A McCain Voter's View of Today's Events
 

I must say that even though I voted for McCain, I can't help but be excited but the fact that if nothing else we now have a President that you don't cringe every time he takes the mic, thinking that he (Bush) will say something so stupid it will make the country look even dumber than we did last time he spoke.

Obama can give an incredible speech, inspiring words and if nothing else that is an improvment by leaps and bounds over Bush. My fear is that he has been built up so much that it will take a lot for him not to be viewed as a failure, so we will see but today was at the very least a good starting point.

I was worried that with all the media hype about how amazing and earth-shattering his speech would be that I would only be disappointed by it. I was pleasantly surprised.

My uncle, a self proclaimed "traditional" conservative, said essentially the same thing to be on Sunday. I must say that I appreciate cautious optimism coming from centrists and conservatives in response to President Obama. Your willingness to be open to the possibility that he could be a good president gives me hope about a reduction in divisive, partisan politics.

In the spirit of (honest) good will, let me say that while Bush wasn't a very good president, there have been great conservative presidents and great Republican presidents, and there will be to come.

I'd say the last couple years were bottom and now up is the only way to go.

(to Will)

Bush would have been a terrible president no matter what party he represented. The man's just not very bright.

And in reality, there is a great deal of difference between a true Republican, and the crooks who have been disguising themselves as Republicans for the last 30 years.
A true republican is fiscally conservative and pro business without expecting that all other considerations should be dismissed in favor of whatever corporations want. The neo-conservatives (who are not conservative at all) who've been in power since 1980 are fiscally irresponsible and put the interest of the corporation before the interest of We The People. I still have hope that the Republican party will return to thinking more along the lines of the party's roots.

But then I also have hope that the democrats will do their damn jobs instead of wimping out when the pressure gets turned up. Call me a hopeless optimist ;)

I thought Obama's speech was, typically, excellent. It would be interesting to get inside his head today. The mixture of emotions must be insane. Pride and excitement, obviously, but probably also a great deal of nervousness at the mammoth task he has ahead of him.

This idea strikes me as two things: a no true Scotsman fallacy and a semantic discussion on what constitutes a conservative or Republican. I mean Bush is Republican. We can't shy away from that point. And as far as many were/are concerned, he's conservative. Do I think he's conservative? Not according to my historical understanding of the word, but my opinion is hardly an objective fact.

Years ago (over 4 years), I started a thread about what constituted a conservative. It didn't go well. Immediately, people lashed out that conservative was just a word; a meaningless title. They were missing my point entirely, which I suspect is the point you're trying to make.

the definition of the word conservative cannot be debated. it's in the dictionary. When you pair it with the word "fiscal," itself a word who's definition cannot be debated, and then claim to represent the attributes of that phrase, then it would be wise of you not to cut your income while increasing your spending to historically epic proportions, lest someone point out that you're not a conservative at all ;)

It's so inspiring to read that (even) conservative, right-wing Republican types are feeling more hopeful after hearing the swearing in acceptance speech by our 44th President Obama.

Maybe there's hope for us in the United States. However, the first 100 days are going to be quite interesting, not to mention extremely tough for him, and as most of the common people have said, "Let's hope he can find a some good solutions to a few huge problems created by his predecessor(s)".

I hope & pray that he stays safe and totally grounded and ready to lead the USA into better days for all of us!

Great to hear, but did you vote for Bush?

The first time yes, I did. As a Texans he did some good things here and didn't come accross as the complete idiot he turned out to be, for the second term due to some personal and health issues I did not vote. it did not help that I did not want to vote for either person.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, MY opinion, this president will have the toughest 100 days of any in memory. The nation is in the economic toilet, we are in a military position that will be tough to get out of. I do not envy Obama at all he has a tough road ahead of him, and for my own sake and the sake of the country I hope he is up to it.

I will say this, and it's the truth.

If Obama can kick Pelosi in the ass and put legislation in action to end earmarks... I will vote for him the next go round. It was the small glimmer of hope after she took over that she promised it'd happen. All she did was increase pork.

That's right... if he can pass that one piece of legislation that ends earmarks I'll vote Democrat for the first time in history.

The earmark boogymen strike again.....the one percent of the budget that drives everyone crazy!

When federal dollars flow back to communities for specific local projects at the request of state/local officials...that is an earmark.

All earmarks are not bad!

IMO, the "end earmarks" rhetoric is a great campaign slogan, but bad public policy. I want some of my federal dollars coming back to my community for projects that need funding beyong the capability of the local government.

Reform the earmark process - yes. End all earmarks - no!

beat me to it. if you end earmarks, then say goodbye to things like monuments, parks, special programs, etc. for your community. the earmarks are abused by some, but that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The argument is not about worthwhile projects. If a project is worth funding with public money, it should be worth publicly debating. The earmarks that concern me are those pet projects that are secretly inserted into the 1000 page U.S. budget. If a project has merit, why hide it? All I want is some transparency.

Earmarks are NOT parks and services. Those can be voted on and justified on their own grounds.

Earmarks are the $50million dollars in pig subsidies or the preverbial bridge to no-where which get attached to Armor for Troops bills.

If you vote against the earmark you're forced into opposing armor protection for troops, so you oppose the troops and want them to die (which will be stated in the next election cycle).

If the funding for local projects deserves to be passed then it can be debated and voted on in separate terms like the founding fathers intended... not spit-stuck like a post-it note on the Mona Lisa.

This.

Seaver nailed it.

you make good points, but do you want Congress to be debating every single project that someone wants to put forward? How many worthwhile projects will get ditched because there isn't time or energy to propose it?

I think allowing the President line-item veto power is a better solution than "banning" earmarks

Aladdin and Seaver...you have bought into the rhetoric.

There is no such thing as a 1000 page US budget that is reviewed, adopted and signed as one piece of legislation...and most (over 95%) earmarks are not inserted into supplement war funding (Armor for Troops) bills.

The vast majority of earmarks (by the most commonly accepted definition) are for projects requested by a state/local official and included in one of the 13 annual appropriation bills by the member of Congress from that state/district and reviewed by the respective House/Senate committee for that particular appropriation bill. These are all reasonably transparent, if you have the time and interest. Members are generally required to submit their earmark requests in appropriation bills at least 2 days in advance of a floor vote as a result of the earmark reform enacted by the Democratic Congress in 2007.. The "reform" doesnt go far enough, but it was a step in the right direction for transparency.

A relatively small number of earmarks (about 5% by most estimates) are of the "midnight" variety that show up in supplemental bills (bills for emergency funding that was not anticipated in the appropriation process) at the point past committee review. I agree these should be eliminated, but they are such a small number of all earmarks that it is more hype than substance.

-----Added 21/1/2009 at 11 : 52 : 16-----
Explanation of earmarks from the Congressional Research Service:
Banning all earmarks is feel good rhetoric, not good public policy.

Yes... I do. It'd help starve the hog feeding off our tables. If something is to be added into effect then it should be debated and voted on. If it doesn't get passed, maybe those local projects should be debated and voted on at the local level? The Fed is not the end-all of government and should never have become it.

Just do me a favor. If it's so "not-an-issue" look up the amor-for-troops bill (I'm stepping out in a min so I can't). Look up how many earmarks are attached to it... it's a fucking christmas tree where everyone stacked on pet-projects because everyone knew there'd be no one opposing it (or political suicide).

Seaver...I dont know how many different ways to say it. Eliminating all earmarks is feel good rhetoric, but bad public policy.

Earmarks are overblown "as an issue"...they represent about 1% of the federal budget. That is a fact.

Most earmarrks are not in supplemental war spending bills but are in regular approrpriation bills and go through the regular appropriations process. That is a fact.

And most earmarks in those bills must now be published at least 2 days in advance of a floor vote as a result of the Demcratic earmark reform in 07. Another fact.

More earmark reform beyond the Democratic reform of 07 (the first in 12 years,btw) is still needed. Eliminating all earmarks is jut plain stupid.

-----Added 22/1/2009 at 10 : 40 : 13-----

Line Item Veto? NOt for me and it is currently unconsittutional and would require a Constitutional Amendment.

It puts too much budgetary power in the hands of the president, when the Constitution specifrically gives that power to Congress.

Imagine what Bush would have done with a line item veto? NOt a pretty thought for alternative energy funding, food stamp funding, community development funding, etc....all programs that he complained were over fundied but had to accept because they were in larger appropriation bills that he wanted.

Regardless of what you say Dux... it's a major issue for me.

I think bad policy is allowing people to put forth un-needed pet projects which would otherwise never stand the light of day. Regardless of how often it's used, each time it's used is a mockery of the purpose of Congress.

Seaver...we ageee on the need for more transparency and more comprehensive earmark reform.

The Democratic bill that as enacted last session (S.1 - see subtitle B - Earmark Reform) doesnt go far enough, but it serves as a good start..or at least the best attempt in the last 15 years.

BTW, McCain (since this is his thread) and 13 other Republicans voted against it because it "didnt go far enough"....evidently they preferred no loaf over half a loaf.

[QUOTE=Earmarks are the $50million dollars in pig subsidies or the preverbial bridge to no-where which get attached to Armor for Troops bills.[/QUOTE]


As a former resident of the bridge to no-where town, Ketchikan Alaska. I must say, before you go off on this tangent you look at the facts. That bridge was promised years ago by the federal government to save money in the building of the airport itself. I was not in favor of this option but facts are facts.