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:
...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.

18 comments:

William R. Barker said...

Oh, Ed... it's so sad to see people (you, whom I consider a cyberfriend, in this case) twist themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible.

I know... I know... I can't expect to hold others to my own standards of honor, integrity, and intellectual honesty... but damn it - it still disappoints me everytime such pessimistic thinking is proven right.. as in this case.

"Are there EVER circumstances where our government should borrow money?"

Oh, please, Ed... be wrong if you must, but don't be disengenuous. (*SADLY SHAKING MY HEAD*) Of COURSE there are times when government - or individuals - should borrow money. But that's not what we're talking about here, Ed - and you damn well know it - which is why I'm so literally sickened to see you build one strawman after another in a failed effort to "defend" your "logic."

The NORM is government deficit spending. At least the norm during the Bush years. This additional deficit spending/federal debt isn't by any stretch of the imagination "emergency spending." It's a cynical bribe offered by both Parties (using OUR money!) in an effort to buy votes for each Party's respective incumbants who they hope will be "credited" with the largess. Beyond that... beyond motivation... on those rare occasions where the MSM actually does address the ECONOMICS of the proposal... even most Keynesian (who aren't exactly known for worrying about deficit) economists who don't have a huge problem with the stimulus package based upon its negatives don't seem enthusiastic that its positives - it's hoped for stimulus effect - will work in any meaningful way.

Yeah, Ed... (*SADLY SHAKING MY HEAD*... you call what you're doing "speaking for yourself." You're right. You are speaking for yourself. You're grasping at straws and trying to justify - AFTER THE FACT - this spending of borrowed money policy that no one who knows you would ever believe YOU would have come up with yourself OR supported if it had been the idea of the Democrats and OPPOSED by the Republicans - McCain in particular. (*EXHALE OF DISGUST*)

Anyway, Ed... if it doesn't matter to you whether someone like me respects you or not... well... (*SMILE*) That's the bottom line, Ed; it's not that I believe we simply have an honest difference of opinion here, it's that I believe you're being dishonest - hopefully not on purpose... hopefully dishonest to others because you're being dishonest with yourself.

BILL

EdMcGon said...

The NORM is government deficit spending. At least the norm during the Bush years.

Bill,
McCain has blasted Congress for the excessive spending over and over again.

Of COURSE there are times when government - or individuals - should borrow money. But that's not what we're talking about here, Ed - and you damn well know it - which is why I'm so literally sickened to see you build one strawman after another in a failed effort to "defend" your "logic."

Keep in mind that I am NOT only addressing you, but others who might agree with you. Hence I have to consider all possible aspects of how someone like you (but not necessarily you) might come to their position.

As for the stimulus package, I have one simple question to you: Did the last time work when our government tried this?

Granted, there are underlying issues which our government still needs to correct in order to fix the economy. These issues are causing our problems, yet no one (and I include all of our elected officials AND everyone currently running for president) has a solution for those underlying issues, nor do they seem interested in even attempting to fix them. While all our politicians will claim to have a fix, nothing I've heard so far will work. Most of it is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (or as the Democrats would propose in that metaphor, "go faster!").

Is McCain the solution? Nope. Is he the lesser of ALL the evils? Yep. This is why I still reserve the right to choose another candidate to support for president in November. I fully expect to see another choice or two on the ballot in November. But if McCain is still the lesser of all the evils in November, I can at least accept him as an alternative to Hillary/Obama.

I don't trust Huckabee, and Romney is not an option. Feel free to explain to me why either of these guys is so much better than McCain? We can sit here and point out flaws in McCain all day. But when it comes down to it, McCain has an upside that neither Huckabee nor Romney has. That upside is the fiscal conservatism, which your example of the economic stimulus bill does NOTHING to change.

William R. Barker said...

Ed,

Repeating *PART* of my own argument back at me while ignoring the larger truth simply reinforces my fear that *SUBSTANCE* matters less to you than style. For example...

"Bill, McCain has blasted Congress for the excessive spending over and over again."

Yes, Ed. *WORDS.* McCain tends on budget issues to *SAY* the right things. However, when push comes to shove and he has a chance to back his supposed convictions with actions... well... (*SMIRK*)... what's he do? He rushes to sign on to a $150-billion middle class givaway using borrowed money.

Ed. You're not stupid - I know that; but, damn... you're thick as a frigg'n brick.

McCain has been on the Hill, first as a Congressman, then as a Senator, for over two decades now. Yes, he has a great record of *TALKING* about fiscal discipline, but actually *CUTTING* spending and *VOTING AGAINST NEW PROGRAMS*... at worst he's a phoney and at best he's been an ineffective advocate for fiscal discipline.

(Remember, Ed... *BUSH* talked a good game too. *LOTT* and *DELAY* talked a good game too. You need to look at what people *DO,* not just what they *SAY* they'd *LIKE* to do.)

McCain's either a phoney or an idiot - perhaps both. What do I base this on? First... the Bush tax cuts that made *SENSE* at the time they were proposed (and in fact probably saved this economy after 9/11)... McCain *OPPOSED* them. On the other hand... today's supposed "stimulus" package which is at *BEST* wasteful and in large part a bribe to the *MIDDLE CLASS* (I thought people like us were *AGAINST* expanding middle class entitlements, Ed...???) has McCain's *SUPPORT!* Yes... effective tax cuts McCain *OPPOSED," while inflationary debt incurring deficit raising middle class entitlements McCain *FAVORS.* And that's your idea of a fiscal conservative...???

"As for the stimulus package, I have one simple question to you: Did the last time work when our government tried this?"

*NO* you frigg'n... (*BITING MY TONGUE*) (*STARTING OVER*)

*NO* my friend... it didn't. Economists are pretty much in accord on that. (See... THIS is why I always suggest people pay more attention to the POLICY issues than the POLITICAL chatter. You learn more things!)

Anyway, Ed... this is getting a bit long. I'll end here. (For now!) (*GRIN*)

BILL

William R. Barker said...

"Granted, there are underlying issues which our government still needs to correct..."

Ya mean like... DEFICITS? DEBT? A SINKING DOLLAR? INFLATION? BIGGER GOVERNMENT? AN ENDANGERED NATIONAL CREDIT RATING? INDEBTEDNESS TO NATIONS LIKE CHINA WHICH AT BEST DON'T HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART?

Well, Ed... buddy... pal... (*EYES ROLLING*)... what this McCain supported "stimulus" package does is *INCREASE* rather than decrease all of these underlying negatives!!!

(This is why I get so damned frustrated with you, Ed; it doesn't take an MBA from Wharton to understand this stuff - it's pretty frigg'n simple.)

"These issues are causing our problems, yet no one (and I include all of our elected officials AND everyone currently running for president) has a solution for those underlying issues, nor do they seem interested in even attempting to fix them."

Ron Paul offers solutions. (*SMILE*) (*SHRUG*) (But yeah... in terms of "politically viable," none of these clowns running are *OUR* idea of the perfect - or anywhere near perfect - candidate. It's just that McCain is *SO* full of shit that he makes Romney look good!)

"Is McCain the solution? Nope. Is he the lesser of ALL the evils? Yep."

You think so; I don't; therefore... you're wrong. (*GRIN*) No... seriously... YOU'RE WRONG ED!!! At least Romney has made it clear he wouldn't have proposed this stimulus package and he's made it clear why... (because he UNDERSTANDS the economics at play here and UNDERSTANDS the package will do more harm than good!) McCain is an economic halfwit! Seriously! The guy doesn't understand economics!!! All he has going for him fiscally is his reputation as a deficit hawk... BUT... as we've gone over ad nauseum... "reputation" is all it is - in reality he's as willing as any of 'em to use *OUR* money to attempt to bribe *US* to support *HIM.* No, Ed... McCain will be a continuation of Bush... without the good judicial picks!!!

Sure. Romney has flip-flopped. Romney is a far cry from Reagan. But if we know Romney has a history of flip-flopping as opposed to knowing McCain is flip-flopping AS WE SPEAK... well... then with neither man totally "trustworthy" I say we support the guy who at least is promising *NOW* to do the right things. A President McCain would "f--k" us on immigration... he'd "f--k" us on appointing judges... he'll be "Bush #3."

"This is why I still reserve the right to choose another candidate to support for president in November. I fully expect to see another choice or two on the ballot in November."

Ed, the problem with that "logic" is that even if it comes to pass... any "third" candidate would most likely AID the Dem candidate by taking more votes away from the GOP candidate. (*SIGH*)

"I don't trust Huckabee..."

Ditto.

"...and Romney is not an option."

YES HE IS, ED! Or at least he should be.

"Feel free to explain to me..."

Been there; done that. It goes in one ear and out the other. (*SHRUG*)

"...McCain has an upside that neither Huckabee nor Romney has. That upside is the fiscal conservatism..."

Ed... repeat the mantra all you want, but as I've demonstrated... (*SHRUG*)... when push comes to shove all it is is a matra. It's words, Ed... words to fool people like you. But hey... if it gives you comfort to accept a false premise... (*SHRUG*)

BILL

Rodak said...

Ed--
I have to think that if the economy is your main concern, and you must vote GOP, then Romney would be your man. He has been a business executive, and a governor, and he is credited with having "saved" the L.A. Olympics. He has a track record there. As POTUS he could afford to be much more fiscally conservative than he was as Gov. of a generally liberal state.
I think that you really like McCain because he's a warmonger.

EdMcGon said...

He rushes to sign on to a $150-billion middle class givaway using borrowed money.

Bill,
I love how you pick one bill, which I happen to agree with, as an example of a bill McCain should NOT have voted for, while ignoring the dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of bloated budget busting bills which McCain has voted against. If you want to convince me, show me something McCain voted for which was an example of wasteful spending. Otherwise you're "barkering" up the wrong tree. ;)

Yes, he has a great record of *TALKING* about fiscal discipline, but actually *CUTTING* spending and *VOTING AGAINST NEW PROGRAMS*... at worst he's a phoney and at best he's been an ineffective advocate for fiscal discipline.

Feel free to provide examples of this. Otherwise you're talking out your ass on this issue.

I also find it ironic that you bash McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts (for which he also wanted spending restraints, and has since admitted he was wrong), yet you also bash McCain for his support of the economic stimulus package? It's called learning from your past mistakes. Frankly, I'm glad to see that McCain can do that, even at his age.

As for Romney, he is not even a consideration in my mind. I could probably do a whole post explaining why I will not vote for a Mormon (and I might if not for the fact Romney is dropping out of the race, making the point moot).

EdMcGon said...

Rodak,
While I agree with McCain's viewpoint on Iraq, he is not the only Republican candidate with that view, so it really isn't a disqualifier.

Truth be told, I don't think Hillary would get us out of Iraq. She's dancing around the topic trying to pull the Left's vote now, but don't be surprised if she doesn't start sounding like McCain in the general election.

My prediction? We will still be in Iraq in 2012, regardless of who gets elected.

Rodak said...

Ed--
Probably so. But not necessarily with combat troops, on the ground, in this cities.

William R. Barker said...

"Bill, I love how you pick one bill..."

Nice try, Ed. (*SMILE*) What I did was give you a perfect example of the disconnect between McCain's rhetoricial "fiscal conservatism" vs. his hypocritical support for a bill which is a HUGE NEW MIDDLE CLASS GIVAWAY using BORROWED MONEY.

But worse... and far more disturbing since I'd expect nothing less than hypocracy out of a politician... is YOUR defense of McCain's actions and your twisting your own supposed fiscal conservatism into knots in order to justify McCain's behavior.

Next...

No, Ed, I'm not "ignoring" the spending bills McCain has opposed. It's just that according to YOUR theory of McCain, McCain *SHOULD* oppose unnecessary and unwise spending. What... you expect me to ignore McCain's present hypocracy because in the past he's acted according to his ideals? (*SNORT*) Sorry, Ed... he's SUPPOSED to be a fiscal conservative (or so YOU claim him to be). Past good deeds don't take away from present hypocracy. And in any case... so what if he voted no on certain spending bills. If the bills passed anyway than that's simply proof that McCain was an ineffective leader in the Senate. (*SHRUG*) Again... "trying" may get a gold star, but it's SUCCEEDING that I'm interested in.

Oh... and by the way... only you would accuse me of talking out of my ass even though *I* the one who cites the specific case of hypocracy (support for the stimulus bill) while you just keep on repeating mantras with no specific backing.

Frankly Ed... the reason you find "irony" in my posts is that you possess no intellectual consistency and thus when faced with some that goes against your deep set partisanship you simply can't process it. (*SMILE*)

Ed... all I can say to end this farce is that if you won't - or can't - honestly address my points then there's simply no sense in my trying to educate you. (*SHRUG*)

BILL

EdMcGon said...

What I did was give you a perfect example of the disconnect between McCain's rhetoricial "fiscal conservatism" vs. his hypocritical support for a bill which is a HUGE NEW MIDDLE CLASS GIVAWAY using BORROWED MONEY.

Bill,
Ok. I dare you to find another example outside of this one, because we will not agree on it.

The fact is, you can't, which is pretty scary considering McCain's long history in the Senate.

If the bills passed anyway than that's simply proof that McCain was an ineffective leader in the Senate. (*SHRUG*) Again... "trying" may get a gold star, but it's SUCCEEDING that I'm interested in.

That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard yet about McCain! For him to "succeed", he would have had to go along with the porkmeisters in Congress. He didn't. In my book, I call that standing firmly on your principle. And that is a far greater success than anything he could do to "get along".

As for the rest of your post, I am still waiting for you to PROVE how Romney (or Huckabee or Clinton or Obama) is so much more fiscally conservative than McCain. Running a business does NOT make you a fiscal conservative. For example, Warren Buffet is one of the most outstanding business leaders today, yet his politics are fiscally liberal.

Speaking of hypocrisy, let's look at you: You voted for Obama. Shall I dredge up his record for you?

Here's Obama's press release about the economic stimulus package you abhor:

"As millions of hardworking Americans face foreclosure, unemployment, and bills they can't pay, it's critical that Republicans and Democrats finally came together to pass a stimulus package that provides immediate tax relief to working families, seniors, and veterans.

"This is similar to the stimulus package I proposed weeks ago, and it will put needed money back into the pockets of working Americans in order to give our economy the boost it needs as we face down a possible recession.

"While this bill will provide immediate relief to millions of Americans, I also believe that we must do more to extend unemployment insurance for all Americans and more to help those suffering from the home foreclosure crisis. I expect that the President will sign this bill immediately."


Since you have been bashing this economic stimulus bill, would you like to defend your hypocrisy in supporting Obama?

William R. Barker said...

Ed. Did you read my various replies to Moose (and you) over at RT prior to posting this morning's comments/questions? I ask this not with sarcasm but simply as a question since chances are I dealt with many of your present questions late last night when I was on a tear. In any case, I'll repeat myself here when and if necessary.

"Bill, I dare you to find another example outside of this one, because we will not agree on it."

O.K, then I DOUBLE DARE YOU to...

(*GRIN*) (*SNORT*) Kinda funny, Ed... what's next, are ya gonna pinky swear that you'd be favoring a "stimulus" plan proposed by a Dem president and OPPOSED by McCain? (*GRIN*)

Ed. How many times do I have to repeat myself? If my complaint against McCain was that he's ALWAYS been a big spender then there'd be reason for me to back such a contention up. But that's NOT what I'm accusing McCain of. It's because he HAS been a leading voice against pork and debt and deficits that I take him to task over this doozy. To paraphrase a well-known campaign slogan from 1992... "It's the hypocracy, stupid!" And in this case, it's also the fact that besides being wasteful and a contradiction to everything McCain claims to stand for, as I keep noting the stimulus package will cause more macro problems than it solves micro problems.

Next...

"That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard yet about McCain! For him to "succeed", he would have had to go along with the porkmeisters in Congress."

And Ed... he has a long record of doing that on other issues. McCain-Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. McCain Lieberman. It goes to pattern, Ed.

But sticking to tax/spending policies... Newt was able to succeed. Not for long maybe, but with far fewer years in the house and far less name recognition he was able to create a truly conservative coalition that not only won politically, but won policywise - at least for a few years. McCain NEVER developed the leadership skills to do the same in the Senate that Newt did in the House and so we come back to the issue of McCain's SUCCESS. Bottom line... other than when he aligned with Dems on BAD bills... his record of achievement vs. record of rhetoric on actually putting spending cuts into effect is dismal. Ed... again... I'm judging McCain on what he actually DID... not just on what he says he'll do. (*SHRUG*)

* To be continued...

BILL

William R. Barker said...

"As for the rest of your post, I am still waiting for you to PROVE how Romney (or Huckabee or Clinton or Obama) is so much more fiscally conservative than McCain."

Ed. This is a no strawman zone. (*WINK*) I never said - nor inferred - that Clinton, Obama, or even Huckabee was more (forget much more!) fiscally conservative than McCain. Just the opposite in fact when it comes to Clinton and Obama. Please don't twist my words or beliefs. (*SHRUG*)

Do I believe Romney (and Giuliani for that matter) are more fiscally conservative - and competent - than McCain? Yes. In part I base that on Romney's critique of the phoney pandering bipartisan incumbant protection seeking stimulus package in contrast with McCain's embrace of it. Second, unlike say Newt, McCain doesn't HAVE a SUCCESSFUL record of overcoming the pro-spending forces of Congress so to put this unsuccessful track record supported only by rhetoric against the financial experience of proven business/government EXECUTIVES seems to me to favor trusting Romney or Giuliani over McCain. But hey... it's a moot point now... but for the sake of explaining (once again!) (*SIGH*) my reasoning... there it is.

"Running a business does NOT make you a fiscal conservative."

No it doesn't, Ed. But the fact is, both Romney and Giuliani are fiscal conservatives who actually RAN governments and in Romney's case ran a business. There are those who "do" and those who "talk;" Romney and Giuliani (and even Huckabee to give him credit) DID. McCain talked.

"Speaking of hypocrisy, let's look at you: You voted for Obama."

So... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... where's the hypocracy in that??? I've said all along I'd vote for Obama in the primary and was very clear on why I would do so. Now if I had turned around and NOT voted for Obama... THEN you could accuse me of hypocracy. (Hmm... perhaps you simply don't know what the word "hypocracy" means...???) (*SMILE*)

"Here's Obama's press release about the economic stimulus package you abhor..."

Ed. My rebel cyberfriend. The problem with this line of attack is simply that I never SAID Obama was more fiscally conservative than McCain NOR did I ever say or infer that Obama, Clinton, or the average Democrat opposed the bill in question; in fact, as you'll no doubt recall (since I've gone back to it several times) when this issue first came up I predicted that the Republicans would jump on the giveaway plan and the Dems would try to make it even bigger. (*SMILE*) Again, Ed... it's your blog, but building strawmen ain't the way to make your point. They're too easy to knock down using the facts. (*SHRUG*)

"Since you have been bashing this economic stimulus bill, would you like to defend your hypocrisy in supporting Obama?"

Again... either you simply don't know what the term "hypocracy" means... (*SMILE*)... or else you've taken to drinking heavily in the morning. (*GRIN*)

One more time, Ed... I *expect* Democrats to push for more deficit spending, more debt, more middle class giveaways - it's who they are. What I object to - and what I find hypocritical - is when supposed fiscal conservatives who insist they're all about fighting pork, shrinking government, paying off debt, etc., turn around and violate the tenents of everything they supposedly believe fiscally (not to mention taking the wrong position on the merits) as McCain has here.

BILL

EdMcGon said...

McCain-Feingold. McCain-Kennedy. McCain Lieberman. It goes to pattern, Ed.

Bill,
Your examples are about policy, NOT spending. Granted, they all carried price tags, but they did not fall under the category of "pork". If you want to argue that he is a social liberal, I'll agree with you.

Newt was able to succeed.

Newt had some success, but the '96 budget standoff was basically a failure. Clinton got what he wanted by painting Newt as evil.

McCain NEVER developed the leadership skills to do the same in the Senate that Newt did in the House and so we come back to the issue of McCain's SUCCESS.

That's because he was always challenging the Senate leadership for their obscene spending. Needless to say, the GOP establishment was never overly fond of McCain.

his record of achievement vs. record of rhetoric on actually putting spending cuts into effect is dismal.

But if you look at his voting record, and what he says about his votes, it supports the contention that he IS a fiscal conservative.

I'm judging McCain on what he actually DID

No, you're judging him on what the Senate did, and claiming he showed some lack of leadership because a bunch of arrogant pampered senators don't fall into line behind him, that McCain is somehow not a fiscal conservative (although what one has to do with the other is beyond me).

Just the opposite in fact when it comes to Clinton and Obama. Please don't twist my words or beliefs.

In other words, you are NOT a fiscal conservative. Correct?

There are those who "do" and those who "talk;" Romney and Giuliani (and even Huckabee to give him credit) DID. McCain talked.

And Romney was NOT a fiscal conservative as governor. If I take him at his actions, then I would say he would NOT be a fiscally conservative president.

As for Rudy, it's a moot point now.

As for McCain, his voting record backs up his fiscal conservatism. You would throw out his entire voting history for one bill which you don't like, regardless of how necessary it may be.

The problem with this line of attack is simply that I never SAID Obama was more fiscally conservative than McCain NOR did I ever say or infer that Obama, Clinton, or the average Democrat opposed the bill in question

Your hypocrisy lies in damning McCain for supporting the same bill that Obama supports. I have yet to hear you criticize a single Democrat for it. Yet McCain loses his fiscal conservative credentials because of it?

What I object to - and what I find hypocritical - is when supposed fiscal conservatives who insist they're all about fighting pork, shrinking government, paying off debt, etc., turn around and violate the tenents of everything they supposedly believe fiscally (not to mention taking the wrong position on the merits) as McCain has here.

In other words, you hold Democrats and Republicans to different standards.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest you develop your OWN political belief system, and then hold BOTH parties to it.

Frankly sir, if you would vote for Obama, then you are no fiscal conservative, and you have no right to judge other fiscal conservatives. Your opinion on McCain is about as useful as a two-legged dog.

William R. Barker said...

"In other words, you are NOT a fiscal conservative. Correct?"

Ed. I wish we had more people involved in this conversation. From my perspective ya just sound nuts. Now maybe *I* am the one who's nuts... (*SMILE*)... but basically since *YOU* are the one favoring an additional $150-billion of deficit spending and *I* am the one opposing the additional $150-billion in deficit spending... it seems clear - to me at least - which of us represents fiscal conservatism.

* Rodak... if you're still tuning in... give us your perspective on this specific question: WHICH policy sounds more like the fiscal conservatism Ed and I both claim to stand for; would it be increased deficit spending to (at least in large part) send checks to people like me to spend at fancy restaurants and upscale hotels, or, would it be to *NOT* borrow money (at compound interest) for such a purpose?

As for the rest of your rant, Ed... (*SIGH*)... again, I'd ask Rodak - or RAG if he's lurking - or anyone else familiar with my views the following simple question: Is Ed telling the truth when he claims I haven't been criticizing the Dems for supporting the "stimulus package?" In fact, we can add to that question the following: Since I've said clearly from day one of this topic over at RT that, if anything, the Dems would would push for an even BIGGER "stimulus package" than Bush was calling for (and logically I'm opposed to BIGGER even more so than smaller...) could it be that Ed is deliberately distorting my position or... do you think he's just FRIGG'N NUTS? (*SMILE*)

Ed... you're losing it. (*SHRUG*) You're simply ignoring and distorting my points - either deliberately or because you simply aren't able to follow the logic.

Yes... when it comes to fiscal conservatism I hold so-called fiscal conservatives to a higher standard then liberals. When it comes to the Sabbath I hold practicing Jews and Christians to a higher standard than atheists. (*GRIN*) Again, Ed... it's the hypocracy, dude.

As I would hope even Rodak would admit, not to mention Mad and RAG and the rest of our common "cyberfamily," I *do* tend to hold both Parties and all candidates to the same standards regardless of which "team" they're on. To even suggest otherwise is simply ludicris - and either disengenuous or else a sign of total comprehension deficit.

BILL

Rodak said...

Bill--
As you know, economics is not my forte. I think it's the case that Keynes believed in government spending in these kinds of situations. But, I suppose he was a liberal.
I've made my thoughts on it clear on other threads: in the end, the money--which will not be anywhere near sufficient to change the lives of those whose lives need changing--will end up in the pockets of the rich and the coffers of the corporations. The rich plan to bleed us all white and then retire to Costa Rica.

EdMcGon said...

Is Ed telling the truth when he claims I haven't been criticizing the Dems for supporting the "stimulus package?"

Bill,
I'm sure Obama is in tears over the vote you gave him for it. For all the ranting you do about the stimulus package, it still hasn't affected your voting behavior.

I would call someone who says one thing about politics, yet votes a different way, the very essence of hypocrisy. You say you KNOW the Democrats will ask for more money in it, yet you VOTE for them? At the same time calling yourself a fiscal conservative?

William R. Barker said...

Rob,

Since this is Ed's blog, rather than be a "bad guest" I'll simply leave the thread as is. In any case, there's really nothing more I can say. (*SHRUG*)

Ed,

Thanks for the exchange.

BILL

Rodak said...

Hmmm. Observing Mr. Barker's new-found sense of humble propriety is a bit like watching a middle linebacker perform an ice dance routine...