.
.
WoW!
Those “Earmark hatin’ Dems” sure are almost, kinda clever, aren’t they?
I mean, judging from the current news cycle, you’d think the fact that Hillary Clinton currently leads ALL Presidential candidates in earmarks isn’t really news at all.
Well it IS!!! In fact it's BIG news!
Over the past year alone, she’s sponsored 66 earmarks totaling $150 million, while Barack Obama only sponsored six earmarks totaling $34 million, in 2007 (Gawd, Barack Obama really sucks at sucking up that government cash, doesn’t he?).
Oh yeah, and on a completely unrelated note, John McCain didn't ask for any earmarks at all this past year.
hello my friend..that is news to me but sadly McCain is a huge disappointment indeed..sigh......
ReplyDeleteAngel, McCain may be a disappointment to Conservative, but he has been a fiscal Conservative. Read Kevin Stach's piece in the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295108223666913.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
ReplyDeleteIf McCain has been poor on illegal immigration, Huckabee and Giuliani and Romney and G W Bush have all been as bad, or, in some cases worse.
If he's been bad on spending, so have the others mentioned, as well.
The idea that "McCain's not a real Conservative," is best countered by the fact that "G W Bush ISN'T either!"
We have a very important election coming up. Thompson didn't try hard enough, Huckabee tried too hard, Giuliani ran hard too late and Romney ran as someone he wasn't....they're all out and McCain's what's left.
Come January 2009 six of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be over 70 years of age. If Conservatives sit home, saying that McCain's no better than Hillary or Obama, then we'll get Hillary &/or Obama....and by 2012 we won't recognize this country.
It will almost certainly be one we wouldn't recognize today, as a Dem President with a Dem Congress CAN and WILL make-over the landscape within 4 years....certainly enough so, as to make the election of another Conservative (in 2012 or beyond) a very real long shot.
McCain's far from perfect, but NONE of the Republicans running were!
Just something to think about.
I love to watch Democrat argue about which one is the biggest Socialist.
ReplyDelete"I'm a bigger Socialist!" "No, I am!" "No, not you, me!" "No, me!" "No, I am!" No, I am a Socialist times 100!" "Well, I am a Socialist times 1000!" "So, I am a Socialist times infinity!" "Yeah, well, shut up!" "No, you shut up!" "I'm not gonna shut up. YOU shut up!"
That IS about the size of it Sloane.
ReplyDeleteBTW, love your blog....and grandma!
Thanks, jmk. We all have to stick together in this fight. Not only do we have to stand against Democrats we also have a lot of Republicans against us too.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about Bush. He became very bold in showing his true colors in his second term when he had no more elections to win. We all need to help Republicans realize that they need us more than we need them. The Republican party is a weak kneed joke without conservatives.
Sloane, I often think that the current two Party system was devised to keep Conservatives and Paleo-Libertarians battened down.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP has been run, for the most paert, by its "Moderate" (socially Liberal) or Country Club-wing for eons.
In a way, I was glad to see that the gains the Dems made in 2006 almost all came from Conservative ("Blue Dog") Dems, now over 20% of the Dems in Congress.
Politics is often disappointing for people for whom ideology means something. I don't mind compromising, bit I DO mind (very much) ALWAYS having Conservative voices "softened," "muzzled" or silenced.
I'd supported Pat Buchanan back in 1988 against Bush 41 and applauded his move to bolt the Party in 1992.
I tink increasing the number of Conservatives within the Democratic Party should take on additional importance to Conservatives going forward.
A sizable presence in BOTH Parties might give that movement more leveraging power, IF they could come together to shaft the Party that gives short shrift to Conservatism during various election cycles.