-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It’s hard not to sympathize with House Republicans and Speaker John Boehner, given the utter intransigence of President Obama and Harry Reid, and given the outright hostility of the legacy media.
Obama and Reid, after all, have not negotiated in good faith; and the media has been contemptuous of GOP and Tea Party attempts to rein in an out-of-control federal budget.
But my friend Quin Hillyer errs when he tells us to swallow hard and accept the budget deal’s likely gutting of the defense budget because John McCain says it’s OK.
“The one and only subject on which he [McCain] always has been reliable,” Quin writes, “is on fighting for a strong defense. Again, check the record: He is extremely knowledgeable, and extremely pro-defense.”
McCain is certainly an outspoken foreign policy interventionist, and he may be pro-defense, but he is not “extremely knowledgeable.”
As I wrote for FrumForum two years ago:
Very few GOP legislators — and McCain is a prime example, unfortunately — are willing to get their hands dirty legislatively.
McCain’s experience with the defense budget is a case in point. As an aviator and as a naval officer, Senator McCain was a great warrior; but unlike, say, former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, he simply doesn’t understand the intricacies of the defense budget. McCain relies heavily on his staff and outside “experts” — long-time Washington hands who reflect the center-left conventional wisdom.
Consequently, McCain — and not only McCain, I regret to say, but many other GOP legislators — have supported Obama’s massive and ill-advised defense budget cuts. These cuts were ill-advised because they eliminated crucial ground-force modernization initiatives which McCain seems not to understand or appreciate, and they have been severe.
According to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, Obama has taken some $439 billion has been taken out of defense. No other government program or agency has been forced to suffer such draconian cuts, only the U.S. military. And now, on top of these massive cuts, we face the prospect of hundreds of billions more being taken out of defense within the next decade.
True, Chairman McKeon has reluctantly agreed to support the budget deal, but more so, I think, for reasons of political peer pressure than anything else: He wants to be a good team player, especially after the political and media drubbing that House Republicans have endured these past few weeks.
“I will support this proposal with deep reservations,” McKeon said in a statement.
Our senior military commanders have been unanimous in their concerns that deeper cuts could break the force. I take their position seriously, and the funding levels in this bill won’t make their job easier.
Still, this is the least bad proposal before us. What is clear is we have cut what we can from the Department of Defense, and given what’s at stake it is essential that the joint committee include strong national security voices.
There is no scenario in the second phase of this proposal that does not turn a debt crisis into a national security crisis. Defense cannot sustain any additional cuts either from the joint committee or the sequestration trigger.
In other words, McKeon’s saying: “Defense will take one for the (GOP) team this time. But don’t expect me to stand idly by if the sequestration trigger goes into effect and the defense budget is eviscerated.”
That’s swallowing hard, but that’s McKeon, not McCain. The senior senator from Arizona is swallowing all too willingly — hook, line, and sinker.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/02/mccain-is-a-big-reason-the-gop
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
old white guy| 8.2.11 @ 10:14AM
cowardice from a hero???
WJ| 8.2.11 @ 10:21AM
Cut DOD. Cut it with extreme prejudice. If we are going to be broke debtor nation let's start acting like one and gut our bloated military.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 8.2.11 @ 12:20PM
The US military is NOT bloated. If anything, it is underfunded, with budget cuts that have already de facto cancelled its modernization and severely reduced its degree of readiness.
Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 1:31PM
Right you are. Where is the million man army, where the 400 ship navy, where the fifty air wings? We have difficulty maning the current needs in the field let alone mounting a mjor action or campaign should the need arise.
Solo| 8.2.11 @ 10:39AM
Here is a man who finished in the bottom 3 of his Naval Academy class and had the distinction of being shot down twice--once while sitting on the deck of his aircraft carrier.
He wasn't fit to fly cargo planes full of rubber dog s**t out of Taiwan. I hardly consider him an "expert" on anything (except camera chasing) and even less so a military expert.
J.C.Eaton| 8.2.11 @ 12:28PM
McCain ran his airplane into a North Viet rocket[his words], he submitted to thelaw of gravity and fell to earth where he was captured, held in prison, and behaved honorably. So did LOTS of other guys! For this is is "America's Hector, Achilles?" Give me a break.
Mary Mayes | 8.2.11 @ 11:27AM
McCain never fails to disappoint.
Real American| 8.2.11 @ 12:03PM
there won't be any cuts in Defense either. spending goes one direction in this deal: UP UP UP UP.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 8.2.11 @ 12:28PM
"But my friend Quin Hillyer errs when he tells us to swallow hard and accept the budget deal's likely gutting of the defense budget because John McCain says it's OK.
"The one and only subject on which he [McCain] always has been reliable," Quin writes, "is on fighting for a strong defense. Again, check the record: He is extremely knowledgeable, and extremely pro-defense.""
Quin Hillyer is 100% wrong. I've actually checked McCain's record. He is extremely ANTI-DEFENSE and totally ignorant on defense issues.
During the 1990s, McCain fought to close both the B-2 bomber program and the Seawolf class program, and succeeded both times. In 2005, he managed to prevent a good man, General Gregory S. Martin, from becoming the leader of the PACOM. During the 2008 campaign, he railed against defense spending and weapon programs, endorsed the "no more conventional wars" fiction, and promised to close over 100 weapon programs, as did his economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Since Obama took office, John McCain has endorsed all of his defense cuts and has vigorously argued for them, including the 2009 cuts (when over 30 crucial weapon programs were closed), the 2010 cuts (outlined in February 2010), and Obama's most recent cuts. He says the DOD should and will see further budget cuts and has vowed to close all weapon programs that go even slightly overbudget or behind schedule. He is also a longtime supporter of nuclear disarmament and voted together with his RINO buddy Lindsey Graham and 13 other RINOs to bring the New START treaty to the floor for a vote.
So no, McCain is NOT "pro-defense" (let alone "extremely pro-defense") and not knowledgeable let alone "extremely knowledgeable" about defense issues. Quin Hillyer, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about and is babbling nonsense. He has never learned that he should be silent about issues he knows nothing about.
Siegfried X| 8.2.11 @ 12:29PM
P.O.W. outranks everyone on military issues, is the way many voters think. It is insulting and a danger to everyone else in the military, as well as the general population. Our troops risk their lives for us everyday, so we owe them clear headed politicial thinking on their behalf, not this.
Al Adab| 8.2.11 @ 1:29PM
McCain is a continuing dissapointment. During his last campaign he was more than willing to use the Tea Party to hold forums and campaign rallies. Now he turns on them with deep cynicism. Is he that much a Janus or simply in it for himself?
Oldefarte| 8.2.11 @ 1:53PM
Granted Mccain has flip-flopped on various issues, but the point is: WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE A MC CAIN OR OBAMA AS PRESIDENT? I'd gladly suffer a McCain presidency right now HOOK, LINE AND SINKERS!!!!!!
W| 8.2.11 @ 3:58PM
Most of us here voted for McCain, what choice did we have. He did pick Sarah, but he and his staff did not support her. After the election, McCain was on Letterman who made a snarky remark/question about Sarah. McCain rolled his eyes , gave his smirk, then said something nice about her. He could not resist taking a non-verbal shot at Sarah.
McCain should have left the R party in 2004 when he had supposedly agreed to run as VP with John Kerry. He is the media's go to guy when they need a Republican to criticize conservatives.