Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Inhofe: McCain's a Liberal, Gets Elected Because of Earmark Opposition


U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) spoke at a Tulsa Metro Chamber breakfast this morning, and labeled U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as a closet liberal who gets elected merely because he opposes earmarks. No word if he said the same thing about U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who is even more rabidly anti-earmark/pork-spending than McCain.

Ironically, both Inhofe and and McCain's opponent - former Congressman J.D. Hayworth - are both well known for being earmark defenders.

Don't come between a Senator or Congressman and his earmarks...

8 comments:

mark said...

Haven't conservative Republicans known all along that McCain is a closet liberal? Mark Hughes

Jamison Faught said...

Yes, but the issue to attack McCain on as being a liberal is not earmarks! Go after him on campaign finance, immigration, cap and trade, and stuff like that.

mark said...

Jamison: Why are earmarks off the table when it comes to McCain or any other senator or U.S. congressman?

Jamison Faught said...

By and large, especially in Congress, opposition to earmarks is considering to be the conservative approach. Coburn, DeMint, Ryan, Price... those in opposition to earmarks are generally more conservative than those who are in favor of them. So, opposition to earmarks is considered to be conservative, ergo, attacking McCain as a liberal and specifically mentioning his opposition to earmarks is counter-intuitive.

mark said...

I don't see how it would hurt to include earmarks in our "outing" of Sen. McCain. Mark

Jamison Faught said...

... but McCain doesn't use earmarks. He has the same position as Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint.

I guess that just depends on what your view of earmarks is... on one side, Coburn/DeMint/McCain are the conservative because they don't earmark, while the other side thinks, I guess, that Inhofe/Young/Rangl/etc are "conservative" because they do earmark.

mark said...

Well, McCain can say he has not or doesn't earmark or support ear marks but Michelle Malkin disagrees:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/01/mccain-will-support-earmark-stuffed-senate-crap-sandwich/

When McCain voted for the bail out, according to Malkin, he also voted for ear marks contained in the bill. See above link.:

According to Think Progress. org, McCain asked for (ear marks)and got them twice. http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-lying-about-earmarks-hes.html

Think Progress writes that...

"McCain’s claim is false. In 2006, the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.

In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill to
create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric:

The only problem is the project to acquire more land near the base was not requested by President Bush or fully authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee - two of McCain’s criteria for identifying so-called ‘pork.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), a notorious porker, was overjoyed that McCain had joined his side. “One man’s pork is another man’s alternate white meat,” said Stevens. “If he asked for it, we put it in.”"

Even a "correction" added by Roll Call to its 2003 report doesn't place McCain in the clear. He asked for money to be directed toward a project in his state, and he got it. That's an earmark.

Also, the Washington Post reports that in 1992 McCain asked for and got $5 million to be directed to a wastewater project in Arizona. The original request was rejected, causing McCain to go into action, approaching the EPA, and eventually President Bush I.

And politics goes on and on and on!!!

mark said...

Jamison: it would be helpful if you defined what "abuse" was? Profanity? anti-conservative or anti-Republican comments? Disagreeing with you? Pointing out flaws in yours or others thinking, comments?

Exactly how do you define abuse? If your readers knew that, we could ensure that we "tailor" our comments to keep from violating your rules. Mark Hughes