible for.

How does it feel?

[BobL]

I agree, it looks like we have a kook here.

As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.

The real disappointment was Bush losing touch with the base.

And what is the alternative, elect another conservative who, almost-certainly, would also yield to a future Republican President...or elect a Democrat?

Let me guess, we need Ron Paul.

[GOP_Lady]

Me? I’m not in Congress. I’m just a measly member of the GOP is all.

[wartman]

As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.

So you're saying that party loyalty is more important than doing the right thing.

That's the difference. You want to elect Republicans who will mindlessly vote with the party. I want to elect Republicans who will cut taxes decrease entitlement spending, and make inroads towards paying down the debt so that our children can have a better life.

Bush decided he wanted to run up the credit cards and give the bills to our kids.

[GOP_Lady]

A very nice blog you have there, wartman.

Lots of luck to you in Illinois.

[Southern Partisan]

I watched FNS this morning and didn’t see my Senator. Did I doze off?