McCain on Cancer Funding: More Money, With Limits

Fantastic; yet another flip-flop. Which ex-tobacco industry lobbyist is advising/funding his campaign?

Keep talking, Pops, you're making this easy.

Btw, fiscal responsibility? How about NOT spending $30 billion a month on a war we never should have started in the first place.

That seems like a good place to start.

Thanks Michael,

I just one to point out that some of that government money comes from the people who make up the interest groups that want to spend it on certain things. Thanks again.

" I think we need some fiscal responsibility in Congress also"
"Because does anybody here have confidence in Congress"

McCain has served in Congress for over two decades, right? I mean just for context.

And McCain went to Armstrong's event with this message? Talk about cold...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Michael why none of this great writing when you post on McCain?

"As we all huddle around our televisions to watch the German masses cheer, as we prepare to read yet another magazine cover story featuring Obama's awesome good-lookingness, as we remind ourselves once again that this is a once-in-a-generation change election, a couple points to remember:"

McCain is dreamy. I am sold Michael!

Matlock forever!

MEANWHILE, BACK AT SENATOR PANSY HQ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_el_pr/obama_troops;_ylt=Air7GePhkyQ0pg4t7I.yvrZh24cA

Same old Obama.

Photo op over, skip the troops, on to the next foreign fundraiser.

You know, he'd have the cancer vote hands down if he selects Bobby Jindal as his running mate. Jindal once cured a young woman of cancer. Drove the demons from her to boot!

"the auditorium of hundreds gave him a standing ovation, just as they did when he entered."

Thank you for that color Michael.

I wonder if McCain's history with cancer would make him a little more interested in research. Of course not everyone has excellent government provided healthcare.
Maybe he doesn't appreciate what he has.

Pretty good post, Michael. More of these, please.

Oh! The irony! As PNNTO points out, McCain has been in the Congress for most of three decades. "...to tell you the truth I am not confident that the Congress of the United States would do that. Because does anybody here have confidence in Congress?" It's good style to let it dawn on your reader. Very nice.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for fiscal conservatives if weren't busy shovelling tax dollars down the throats of Blackwater and other organized crime outfits operating in Iraq.

The advantage of operating in a war zone is that there are no rules. That doesn't seem to bother candidate McCain a bit.

Do we need to remind people that the only balanced budget we've acheived in pretty much my lifetime was a recent Democratic administration?

Dirks, in the currency if one is a republican they are a "fiscal conservative" any actual evidence is not required. It just is.

Somebody should make sure McCain factors this latest flip-flop into his numbers-optional balanced budget plan that doesn't add up.

The only balanced budgets in recent memory came with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President during a time of relative tranquility and an economic upswing.... If we all want a repeat of the 1990s balanced budgets, vote for Clinton or another DLC-type (oh, too late for that) and vote for a fiscally conservative Republican majority in Congress. Well, we know that's not going to happen, so the best chance of getting a balanced budget is probably voting for McCain because the Congress is going to remain in Democratic hands -- let them fight it out. Divided government can be a good thing.

Michael, please name a fiscal conservative in Congress. Please use integrity in the process.

Integrity according to Dictionary.com is "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty."

Please name 5.

Thanks

Oh yes, peace and an economic boom fueled by a technology revolution would help too....

The best measure of fiscal conservatism in the Congress in the past year is a look at the economic "Stimulus Plan" final vote from earlier this year: of 435 House Members, only 34 voted “no” (including 6 Democrats). Fiscal Conservatives are hugely outnumbered -- they exist (walk around the halls of Congress and look for them in the ranks of Blue Dogs and libertarian Republicans).

"he only balanced budgets in recent memory came with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President"
A republican fiction. But you knew that BG.

"Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[44] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers.[45] Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years"

chance of getting a balanced budget is probably voting for McCain

Except that Mr. 'We can't admit defeat" is going to want to continue insisting on "supplimental spending" bills to fund the continued occupation of Iraq (and feed the contractors) for the duration of his Presidency.

The only spending he opposes is that which actually improves lives.

I suppose it is unfortunate that there aren't any actual pork-adverse Republicans to counter a Dem President but the sad fact is that Republican fiscal responsibilty has more in common with the tooth fairy than it does any semblance of reality.

PS, Don't tell Mike. We'd hade to spoil a good story.....

With all due respect, BrooklynGurl, a divided, paralyzed government is the last thing we need right now. For too long, we have let partisan politics keep us from addressing the very real problems that affect very real people - health care, environment/energy, economic policy, etc. I would actually like to see something done for once, and frankly, since we as a nation are spending money we don't have hand over fist anyway, we might as well start spending it on something other that might make a positive difference in people's lives here at home.

The Republicans had their chance to get the nation on the track when they controlled the executive and legislative branches. I'm all for giving the Democrats a crack at it this time.

Paul Dirks -- How can you say Mike and "good story" in the same sentence? Unless you mean fiction?

John McCain says: ""I'd have to be assured that that money would be put in the right place, and to tell you the truth I am not confident that the Congress of the United States would do that.

McCain has a point. There is a chance that Congress might unleash mountains of cash for one of the most tragic foreign policy blunders of our lifetime.

If John McCain wants to increase funding for cancer research then he must be for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy, right?

"I suppose it is unfortunate that there aren't any actual pork-adverse Republicans to counter a Dem President "
What makes you think that a Democratic president needs to be countered on fiscal matters?

59c in every tax dollar is spent on the overall defense budget. For comparison, the next highest spender of tax monies for this purpose is the UK at 14%.

If McCain wants to give more money to cancer research, he can do so in the blink of an eye, without raising taxes. His disingenuous little speech today suggests that military spending is sacrosanct.

What was it that Paul Weller sang all those years ago? "You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns". Reverse that process Senator McCain and you won't have to raise an extra dime.

It all depends what your priorities are.

BrooklynGurl - In the past, I might have agreed with you on the divided government being the key to fiscal responsibility argument. But not today. What we see today from the GOP is obstruction at all costs for the sole political purpose of denying the Democratic Party a 'victory'. If the GOP could stop being such a partisan wasteland then problems might get solved - but if they were ever going to do that then they would have governed effectively and prevented the GOP brand from going down the toilet.

And it is funny that you bring up the Blue Dogs. See, the fact about the Democratic Party is that its diversity ensures that the conflict one wants to produce fiscal discipline already exists within that single party. The GOP has made itself irrelevant by its refusal to do anything but obstruct. I have all the confidence that I need that the Democratic Party can govern responsibly and competently without the ill-effects of the GOP. Maybe when your party reorganizes itself then things will be different. I sincerely look forward to that day.

And then there is this: "Oh yes, peace and an economic boom fueled by a technology revolution would help too...."

I think you just helped me to reaffirm my vote for Barack Obama - a coalition builder who is willing to invest in green technologies that will create thousands of jobs in the coming years. Kind of like the millions of government dollars that went into inventing and building that internet thing and led to that technology revolution thing you were talking about.

So it's easy, particularly for liberals, in all candor, to go out and say, I'll give you all this. Do you know the debt we've laid on you future generations of Americans?

McCain's plan, of course, would add over 5 trillion dollars to the national debt over 10 years, according to some joint Brookings-Urban Institute thingy.

So, as with every other issue, McCain's plan is poorly thought out and counterproductive. But it's worth noting that Obama's would add $3.4 trillion. Less ungood, but ungood nonetheless.

It sure would be great if, in their new role as America's Minority Party, the GOP embraced fiscal and foreign policy conservatism, rather than the tax-cuts-'n'-world-revolution feel-good dogma they impose on just about all of their elected officials.

We shall see, but I don't see any reason to expect more than the crony capitalism we've grown accustomed to. Movement conservatives are concerned with fiscal responsibility in the same way they are with human rights-- useful to taunt opponents, but not valued as an end in itself.

Elvis Elvisberg - Well said.

a Democratic president needs to be countered on fiscal matters?

Because the temptation to spend more than one earns is a universal human trait and I don't think either party is immune.The temptation to consolidate power, supress dissent and overuse secrecy is also a human universal. Fortunately our system of government has mechanisms in place to counter the worst of abuses.

Sadly, one of those mechanisms, a free and independent press, has abdicated its role in favor of regurgitaing comforting myths (Such as republican fiscal prudence.)

Hard to argue human nature but I'm not sure I sign on to over spending as a universal human trait. Actually I see you say temptation which makes it even more difficult.
I guess I can only go back to the 1993 omnibus bill that passed with a Democratic President and only Democratic votes in Congress as a counter point.

Could not agree more about the press abdicating it's role.

The fact that he appeared with McCain is more proof of what a prick Armstrong is compared to other American cyclists who were, once upon a time, humble and approachable. Now they all act like football players, or worse, like McCain himself (Landis).

And he rode with w in Crawford.
Still what he is doing is a very good thing.

Armstrong plans to make sure that Barack Obama, who is traveling in Europe today, answers a similar set of questions before election day.

And even that level of ni ggar dli ness* is only guaranteed provided that, once in office, McCain doesn't press the now patented "McCain toggle switch", ready at his fingertips for every issue except the desirability of ever expanding war.

McCain left Armstrong with an armful of nothing.

(* The starred word had to be broken up to get past Times' profanity filter.)

"McCain also said he opposed new taxes on tobacco products, something he supported in the late 1990s, because he said he did not trust Congress to spend the money properly."

Well, how about using those taxes to increase funding for the National Cancer Institute? Wouldn't that be a good use of the revenues?

"One, we've got to pay for it, and two we have to apportion it appropriately. So it's easy, particularly for liberals, in all candor, to go out and say, I'll give you all this. Do you know the debt we've laid on you future generations of Americans? … I think we need some fiscal responsibility in Congress also."

And it's so easy for Republicans to say they will be fiscally conservative, when they in fact have been pushing tax cuts and massive spending increases for their unnecessary wars. He shouldn't say, "the debt WE laid on future generations," he should say, "I," because he's been pushing policies that will increase this debt more than anyone. We liberals certainly haven't endorsed these disasterous policies.

Exactly how much more money would he allocate? Talk about empty promises.

"I'd have to be assured that that money would be put in the right place, and to tell you the truth I am not confident that the Congress of the United States would do that. Because does anybody here have confidence in Congress. Please raise your hand?"

What a peculiar idea that people should trust government. Clearly, the founding father had nothing of that sort in mind.

Quite the opposite.

I find the idea of people trusting their government extremely dangerous to a democracy.

Also, I find it difficult to believe that someone who has supported the Iraq War can also consider themselves a fiscal conservative.

Let's bear in mind that McCain was part of the Republican majority in Congress for six years that performed no fiscal oversight on the largest Congressional spending bills in history.

If McCain's argument is one of spending meets justification, he should start with the Iraq War, in toto, and the surge specifically. This was the point that Obama had been repeatedly trying to get to in interview with Brian Williams.

Is it somehow inappropriate to ask if we could have accomplished the same mission by different means? Less expensive means. One that killed less than the thousand American soldiers that the surge did?

And if McCain's argument is that it's worth any price because a secure Iraq is not merely important, but urgently vital to America's security needs, he's going to need to elaborate on how, exactly, that is true, define the security threats to the United States from all over the world, and then, perhaps, talk about apportionment of America's resources. And he's going to have to come up with some number for the war and how to pay for it.

Much like you would take the keys away from a drunk, it's time to take the war credit cards out of the Republicans' hands.

Andy--Perhaps not "good story", but having set the bar so low on previous occasions, I think "better" is fair appraisal.

And to Michael--I think you can tell your crap threads from your good ones by how much time people spend commenting on your alleged wankeryness versus how much time they spend commenting and discussing the subject matter about which you have written.

It's a pretty reliable indicator, and really, what makes a good national political blog are people willing to passionately and respectfully disagree about facts than opinion.

For those who are fixated on 1993's Omnibus Bill, remember that it was enacted on the wave of Bill Clinton's economic theories (that balancing the budget helps grow the economy and tempers inflation, which theories were also espoused by the majority of Republicans and rejected by a majority of Democrats in Congress in the 1980's and 1990's), which theories are NOT espoused by Barack Obama and it is unclear where John McCain, the supposedly old budget hawk would land as president.

Please note that the Democrats of that time and since have rejected a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. When the Republicans took over Congress in January 1995, within weeks the House endorsed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The Republican House passed it again in 1997. It never cleared the Senate (but came very close) due to shortsighted partisan maneuvers by mostly Democrats (and some fools like Sen. Hatfield joining them). Other attempts to pass an amendment were made before but none ever got so close. Why did Democrats tend to oppose the balanced budget amendment and other attempts to balance the budget in the 1980's and 1990's but were supposedly the great balanced budget hope of 1993? In 1993 they used the balanced budget argument as the basis for raising taxes and they also had to fall in line for their new party leader, Bill Clinton. The balanced budget concept is and was primarily Republican issue from the early 1980's until the Big Government Republican conservative pretender GW Bush came to power. Bill Clinton adopted the issue (like he adopted other Republican ideas). Look at Congressional votes across the years and 1993 looks like a strange exception to the rule.

Now, the 1990's look like old history and I'm not sure what good it does to revisit it other than to wish that the Congress had actually shown that it is made up of grown ups. Neither party seems much attached to fiscal discipline now. What a shame that we are loading all this debt on our children and grandchildren. I'm tired of paying my taxes to pay interest to foreign investors and bloated defense and non-defense bureaucracies and their suckling interest groups.

When the Waffle Meister whines about fiscal responsibility in Congress, and asks if anyone would trust those thieving rascals, isn't he included in that bunch? Or does he, for some reason, float above the commoners among the legislature?

I'd be really interested in Elizabeth Edwards' reaction to McCain's switch on tobacco taxes and cancer research funding proposals. Another NY Times Op-Ed would be great. I still wish she were running...

BrooklynGurl, the thinking that a divided government will be better is one of McCain's biggest strengths in this election. And much of that thinking does seem to be driven by good memories of the 90s. But many of Clinton's successes were a consequence of his solid understanding of conservatism, something John McCain lacks. The DLC seems to understand conservatism better than the Republican party does. Of course I'm a progressive so I didn't always like those elements of the Clinton Administration (HRC seems more progressive, which is one reason why I supported her). Obama will probably be more progressive than Bill Clinton, but I'm sure he also understands the principles of conservatism. In fact much of his opposition to the Iraq war is articulated in conservative terms - he is very aware of the limits of government, and the long-term consequences of massive financial commitments. In contrast McCain only seems to understand the most superficial rhetoric of conservatism. He actually seems to believe that cutting earmarks will eliminate the deficit.

As President Obama may be more progressive than you'd like. But at least he will understand the conservative alternative when he's looking at policy issues, and it will certainly inform his thinking. McCain would undoubtedly attempt to be a more conservative President than Obama. But he probably wouldn't succeed because he doesn't really understand conservatism. Instead he would just offer four more years of conservative rhetoric and fiscal policies that are too incoherent and illogical to be characteristic of conservatism or any other major political ideology.

"Oh yes, peace and an economic boom fueled by a technology revolution would help too...." - Agreed. And which candidate is more likely to make that happen? The one who sings bomb bomb Iran and doesn't use the internet, or the careful and precise foreign policy thinker who has run the most technologically adept campaign ever?

Wanna make McCain's head asplode? Ask him this:

If you cut taxes you increase revenue, right?

So how much more revenue will we get if we just cut 'em to zero?

One Nimitz-class aircraft carrier costs $4.5bn. That's more than the $3bn that goes to the National Cancer Institute. Or, to put it another way, the annual funding of the NCI equals a week in Iraq.

Yes, I am an advocate of divided government. I would prefer that the executive and legislative branch have to fight it out, especially on appropriations. It's healthy for our republic to have opposition parties going after each other.....

BTW, I find it interesting that people now use the "progressive" label so loosely and so often to describe anti-war, anti-American (at times) and anti-expansionist liberals, when the leader's of the later 19th and 20th Century progressive movement's foreign policy and their adherents were strong believers in shoving American ideals and culture around the world using military means, with the Spanish American War and the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine being fine examples of the progessive militaristic expansion tradition. Of course the progressive movement split in two in the mid-twentieth century, with most true foreign policy progressives (of the lineage of the Roosevelts and JFK) ending up with a home mostly in the neo-con Republican movement (which is a shame) and the domestic policy progressives ending up mostly being liberal Democrats.

A balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution is a stupid idea. It's nothing but empty Republican rhetoric. The Republicans haven't balanced a budget at the national level ...ever. Reagan ran up the biggest budget deficit in history with his profligate spending, but Reagan's record deficits were immediately exceeded by George H W Bush. William Jefferson Clinton not only balanced the US budget, but left office with a substantial surplus and a reduction in the national debt. George W Bush proceeded to exceed even his father's deficit spending with wildly irresponsible deficit spending, while his political cronies proceeded to loot the US Treasury thanks to complete incompetence and rampant, unrestricted corruption and criminality.

The fiscally responsible Democrats will have a tough time putting the US house in order after the rampantly, wildly irresponsible Republicans finally leave office.

Can not understand why Republicans fall for the outright lie about their party being "fiscally responsible" time and again. The facts and history refute that idea to the point of laughability. They must not be very smart if they think that Republicans know anything about balancing budgets or being fiscally responsible. History proves them wrong. The facts don't support the rhetoric. I mean, how dim do you have to be to still believe the Republicans can "balance a budget" when they never have? Their fiscal policies invariably result in severe recessions, higher national debt, unemployment, wage stagnation, bank failures, deterioration of infrastructure, and rampant pork spending. Democrats, on the other hand, produce fiscal policies which result in prosperity, a strong, expanding economy, strengthening of our national infrastructure, and return to sound economic principles.

Show me where I'm wrong.

Here's some data to support my claims:
bush_deficit_graphic.gif (GIF Image, 410x352 pixels)
www.headybrew.net - Federal Budget Deficit Spending Chart

Balanced Budget Amendment. That's stupid, meaningless Republican sloganeering, like "Defense of Marriage" amendment which doesn't do anything at all in support of people's marriaage, or "Clear Skies" initiatives that result in greater pollution and environmental damage, or "No Child Left Behind" which results in dramatic increases of children in poverty and without health care. Show me where I'm wrong.

The 1990's look like "old history" -- that's last decade, mind you -- only to people who want to airbrush away the abject, obvious failures of the Republicans' looney, crazy, irrational economic policies. When Democrats are in charge, our country is prosperous. Show me where I'm wrong.

Somewhere in TIME you do make a point. Republicans talk a great game about fiscal responsibility but never actually accomplish anything. It's really a great example of the modern republican party.
Thank you for that.

Posted by MapGuy | July 24, 2008 10:42 PM
The Republicans had their chance to get the nation on the track when they controlled the executive and legislative branches. I'm all for giving the Democrats a crack at it this time.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a joke!

Here ya go Mappy, the breakdown over the years of Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency versus Republican. Still think you "theory" can hold water?

2009 ???

1993 103rd D D - 57 D – 258 Bill Clinton

1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277 Jimmy Carter

1977 95th D D - 61 D – 292 Jimmy Carter

1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247 Lyndon B Johnson
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295 Lyndon B Johnson
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259 Lyndon B Johnson
1961 87th D D - 64 D – 263 John F Kennedy

1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235 Harry S Truman
1949 81st D D - 54 D – 263 Harry S Truman

1945 79th D D - 57 D – 242 Franklin D Roosevelt

Since 1945, these are the ONLY two Republican controlled Congress and Presidency!
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232 George Bush
2003 108th R R - 51 R – 229 George Bush

It only took the Democrats 9 previous tries to get the budget balanced!!

Thought for today:

EJ Dionne,

The conventional wisdom on certain subjects is so deeply rooted that no amount of evidence disturbs its hold. That's how it is with those dreary predictions that young Americans just won't vote.

Counter thought for today:

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC),

McCain wins the image contrast by campaigning at Sausage Haus.

You people are so full of yourselves you have no clue if the left shoe should be on your right or vice versa. Blaming the Bush Administration for all of your whoas at this time is a cop-out, which has been generated by the Democrat talking heads and Democrat controlled Congress that proclaimed they would re-invent the Congress in the past session. What has the Democrat Congress actually done? Do you really believe that giving both branches to the Democrats will actually make a big difference?

Brooklyn Girl is absolutely right to say that splitting them up is the best thing for our Country.

"Do you really believe that giving both branches to the Democrats will actually make a big difference?"

Rusty,

Giving all 3 branches of the government to the GOP sure did make a difference. But in the end we did give it a shot and we are still here.

"all of your whoas" You are the greatest Doctor.

"whoas"

Texas slang for woes.

Rusty:

Its called the DemocratIC Party. That's the name. Really. It's only been around 200+ years. Why Republicans proudly parade their ignorance is beyond me.

DemoCRATS, there is nothing democratic about that party.

Sorry, I am wrong on whoa versus woe. But, as usual the only thing that most of the liberals on here are good for is grammar corrections. There is nothing substantial about the rest of the garbage they post.

for all of your whoas

BrooklynGurl has unfair advantage. She's not illiterate and is arriving at her candidate preferences by weighing actual issues.

There's a lot Rusty could learn from the example, but he won't.

Yes Paul Dirks you are absolutely correct. You and your NAMBLA buddies do have it all in the bag. I really could care less what a pervert like you thinks, frankly. So there.

I'll give McCain credit for one thing. He's definitely got a big pair of balls. But what is wrong with these people?

"So it's easy, particularly for liberals, in all candor, to go out and say, I'll give you all this."

Yes, it is easy. Because Cancer research is a great cause. This isn't midnight basketball. This is freaking CANCER RESEARCH. Unlike the Iraq war, it probably actually would pay for itself in the long run. Have the Republicans ever studied the economic costs of treating cancer patients? Or the lost productivity from workers' illnesses? Maybe McCain could look under the sofa for some loose change to fund those studies.

For the immediate future, the Federal Government is not out of money. Yes, we have massive deficits. But that is only because we spend money on things that McCain supports other than cancer research.

The guy is flat out telling these people "I have other priorities". And he (allegedly) got some applause for that? Seriously, other than Michael Scherer, people were clapping?

DemoCRATS

I thought the wingnut spelling was DemocRATS. Or maybe you meant to type demoCRAPS, a barb thought witty by many of your ideology and demographic. With DemoCRATS, I don't know what word part you are trying to emphasize, or what point you are trying to make.

With such soaring wit and attention to detail, you'd be a perfect fit for the McCain campaign.

"there is nothing democratic about that party."

You are entitled to your opinion (although "democracy" appears to be pretty low priority for most Republicans these days). But is there something "democrat" about the party? Does your misspelling make the term more accurate? Or does it just make you look like an ignorant fool? My money is on the latter.

"there is nothing democratic about that party."

You are entitled to your opinion (although "democracy" appears to be pretty low priority for most Republicans these days). But is there something "democrat" about the party? Does your misspelling make the term more accurate? Or does it just make you look like an ignorant fool? My money is on the latter.

It's now officially time to declare that I am straight, married only once and have been faithful to my wife for over 25 years.

This is more than the current Republican Candidate can say by a long shot.

I'll reserve speculation on what Rusty's personal life is like but will note that he has this odd obsession with little boys.....

No the crown for having an "obsession" for little boys belongs to you Dirks. You are the Party of the Progressives, allowing for all the perversion of groups you have endorsed like NAMBLA. But of course, when you do this type of association, it is not a bad thing is it?

You are just like the rest of the 3rd graders, Cliff, 53_3, Paul Not that one, etc who feel like really big men when you are putting someone down with garbage statements. But as I have said to you before, I really don't give a rat's ass what you think or how you feel.

Justifying who you are on here is like a crack dealer justifying himself to his crackhead users.

Not that anybody cares about New Orleans but,

Oil spill now extends almost 100 miles

As the thick, black sludge continues flowing toward the Gulf of Mexico, crews are up against the clock to stop it.

http://www.wwltv.com/perl/common/slideshow/sspop.pl?recid=11124&nextimage=0

"You and your NAMBLA buddies"
It must be Friday or Saturday. It is like clockwork the way Rusty's predilection kicks in.

I'd also note the odd standards that Swampland has for policing the comments. Rusty is freely allowed to accuse other commenters of supporting pedophilia. I can hardly think of a way to make a more direct and personal attack on the Swampland community.

Yet Cincinatus' parodic reworking of McCain's tasteless joke was swiftly removed from a thread. ALthough McCain's joke, itself, was not newsworthy.

Stay classy, Time.

Posted by Paul-no not that one | July 25, 2008 8:52 AM
It must be Friday or Saturday. It is like clockwork the way Rusty's predilection kicks in.

No its when the fear-mongers from the far left liberal extreme begin their "predilection" of calling people "racist", "stupid", "brain-dead", "illiterate", etc etc.

I am just pointing out the the public at large, the progressive ideals, morals and beliefs of the democrat party that LOVES diversity, which also includes any amount of perversion. This is also a buzz word to them that has aptly been named "progressive".

But to these people, they love to put down anyone who will question their beliefs. Use their 3rd grade name-calling tactics on here to gang up on anyone who is presenting a different position. I am only acting like they do in order to point out how insane they all are.

You my friend are one of the one who does it the most. But, as I have also told Dirks, I really could give a rat's ass what you think, so be it. Save yourself time and comment about or with someone like the culprits I have previously named. Birds of a feather flock together!

Rusty, stop playing the "Whoa is me" card.

Shorter Rusty: You made me call you a pedophile.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? So sad.

BTW, it is STILL the Democratic Party.

Here ya go Paul, I know you and Barak love this type of rhetoric.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk

"Use their 3rd grade name-calling tactics on here to gang up on anyone who is presenting a different position."

I love bizzaro Friday.

How can McCain be fairly described as a "fiscal conservative"?

Combinations of tax cutting on the wealthy and massive war spending have exploded our national debt to $9,000,000,000,000.00 - double what it was 7 years ago.

John McCain's economic plans are a joke, and he can call himself the Tooth Fairy if he wants, but an actual journalist shouldn't call McCain a "fiscal conservative". But this is Scherer writting this, so there you go.

Spending $12,000,000,000.00 a month in Iraq alone while voting against $50,000,000.00 for a year of S-Chip funding to aid lower income families with sick children does not make you a "fiscal conservative."

Since Bush announced he was lifting the ban on off shore drilling the price per barrel of oil has dropped by over $15.00 dollars.

Why will the Democrats in Congress pass a "Drill for Oil" bill? Are they afraid that their portfolios will devalue? Do you know Senator John Kerry holds more Oil Company stock than any other individual in congress?

The pain at the pump is being felt by all low-income families, and the supposed champion of this group of people will not, and refuse to provide temporary relief for them. Minimum wage was just increase yesterday, but this is being gobbled up by the Democrat controlled Congress who continue to refuse to allow other sites to be explored in our own country. Why is that?

Why will the Democrats in Congress NOT pass a "Drill for Oil" bill?

Someone should tell McCain that another Republican president declared a War on Cancer and just like the War on Terrorism(tm), we haven't won that one yet either. (At least I don't remember the signing of the peace documents.)

No doubt if he realizes it's a War he will be much more willing to fund it.

space: "Its called the DemocratIC Party. That's the name. Really. It's only been around 200+ years. Why Republicans proudly parade their ignorance is beyond me."

Probably for pretty much the same reason that this blog is peppered with offensive distortions of "Republican" and "McCain".

Hypocrisy check.

Hypocrisy requires that the person engaging in the offensive behavior be the same one complaining about it.

Otherwise the correct term is Distraction Check....

Interesting thread.

Regarding the last time we had a balanced budget:

BrooklynGurl has a good point: it's much easier to balance the budget when times are good. Still, it's not all that easy, as history shows. For all his sleazeiness, you have to give Bill Clinton credit for being a good manager. On the other hand, I think it's wrong to discount the contribution of the Republican Congress. Yes, the Democratic Congress did pass a requirement for a balanced budget in 1993, but like all such restrictions, it was only as good as the Congresses that implemented it. (Congress cannot pass a bill that legally restricts Congress.) Clinton and Gingrich may have been the oddest of odd couples - or maybe not, they had adultery in common - but they worked well together. Again, I'm with BrooklynGurl: I like having power divided.

Speaking of which, earlier the thread was discussing whether it would be good to have a Republican Congress to counter the expected Democratic President and keep spending under control. More often than not in the past, it has not been the President - of either party - that has been financially irresponsible. It's been Congress. As Paul pointed out, Congress seems to have built-in structural incentives toward financial irresponsibility. And yes, although Republicans in Congress historically were more financially prudent, it was easy for them to be so. They were almost always out of power. Shortly after taking control, they proved that they could be just as irresponsible as Democrats.

Personally, I expect Obama to be financially prudent as President, and I expect conflict between him and a Democratic Congress.

Paul Dirks -

I see your point, but I also consider it hypocritical (although to an admittedly lesser degree) to complain about a behavior in one's opponents, but to ignore it in one's allies.

I also consider it hypocritical (although to an admittedly lesser degree) to complain about a behavior in one's opponents, but to ignore it in one's allies.

"Democrat" is a talking point used by roughly every elected Republican and all GOP-affiliated media. "McSame" and "Repiglican" are used more or less exclusively by blog commenters.

I don't think the comparison holds in this situation, even though your larger point stands.

Elvis -

Good point.

I still don't see that name-calling contributes anything but vitriol to the conversation. As often as not, it's those that can't seem to frame a reasonable argument that resort to such tactics.

Robert Sullivan,

Here's your answer. When someone calls McCain "McOld," for example, it is intended as a joke. (Whether you find it funny is up to you.) I think we can both agree that there have been numerous "humerous" incarnations of "Obama," "Hillary," and "Clinton" over the years.

For instance, if Rusty wants to crack himself up calling the Democrats "DemocRATS," more power to him.

"Democrat Party" is categorically different. First off, it's not funny. It isn't intended to be. It's not like "Democrat Party" has some other meaning like "DemocRATS" does. It just polls worse than "Democratic Party" so GOP message spinners concocted the idiotic idea of willfully misspelling the name of the opposition party.

Second, even Republican politicians use the term in situations (e.g. speeches, TV appearances) where they CLEARLY are not being sarcastic and CLEARLY would not use any other derogatory term to refer to the opposition. For instance, Joe Lieberman started using the term only AFTER he became an independent.

Third, now that so many GOP leaders embrace this lame-ass "oops, did I say it wrong?" device, it isn't entirely clear that many Republicans realize that "Democrat Party" is incorrect.

So, use the term if you choose -- there is no equivalent employed by my "allies" -- just be aware that I will continue to point out that it only makes the user look like an uneducated buffoon.

"BTW, I find it interesting that people now use the "progressive" label so loosely and so often to describe anti-war, anti-American (at times) and anti-expansionist liberals, when the leader's of the later 19th and 20th Century progressive movement's foreign policy and their adherents were strong believers in shoving American ideals and culture around the world using military means, with the Spanish American War and the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine being fine examples of the progessive militaristic expansion tradition." - BrooklynGurl, I don't use progressive as a synonym for anti-war. I would describe Samantha Power as a progressive, for example, and she is obviously not anti-war. She's just against some wars. And many Republicans - even the current President - criticized Bill Clinton for his interventionist foreign policy. However modern progressivism is clearly anti-imperialism, and for that reason most modern progressives would have opposed the military involvement in the Philippines.

This change is probably more due to changing racial attitudes than anything else. Roosevelt was living in a time of European empires and Social Darwinism. And clearly the conservative movement has also made some adjustments in their thinking to reflect changing racial attitudes - some ideas about slow social change obviously had to be modified or rejected.

space -

Thank you. You make some good points.

I have heard some Republicans argue that using "Democratic Party" somehow suggests that the Democrats are more democratic. That's a rather silly argument, as we're supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, and no one is suggesting that "Republicans" have any advantage there. At any rate, I will concede that each party has the right to determine their own name (within reason) and have it taken seriously.

I will point out that it's a bit inconsistent to first suggest that the term is being used deliberately, and then to also suggest that the users of the term look like uneducated buffoons. The first claim suggests that they know exactly what they are doing, and you yourself say that they aren't funny.

I would like to apologize if I seemed to include you in my grumbling about posters who do more name-calling than arguing. That was not my intention.

Robert Sullivan,

I don't think it is inconsistent. I think those who intentionally use the term are trying to appear sloppy ("oops, did I say it wrong?"). They might not describe it as sounding like an uneducated buffoon, but I would.

IOW, I think everybody who uses the term sounds dumb. Some do it on purpose. Some don't.

Rusty:

1. Seek help for this infatuation with little kids. It's that obvious.

2. It's beyond ludicrous to say that the Dems are the party of "fear mongering." If I have to argue that, you are either lying through your teeth, or are ignorant beyond repair.

BG: At worst, theoretically, our executive and legislative branches would be at odds, and nothing gets done. In actuality, they conspire on an evil agenda, and we all suffer: see "Iraqi War," "Patriot Act," and "Illegal Domestic Spying," among others. At best, they should put aside partisan differences and fix our problems.

In fact, I'd like to see someone propose an amendment that outlaws all political parties. Of course, it won't happen, but the idea of putting party ahead of country just smacks me as traitorous. You're basically saying, "This organization of which I'm a part is more important than We the People, and I'm going to do what I can to support this organization rather than these United States."

About democratic vs. democrat, I'm a little less critical than I'd normally be of people who say democrat because I just made that mistake yesterday. It was just bad writing on my part - if you change your sentence structure you should preview to make sure that it's still coherent - unlike the intentional distortion of Rustydog and others. But I still think that Robert Sullivan is right about the need for a hypocrisy check. For example, Michelle Obama didn't only become proud of her country after her husband started running for President. And Cindy McCain does not think that the only way to get around Arizona is by private plane. Too many people only see the truth in one of those statements.

Rusty:

"No its when the fear-mongers from the far left liberal extreme begin their "predilection" of calling people "racist", "stupid", "brain-dead", "illiterate", etc etc. "

racist:

"... wake up the sleeping WHITE giant ..."

stupid:

"... 80 out of 1 ..."

illiterate:

"... libtard ..."

can I add "libelous"?

"... your NABLA buddies ..."

I rest YOUR case!

"So it's easy, particularly for liberals, in all candor, to go out and say, I'll give you all this." Which party promises guns, butter AND massive tax cuts? That would be the GOP. Nice try.

Brooklyn Girl- I'm sure you are aware that Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress in the 2000 election, right? The change was that George Bush had no compunction against spending like a drunken sailor while simultaneously slashing taxes for primarily the wealthiest Americans. You can make your paean to divided government, but another way to look at it is that Bill Clinton was a far more fiscally responsible president than George W Bush. Clinton restrained a GOP Congress where George Bush chose to simply party on and stick the children with the bill.

And just for the record, since WWII Democrats have had better growth, lower unemployment, lower inflation and have exceeded their GOP counterparts in every area of fiscal measures except for 1- GOP years had lower taxes and Democrats higher. Of course, the growth in those periods more than offset the higher tax rate, go figure.

This, ultimately, is the difference between "conservatives" and everyone else: "conservatives" and their Republican enablers believe that low taxes/ tax cuts = fiscal discipline. Democrats correctly understand that balanced budgets and living within one's means = fiscal responsibility.

The ultimate irony is, if an individual treated their personal finances the way Republicans treat the nation's finances, those same Republicans would scowl at the individual who rang up far more in debt than they bring in in earnings, and tell them to tighten their damned belts. Instead, the "responsible" Republican leadership insists that more supply-side tax cuts is the answer to the nation's problems.

'Cause, you know, tax cuts increase government revenue.

Meant to provide links:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/proof-democrats-are-bette_b_113238.html

دردشه

دردشه