McCain shows his 'foreign expertise' in Jordan

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Actually, it isn't McCain that scares me, it's the lack of change that would come with him to D.C. If the GOP keeps the White House, there won't be much of a shake-up and that town NEEDS a shake-up. Sure, some of the WH personnel will shift around, but a lot of the cronies who are snuggled deep in the hearts of the bureaucratic agencies will stay put and the lobbyists who have had their run of things will keep it in high gear. It's like people who think term limits will make a difference in Congress. It would move the elected faces around, but the staffs would stay put, and ask anyone in D.C. who really pulls the strings in that town and they'll tell you it's the staffers.

As I was told by a gentleman working for one of the other candidates:
With McCain you will get a smarter, angrier Bush.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by jon1856

With McCain you will get a smarter, angrier Bush.

This. Yes. (adding in all the same people and crap and whatnot)

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

This. Yes. (adding in all the same people and crap and whatnot)

That's only a step up and rarely do people think 'smartly' when they are angry...

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by jon1856

As I was told by a gentleman working for one of the other candidates:
With McCain you will get a smarter, angrier Bush.

McCain is ideologically different than Bush. Here's my opinion:

The ever-changing Republican party can be broken down into Neo-conservatives (Bush Jr., Cheney, Some would say JFK), Small government conservatives (Paul), Maverick conservatives (McCain, Specter), religious conservatives (Huckabee, Falwell), and traditional conservatives (Bush Sr., Powell). There is a lot of overflow here but I did my best to put famous conservatives in the category which they fit best.

The Maverick conservatives are often viewed as angry because they constantly lobby against pork barrel spending and campaign finance. It is very hard for them to stay elected unless they are involved in highly publicized national reform policy because they are unable to reward their states with specific projects and funding. The downside is that they are forced to be "media whores." McCain will call for a line item veto if elected and I think that the conservative supreme court would give it to him. McCain's biggest issue as a senator was cutting pork. I personally support the line item veto for whomever gets elected, even if it is Obama.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I personally support the line item veto for whomever gets elected, even if it is Obama.

I know that sounds attractive, but legislatively and in practice, it would be a big, huge mistake and an enormous surrendering of check-and-balance in the functioning of our government.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I know that sounds attractive, but legislatively and in practice, it would be a big, huge mistake and an enormous surrendering of check-and-balance in the functioning of our government.

I disagree. This power would be held in check by the public and the media. It may not be checks and balances in the constitutional sense but I think it would be effective.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I disagree. This power would be held in check by the public and the media. It may not be checks and balances in the constitutional sense but I think it would be effective.

I'm sorry, but that's naive. The lobbyists and the party heavy weights with the most access to the president and his staff (or even just a future president with a personal agenda he wants to enact) could potentially abuse the living crap out of this power. Deals would be cut so quietly and so far behind so many thick, soundproof doors the public and the media would have no idea what's going on (until it's too late potentially and then what's the recourse?).

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I'm sorry, but that's naive. The lobbyists and the party heavy weights with the most access to the president and his staff (or even just a future president with a personal agenda he wants to enact) could potentially abuse the living crap out of this power. Deals would be cut so quietly and so far behind so many thick, soundproof doors the public and the media would have no idea what's going on (until it's too late potentially and then what's the recourse?).

The recourse would be to take line item veto power away. The bottom line is that we need to drastically reduce government spending and the line item veto is a great way to do that. The only other ways to eliminate pork would be to elect honest politicians or become politically conscious as a nation, neither of those will ever happen though.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

The only other ways to eliminate pork would be to elect honest politicians or become politically conscious as a nation, neither of those will ever happen though.

Lobby reform? Campaign finance reform? There are other places to look besides the executive branch to change how legislation is crafted, funded and passed in this country. And how much damage could be done before the line item could be taken back away? And how much pressure would be put on the members of the president's party in the Congress (by the party, by the president, by the special interests) to NOT to take it away? That would be a very hard bell to un-ring.