Posted on 03/03/2009 10:27:47 AM PST by cc2k
What happened to all McCain’s “bipartisan buddies” that he has supported over the years??? /sarc
See #35 above ...
I think it’s time to level Washington and start over, term limits for everyone, and a background check to check for socialistic tendencies.
The crap for the airports, and the schools is just that crap.
Wetumpka airport for example might see 2 maybe 3 planes come and go on a given day, they have no tower to speak of and yet they now have a terminal.
Providing funds so small volunteer fire departments can replace old equipment benefits everyone and lives up to the whole “provide for the general welfare of the United States” as cited in Section 8 unlike resurfacing runways and building terminals at airports that are used by less than 1% of the local population.
He’s running for re election....Tried to organize a group of senators into a “blue dog” type group before Christmas. Was the last to vote on the Porulus bill in hopes that his vote wasn’t needed....
OR....He’s heard we’re starting out “Bye Bye Bayh” campaign.
62 to 33?
Isn’t that about what McLame lost the election by?
When someone is always shaking your hand while stabbing you in the back, I guess you just say "thanks for the handshake... again.". I would say "hey, how about not sticking that knife in my back"... again. McCain would just say "my friend, lets find a bipartisan way to make handshaking illegal".
No offense taken if none was meant.
Not everyone is untrustworthy in DC. I trust DeMint,Pence, Ensign, and a few others. But trusting doesn’t mean that we cede our engagement in the process. We are the overseers of our liberty. They are our employees regardless of which state they hail from.
What does the actual work of politics take? Have you ever considered it? Making alliances and cutting deals is the nature of business, relationships, friendships, and politics. It’s human nature. Not all of them are out for their own advancement and power. The Constitution limits damage because it acknowledges its existence.
So do you agree that it would have been a good thing if spending were limited?
I have no problem with public funding for these items, however I am of the belief that if the FedGov quit acting like the rich uncle and left these items to the individual states then they would cost less.
When federal funding is involved the administrative burden just to release funds is on the order of 30% - so you are getting 70 cents on the dollar for the investment - add to that the additional administrative and oversight costs that go with federal projects and you further decrease the value of the investment.
Another other issue I have with these earmark type projects is that federal funding process is inherently corrupt - you vote for my project and I vote for yours.
Lastly - any project that cannot withstand the spotlight of public committee hearings and votes should be assumed NOT worthy of federal dollars.
He didn’t vote to hold the line because he has made promises and announced funding that he would then have to retract. It’s purely political and is a great example of why there are so many FORMER (R) congress-critters sitting at home these days.
Specter (R-PA)
LOL! Spector out RINOs McCain!
That is a very stupid question, but hey at this point it doesn't matter one bit does it, as it will be our children and grand children that pays for it! and that's only if the economy last longer than a few more years.
Politicians need to account for their ENTIRE career not just a couple of well thought out and positioned votes, Please... just get out of the way and the rest of us will do the cleaning... Principles do not take vacations, people can ignore them but in that case you will get exactly what the GOP in getting!
I disagree with this whole “if you live in their states” thing. Call them after hours and leave a message. They won’t know you don’t live there. It is the volume of calls that count. I sometimes call 15 or 20 pols in a single evening.
river rat wrote:
|
There was hope for this amendment. And it's not entirely McCain's problem. If this had hit 42 or 43 votes (all Republicans plus Bayh and McCaskill, I really think it would have gone over 50. The Dems don't want a fight on this one. That was an opportunity for the Republicans to get something. Unfortunately, they caved in and just gave the Dems everything and no fight.
There's plenty of blame for McConnel as Republican Leader. He was off message yesterday, talking about a short continuing resolution and hearings for all this FY2009 spending.
And who is the Whip now, anyway. Lots of blame there. This was a total failure for the Whip. Is that Kyl now? I can't even say for sure.
The Senate is the only hope the Republicans have. And they need a stronger leader and a much more determined Whip if they hope to accomplish anything. Otherwise, maybe they should just go home.
“And why’d Shelby vote NO?”
Probably to force the budget cockroaches into the sunlight as early as possible for all to see.
I’m so tired of being “represented” by Arlen Specter and Bob Casey . . .
Let’s get the Dems, too.
What exactly was the McCain Amendment?
Vigilanteman wrote:
|
This would have had the effect of freezing spending at FY2008 levels, and it would have meant that no appropriations bills would have been needed for FY 2009. They could move on to the Pres__ent's FY 2010 budget.
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.