Posted on 02/07/2008 3:00:12 AM PST by moderate_conservative
MISSISSIPPI'S top two Re publicans took sharply dif ferent views of Sen. John McCain as he moved toward the presidential nomination.
Gov. Haley Barbour went on the Fox News Channel as returns came in Tuesday to suggest the time was near to stop the contest and accept McCain as the winner. A few days earlier, Sen. Thad Cochran declared that McCain wasn't fit to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
McCain brandishes a crucifix in the face of his party's earmarking Draculas. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the intrepid anti-pork crusader who has a 100 percent ACU record, has endorsed McCain. While House and Senate Republican leaders have fudged on earmarks, McCain says flatly that as president he'll veto any bill containing earmarks. That pleases rank-and-file conservative voters, who are told by radio talkers that McCain is no better than Hillary Clinton.
PING!
ping
For sure, the base won't work for or give contributions to McCain.
Earmarks have nothing to do with it.
It’s AMNESTY, GANG OF 14, 1st AMENDMENT, 2ND AMENDMENT, AND BEING TO THE LEFT OF HIS GOOD BUDDIES, KENNEDY, KERRY, FEINGOLD, LIEBERMAN, ETC.
Sorry McCain but I am done voting for the person with an ‘R’, from now on they actually need to be a conservative.
McCain Misses Key Vote on Stimulus Package -- Or Did He?
He did, and I wonder how the people paying his salary feel about McCain deciding he only has to vote when he thinks he needs to?
And a BTW, from the link....
In fact, in the 110th Congress, out of 450 votes, McCain missed 56.7% of them.
the stimulus plan is a joke.
True. But McCain’s gutlessness in refusing to vote is not even remotely funny.
He has earmarked over $88 million for Army Corps of Engineers projects in the Yazoo Basin, including $10 million for a flood-control plan opposed by environmentalists.Does everyone actually understand how earmarks work? They aren't "off budget". They represent funds that have been allocated by congress, usually to some federal agency. All the earmark does is direct a portion of those funds to a specific project.
In the example cited above (the details of which I know nothing), it's quite possible that the flood-control plan was a good one, that the agency that received congressional funding is run by leftists who wouldn't know a good flood-control plan from a day-old bagel and that the earmark forced a bunch of idiots to get off their lazy butts and actually put in an honest day's work.
It's possible. I don't know this case, but it might be that way. The thing about earmarks is they are a way for congress to direct specific projects within agencies. Sometimes for the bad, I'm sure, but quite possibly sometimes for the good.
When it comes to "wasteful spending" I'm absolutely certain that the federal agencies have just as high a probability of flushing money down the toilet as do the congresscritters with their earmarks.
It's all the same money, just two different groups of socialist buffoons.
I'm not defending earmarks. I'm just saying that "earmark" is not synonymous with "wasteful spending".
You can have wasteful spending without earmarks and in some cases some earmarks might actually be a good thing.
it is Thad Cochran who is the real rino, the real threat to conservatives. They have to hold the line on spending!!!!
Cochran knows Romney loves govt spending and corporate welfare so he’s on his side.
he’s in the middle of a presidential campaign.
I had noticed that. :)
So?
do you think congress should micromanage the federal agencies? Say, I’m in charge of an agency. I am responsible for it and create a budget from the top down. But then you have congress come along and try to stick things into it from the bottom up. That’s no way to run anything.
so it is hard to campaign and vote at the same time
Well at least you got that much correct.
He was in DC at the time, dude. And Obama and Hillie managed to make it to the floor.
Let’s go to their records, to the very time-period opponents of Senator McCain cite in their indictment of him.
McCain voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year, Clinton didn’t and would likely expand Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding.
McCain voted to ban partial-birth abortion, Clinton didn’t and would likely reverse the partial-birth abortion ban.
McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and made the case for them in the media, Clinton didn’t.
McCain has never voted for a tax increase, Clinton will increase taxes.
McCain will continue the Bush tax cuts, Clinton will end them.
McCain will end pork-barrel spending, Clinton supports the endowment of projects like the Woodstock Museum with taxpayer funding.
McCain will not cut and run in Iraq, Clinton will work with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid to do just that.
Besides:
McCain sponsored legislation to keep the Fairness Doctrine from rearing its head again, Clinton has not and has signaled moves to revive it.
McCain supports school choice, Clinton does not.
No, sale!
You will finish to vote McCain, for suuuure. Thank you in advance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.