-
Sweet Home, Alabama
June 11, 2013 | 38 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 92 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
Streetcar Line
McConnell Fails Natcher’s Earmark Test
On pork battle, wrong Kentuckian leads the fight.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell obviously isn’t one to “dance with the one that brung him.” When it comes to the Tea Party activists and other conservatives whose electoral work vastly increased his power, he kicks them in the shins and tells them to sit with the wallflowers.
Sen. McConnell’s strenuous efforts to head off an attempt to ban special-interest spending “earmarks” are obnoxiously tin-eared. Completely apart from the substance of an earmark ban — about which, more in a few moments — the issue symbolically is perhaps the single most important indicator of whether congressional Republicans can be any more trusted with power now than they proved to be from 2000 to 2006. The conservatives and centrists who rose up in the recent elections — to sweep Republicans back into a House majority and to give McConnell six more Senate colleagues despite ham-handed Senate campaign operations — did so because they are deeply concerned about government debt, deeply frustrated by government intrusion into their lives, and deeply offended by self-serving business as usual in Washington. Local-interest earmarks are the grime-splattered, foul-smelling tokens of all these political offenses. To so quickly fight to save the practice of earmarking-as-usual is to spit in the face not just of Tea Partiers, but of the vast majority of Americans who may not know the details of congressional appropriating but who want a clear sign that Congress will change how it operates. In fact, a Rasmussen poll last month found that by a 60% to 31% margin, voters would “prefer a candidate who would work to cut federal government spending over one who would work to make sure his district gets a fair share of that spending.”
What’s even more absurd about McConnell’s stance is that it puts the Republican leader well to the left of a New Deal Democrat and fellow Kentuckian who briefly chaired the House Appropriations Committee in 1993-94. Before he died, Rep. William Natcher was an institution in Congress, casting a record 18,401 consecutive floor votes. Nobody’s idea of a Goldwaterite conservative, Natcher nevertheless banned earmarks from bills produced by the Labor-Health Appropriations Subcommittee that he chaired for many years. For McConnell to insist on a pork fest that even Natcher wouldn’t countenance is to make a mockery of any claim that McConnell is a fiscal conservative.
What’s worse is that McConnell has been making arguments in favor of congressional earmarking that just aren’t true. He repeatedly claims that eliminating earmarks will not save a dime because the money merely will be redirected otherwise. This is nonsense. The government can spend only what Congress appropriates. If Congress chooses to cut total spending by the amount of the earmarks that would be eliminated, it could do so. Nothing — not a single thing — requires that Congress spend at the “top line” level set by the budget resolution adopted earlier in the year.
McConnell offers another bogus argument in saying that congressional earmarking is all that stands in the way of giving the executive — in this case, President Obama and his minions, or the “unelected bureaucracy” — unwarranted discretion in spending federal dollars. Again, this is ludicrous. Congress can set any limits on spending bills that it wants. And Congress can, through its authorizing process and through adequate public hearings, direct money for any important program it wants without running afoul of the earmark ban as proposed by South Carolina’s stalwart conservative Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.
Nobody is suggesting that Congress give up its power to require that certain weapons programs, for instance, be maintained, or that the federal government does (or does not) finance a particular program open to all who qualify. All an earmark ban would do is keep Congress from demanding that a certain program or project be funded in one place over another, or that a contract be written is such a way that only one specific company, contractor, charity, or local government qualifies. The rule proposed by DeMint is narrow. It bans only those spending items that fit the following definition: “a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.”
The Sunlight Foundation is more concise. It explains that “An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review.”
Banning these local porkers could not only save the $16.5 billion spent on earmarks this year (according to Citizens Against Government Waste), but also deprive members (and the president) of the means of horse-trading that leads to a member voting for expensive programs — Medicare expansion, Obamacare, whatever — in return to securing, say, an eponymous museum in his own district.
Earmarks are no pittance; they are the super-glue which holds together outrageously constructed edifices of big government — edifices that deservedly would collapse of their own weight without the earmark epoxy to bind them.
A two-year ban on earmarks should be the absolute least Congress does to prove to the world that a new way of doing business, and a new seriousness about saving taxpayer dollars, is at hand. Sen. McConnell’s fulminations to the contrary indicate that his own ears should be marked as closed both to the public’s desires and to budgetary common sense.
Mr. Hillyer served on the payroll of the House Appropriations Committee in 1995 and 1996, when it cut $50 billion in actual dollars from domestic discretionary spending.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/15/mcconnell-fails-natchers-earma
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- A Panoply of Beauties
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Peter B Wolf, CEC| 11.15.10 @ 6:26AM
All earmarks, if any at all, should be made public nationwide before being attached to any bill, for all people in all States to see who wants to spend how much on what. Earmarks must clearly be identified as "Riders" and voted on seperately from the bill they are attached to.
wodiej| 11.15.10 @ 7:38AM
Excellent idea but better yet, why not send all spending projects to individual state legislatures to be approved or disapproved. The federal government should not be appropriating tax dollars from all 50 states and spreading it around on a state by state basis.
Tom Poole| 11.15.10 @ 6:34AM
Perhaps its time to get a new minority leader. Mr. McConnel just does not get it and should not be allowed to mishandle the Republican caucus as he did the Senatorial election. If it were not for the Independents and the TeaPartiers there would likely be only 2 new senators, not 6.
erp| 11.15.10 @ 8:32AM
Absolutely right.
Booger| 11.15.10 @ 9:54AM
But he did such a great job! Charlie Crist! Murkowski! His support of Tea Party candidates who won Republican primaries! How could you possibly do any better?
Sea_Hunter| 11.15.10 @ 4:45PM
By electing Alfred E. Newman.
JimH| 11.16.10 @ 7:40AM
What, me worry? beats change you can believe in.
Left Out| 11.16.10 @ 1:44PM
No Hope?
Ole Sarge| 11.17.10 @ 9:37PM
I was hoping, and still am, that he is removed and someone such as DeMint steps in. I feel confident he would be a great improvement.
All the old line R's for the most part are a boon to the dims, not the Conservatives, just as bush was.
Tim*| 11.15.10 @ 6:48AM
"Americans want Congress to shut down the earmark favor factory," DeMint, a prominent voice of the tea party, said in a statement last week. "Instead of spending time chasing money for pet projects, lawmakers will be able to focus on balancing the budget, reforming the tax code and repealing the costly health care takeover." At least eight current senators are publicly supporting DeMint's moratorium, as well as five incoming Republican senators: Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.). "
WSJ
Alan Brooks| 11.15.10 @ 11:45PM
Tim* shouldn't blame McConnell, it's my fault-- as part of the Gang of Four:
the victor Margie Brooks IDF- Israeli-firsters-lesbos.
Apocalypse Crank (heroin?) Portuguese Man Of War-Jellyfish KGB Pogo Stick Scooby-dooby-do-where-are-you? (woof) Psychotic.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.15.10 @ 6:57AM
Tim*
Thanks for the "rounding out" couplett. there.
Quin,
Thanks for the heads up. We will crank out some letters and phone-calls to the Idiot, McConnel
coal carrier| 11.15.10 @ 6:58AM
How about this, every politician (porker) that votes for a pork bill has that same amount removed from his or her retirement fund.
Jackie Thompson| 11.15.10 @ 7:26AM
DeMint must be as delusional as Nancy Pelosi about the mandate sent by this last election. He needs to be replaced ASAP if he cannot understand the importance of the gesture of eliminating earmarks, pork, etc.
CharlieEcho| 11.15.10 @ 9:10AM
Care to clarifie this Jackie? Did you mean McConnel? I'm sure you did.
Ret. Marine| 11.15.10 @ 7:29AM
McConnell is not only tone deaf, but seems to be stupid. I wonder if he will feel more or less secure in his next election bid. My dollars are on the less part, and for good reason, he a typical elitist with the entitlement sense of its his decision to make it the way he wants because he "knows better than We the People Do". I suggest everyone send a phone call to his way, a letter, or fax explaining to him that even though you are not from his state and did and cannot vote for him, his decisions effect us all in the same manner.
TL| 11.15.10 @ 1:28PM
And these idiots are the ones who purport to sit in judgment of the "qualification" for office of Tea Party candidates. Give me any regular person with pulse over McConnell. Qualficiation for office means someone who will leave it much smaller then he finds it, or go down trying.
Shirley| 11.16.10 @ 5:08AM
Anyone care to send us a phone, fax, address or web address for this idiot that cannot hear what the majority of us are telling him?
wodiej| 11.15.10 @ 7:34AM
Either McConnell is part of the corrupt pork spending problem or he's stupid. Either one warrants job dismissal.
Louis Jenkins| 11.15.10 @ 8:14AM
Earmarks are not the problem, but rather a small part of the problem. None-the-less, stopping earmarks would be a beginning. There is more, much more, work to be done. You know the list as well as I do. McConnell is showing his colors, and they are the colors of an elitist. Until we rid ourselves of elitists we will forever live in the shade of their abysmal work. As I have said many times already, we've got a lot of work to do.
CharlieEcho| 11.15.10 @ 9:13AM
Earmarks are a good example of the problem and as you say only a small part. Yes we have to start somewhere. How our elected handle the elimination of earmarks will shed light on their and our other problems.
Ret. Marine| 11.16.10 @ 6:06AM
I respectfully disagree with the point here, without the earmarks we would not have to contend with the obamas Bin Lying piece of legislation now law. If it hadn't been for exactly these types of earmarks they would have not been able to bribe this legislation into being.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 11.15.10 @ 8:22AM
Maybe the Tea Party needs to show up in Kentucky, right in Mitch's Home Town, to try to get his personal attention. Maybe a little Christmas Tea Party, just for Mitch huh? He's not worried about his job,... just yet, but he might start thinking about his future if they invaded Louisville, Kentucky one day, just to say hello. Ask Harry Reid, how much fun it is to have the Tea Party show up in your Home Town just for little ole' you. I'm sure it totally sucks!! Good for the local Business, but not good for the intended Target. Now my local Tea Party's ready to get involved in this if need be, but then again, that's really easy for my Chapter to do, since I'm the only member of my local Tea Party still, but I'm ready to go!!
Stephanie| 11.15.10 @ 8:24AM
Term limits.
CharlieEcho| 11.15.10 @ 9:17AM
Term Limits, say it loud and clear!
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
Pat Spooner| 11.15.10 @ 10:29AM
Alos don't forget that VCongress and congressional staff and federal workers get the same healthcare options as everyone else.
Shirley| 11.16.10 @ 5:09AM
That would be the simple answer, however, try to get that on the ballot nationwide!
Bruce | 11.15.10 @ 8:27AM
Another limp-wristed southern "republican" of the Lindsey Graham variety. Will the good people of Kentucky send him packing next cycle, or will they follow the idiots of South Carolina who re-elect Graham for some reason known but to God?
Donna| 11.15.10 @ 8:40AM
Mr. McConnell, follow DeMint’s lead on Fox News yesterday: “I am a recovered ear marker. I shall not vote for legislation with ear marks. It distorts the bill.” then say the serenity prayer and do your job in accordance to the Constitution.
Bill| 11.15.10 @ 8:48AM
The country needs to vote all of these types out of office whether they be republicans or democrats.
And I agree with Stephanie. Term limits need to be instituted.
Amanda| 11.15.10 @ 9:21AM
This article is right on target. And earmarks are
a gateway drug to more backroom deals and
more spending.
And I don't like hearing that $16+ billion is not
enough money to worry about. Enough of that.
Every single dollar comes from taxpayers and
that in itself should make all of us look very carefully at what our congress is spending.
Joe Oliva| 11.15.10 @ 9:55AM
Since the 16 billion isn't too much, I am going to cheat a little on my income taxes. After all, it isn't much, only a few thousand.
McConnell is an idiot just like the rest of the elites.
Oldefarte| 11.15.10 @ 9:59AM
While deferring to Quin's expertise on this subject, the question is whether earmarks are ADDED or are INCLUDED within a bill. The former would be if a $100000 appropriation was thereafter added to by say $20000 for an earmark; whereas the latter would be if the $20000 was included within the legislated $100000. Either way, it is still an unfair and disproportional use of taxpayer money. If one congressman has more political clout than another, then his state benefits to the detriment of all others [ie LOUISIANA PURCHASE LANDRIEU over the healthcare bill]. The important issue should not just be earmarks, but the entire governmental misspending of taxpayer money in general. Foreign aid, farm aid, welfare, excessive military hardware, the Education Department, the Energy Department, NPR, etc should all be on the cutting table for elimination/serious decreases in my humble opinion. DID I MISSPELL ANY WORDS [PLEASE DON'T VERBALLY CRUSIFY ME FOR SAME]?????????
jb| 11.15.10 @ 11:24AM
"DID I MISSPELL ANY WORDS [PLEASE DON'T VERBALLY CRUSIFY ME FOR SAME]?????????"
Why did you misspell crucify? LOL
I'm another OldFart, so I don't understand what part of; "my word is my bond" is so hard to understand when a politician runs on one set of promises and then legislates on another.
As mentioned by others, earmarks are but the tip of the iceberg, additional deep cuts need to be made in other areas, i.e., Department of Education, Department of Energy, EPA, to name but a few.
We need our new congresscritters to think long and hard before writing new laws, IMHO, we have enough laws already. Let's hold them accountable for enforcing the ones already on the books,; especially the ones concerning border security.
Illegals overrunning my border is a real pet peeve here.
Oldefarte| 11.15.10 @ 1:09PM
All politicians LIE ['....I'm another OldFart, so I don't understand what part of; "my word is my bond" is so hard to understand when a politician runs on one set of promises and then legislates on another....'] and some more than others. Your B must stand for the BALLOON that you apparently live inside of!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jb| 11.15.10 @ 1:52PM
Apparently you are not only an "OldeFarte", you are also politically blind to those who espouse a similar POV. 4Q2, well deserved, IMHO.
Ned the Red| 11.15.10 @ 10:28AM
What is the first thing usually said when about to clean up a huge mess? "Well, this looks like as good a place to start as anywhere", and earmarks do. It might not be the largest part of the mess, but it's a start.
I also remember something, I think Rudi Giuliani employed in cleaning up New York, you fix the broken windows and clean up the garbage first, the rest will follow.
Good column Quin, but my feelers are still hurt from the comments you made about General Sherman.
OLDRAY| 11.15.10 @ 10:35AM
WODLEJ has it exactly right. Either way. McConnel is not fit for Senate minority leader.
Oldefarte| 11.15.10 @ 12:56PM
JB, let me warn you that JB and his WORD POLICE are on the prowl [ 'McConnel']
jb| 11.15.10 @ 2:03PM
Oldefarte,
You are just pissed because I caught you misspelling a word after you asked we not catch you.
Paranoia is the 1st bad sign of serious drug abuse... Get help, get your shit together my friend,,, nobody is after you here.
With best possible regards,
jb
ROTFLMAO
Houston Rao| 11.15.10 @ 11:26AM
It is not that earmarks are a big spend. But bribes, kickbacks and using political power to further one's own interests are simply morally and ethically wrong. And corruption always starts at the top and spreads through the system as everyone vies for their piece of the pie. It starts with the politicians, then ropes in the bureaucrats, then everyone.... until nothing can be done without some palm greasing.
Paleo-ossa| 11.15.10 @ 11:31AM
Repealing the 17th ammendment would be a good start at giving states their oversight back.
rainmaker1145| 11.15.10 @ 11:48AM
All last year I agitated for the Tea Parties to go their own way and leave the Republican Party altogether. When I said it I had just this type of outcome in mind. In the end, as long as the Republican Party feels the benefit of our organization, our money and our votes they have no reason to change their ways. The only way for them to take us seriously is if we run our own political party, have our own agenda and fight the Republican corruption with the same vim and vigor that we oppose the Democratic corruption.
People...
It ...
Is...
Time...
To...
LEAVE!
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 12:31PM
No,
It's time for THEM to leave:
Chris Christie has the right idea~ For your reading pleasure, view here the next Republican Campaign slogan:
"Let Me Help You Pack!"
http://michellemalkin.com/2010.....gn-slogan/
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 12:33PM
Taking Back Our Country~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2G3wGVAnlQ
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 12:48PM
P.S. Before some supercilious hack tries to say by "them" I meant the TEA party, no, by 'them" I am referring to the Establishment Repubs.
Oldefarte| 11.15.10 @ 1:01PM
Careful, Margie, JB [and Holder's] WORD POLICE are arresting those committing spelling errors. Only egghead writers spared]!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 1:39PM
Oldefarte: You rock!
Here's an excellent commentary too, to add to Quin's excellent article today. Chuck Colson makes the following point:
"But this is more than an issue of fiscal responsibility. It’s an issue of ethics and moral responsibility, both of which, sad to say, are in short supply in American life today."
Fiscal responsibility IS moral responsibility!
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/15780
(Not sure why hyperlinks aren't coming out.)
Al Adab| 11.15.10 @ 2:36PM
McConnell, McCain (is there a pattern here) and the other accomodationists need to learn quick. There can be no compromise between those seeking Liberty and those imposing Slavery.
Every last dollar should be on the table no matter how small individually, collectivly the amopunts are huge. It has to be taken from someone (US) before it can be spent by others.
"To tasx one person, class or section to provide revenue for another is robbery." John W. Davis DEM Presidential candidate 1924.
Lets pick our ground Conservatives but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 3:09PM
Greetings, Al Adab!
Right again and as I see it there is absolutely no reason to compromise in the slightest and earmarking should not be taken lightly or looked at as a petty or non-issue:
"He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much." Lk. 16:10.
Al Adab| 11.15.10 @ 3:23PM
Thanks Margie:
We need to watch them like a hawk. McConnell's e-mail is jammed. Keep it up folks. In America it is the voters who are sovereign.
Reagan Loyalist| 11.15.10 @ 12:13PM
McConnell continues to show his Ruling Class bona fides by exhibiting the very same kind of denial witnessed in Nancey Pelosi. I wish DeMint would run for Senate Majority Leader.
tj| 11.15.10 @ 12:35PM
Just sent old mitch the last paragraph of the article.
IT doesn't mince words and would behove him to follow this mandate or get the hell out the door!
tj| 11.15.10 @ 12:37PM
Please all send mitch a nice email. Jam his box till gets IT!!!!
Roberto| 11.15.10 @ 12:51PM
I agree with almost all of the comments about McConnell's elite presumptuousness, and expect that DeMint, or someone like him, will soon edge him out. At least I pray so.
Erica | 11.15.10 @ 1:18PM
I am against ALL earmarks, that being said, DeMint is calling for the GOP to ban them and while this is quite noble, he has to remember that the Democrats still controll Congress and while we have Obama in the White House he still has the veto powers and I can guarantee you he will use them liberally [pardon the pun]. The earmarks should be BANNED by both sides of the ailse, then only then can we stop the needless spending that we've seen come our way.
Al Adab| 11.15.10 @ 2:39PM
End earmarks, end non-germain riders. That spending is just the tip of the iceberg, but we must begin somewhere. Every last dollar must be on the table. The accomodationist wing of the GOP failed us before. DO NOT FAIL US AGAIN.
Nexialist| 11.15.10 @ 2:15PM
What is going to happen is not only will there be a primary challenge, but conservatives will vote Democrat in the general election rather than stay home. Delicious.
oilfield7550| 11.15.10 @ 2:42PM
The Republican party can and must do better than Mitch McConnell as minority leader. He is devoid of any meaningful accomplishments as a U.S. Senator and is one of the weakest public speakers in Congress. He is as inconsequential as the state he represents. If Republicans take control in 2012, they cannot have the Harry Reid-like McConnell leading them forward. If they were smart, they'd put someone much stronger in charge now. John Thune might be a good choice.
Reaganite| 11.15.10 @ 2:50PM
McConnell just announced he has reversed his position and will support the earmark ban. He must have read the Spectator and the reader comments.
Good work Mr. Hillyer!
Minuteman| 11.15.10 @ 2:51PM
Earmarks seem to be symbolic but in actuality they are the lubrication for the atrocities Congress votes for as laws and appropriations. Earmarks prime the pump of reckless spending and liberty killing regulation.
jaytoo| 11.15.10 @ 3:00PM
Dear Lawmakers: We will fire each and every one of you that dare to fight for or insert earmarks on any bill from this day forward. Signed Your BOSS the electorate!
David| 11.15.10 @ 4:20PM
Good posts, Margie.
How the ignorant people of Arizona re-elected, by a huge margin, Juan McAmnesty and trasher of everything conservative, is beyond me to understand.
Margie| 11.15.10 @ 7:12PM
Thanks, David.
Well, I reckon it probably had something to do with "the fear of change." (Chicken doo-doos.) I can't think of why else they would've chosen him over J.D. Hayworth. Well, maybe next time.
darcy| 11.15.10 @ 11:44PM
J.D.Hayworth lost because he ran as a small-government, fiscally conservative Republican, but was shown (the videos were shown day-in and day-out) by the McCain campaign to have participated as a paid broadcaster in an infomercial in which he was tutoring viewers on how they could access government programs, via grants and the like. The message was that the government is there for you to milk for all its worth. It was a very bad moment for his supporters, and for him, no doubt.
McCain also had a 28-million-dollar campaign war-chest while Hayworth's was a mere 2 million.
Arizona's problem was that indeed, many Repubs here are RINOS; but it is also true that we had a very flawed primary opponent, who I voted for anyway, as a write-in, in the general. No way would I vote -- ever -- for McCain. He embodies the very worst of the Republican Party; and I will fight him as I can, by reminding all who will listen what he's done to further America's descent into progressivism.
Bruce | 11.16.10 @ 5:28PM
Personally speaking, as long as these programs exist I have no problem with Hayworth or anyone else clueing us regular Americans how to take advantage of every program that could benefit us. Are all of us so rich that we don't need any help at times? After all - if we don't take what is due us - we know damned well the professional leeches of the left will, and have their entire lives!
jrjr| 11.15.10 @ 4:30PM
"He repeatedly claims that eliminating earmarks will not save a dime because the money merely will be redirected otherwise." If this is the case then he and his pals are doing enough to see what the Executive branch is doing with the appropriations. Hey CLOWN, invite the GAO to look in on the agencies to police them. While you are at it, instruct the agencies' Inspectors General to keep an eye on them. LOSER!
CharlieEcho| 11.15.10 @ 6:52PM
Changed his stripes? On the news tonight it was reported that McConnel has had a change of heart. Maybe he reads the American Spectator.
Kris Lepine| 11.15.10 @ 7:19PM
Term limits, term limits, term limits!!! It's the only way to get these dinosaurs out of their ivory towers. Earmarks buy influence, they buy power, they invite corruption, they pad the pockets of "so called" public servants. They encorage graft and all the waste that goes along with it. It's sickening that all of America has to pay for a new convention hall for Myrtle Beach SC. Plus, now that I life in SC, I don't see the need for a new one. The current one sits empty a lot of the time. But hey, they're probably going to put Lindsay Grahamnesty's name on the new one. Term limits!
Louisville Conservative| 11.16.10 @ 9:59AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this article is now moot. On the very same day it was published (11/15/10) McConnel gave a speech in Congress and reversed his position. He now stands opposing earmarks.
jacky | 1.20.11 @ 1:52AM
Good posts, Margie.
How the ignorant people of Arizona re-elected, by a huge margin, Juan McAmnesty and trasher of everything conservative, is beyond me to understand.