Redstate

Sound of applause from the peanut gallery in my office...

And will greatly help showcase the type of positions that McCain takes that endear him to conservatives as opposed to those that turn them off (campaign finance, some gun restrictions)

This looks good. I was (the only person) watching Tucker Carlson's show last night on MSNBC, and he repeatedly suggested that, with DeLay gone and Frist damaged, Republicans will have more freedom to vote their conscience and oppose runaway spending. This might be an example of all of these things coming to a head, I think.

Any time I read a post regarding this topic, you are, invariably, the author.

Perhaps everyone else is a fiscal conservative too, but I have a hunch that if the Democrats were the party of life, none of the other contributors would be here.

Just curious...

the most informed.

as merely a fly on the wall and i mean a fly on the wall in the rsc meetings, there is no doubt that these guys are furious about spending and they are not going anywhere.  they see this as any opportunity to cut, cut, cut and they know this is as good a time as any.  by these guys i mean - flake, pence, etc.

Perhaps you missed this and this and this and this in the last two weeks. Adam isn't the only fiscal conservative around here, he's just the best.

The rest of us just have other priorities. Heck, some of us might have even written stories lambasting the Party for its anti-miserly attitude. The Google is everyone's friend.

This is a nice start, but I'd be happier if there were a social conservative component to the new alliance.  Sadly, though, Graham and McCain wouldn't make the cut.

Great Novak article.  I'm a fiscal conservative who **shock** hates the fact that religion permeates the majority of the GOP's social agenda (sorry, I don't take like a side of Jesus with my government).  As such, it is frequently a struggle to balance the respective merits of the parties/candidates.  However, the fact that the GOP has largely abandoned fiscal conservatism leaves individuals such as me wondering what sense, if any, there is in voting for a Republican candidate.  After all, if we can get approximately the same fiscal insanity without the theocratic undertones, why in the world wouldn't we just vote Democratic?  I'm absolutely thrilled to see that some Republicans appear to be asking themselves this same question and arriving at the correct answer.  Hubris was the undoing of the Democrats in the 1990's; if the GOP doesn't remember that, they will be victims of the same history lesson.          

among us, just one of the more well informed among us.

Now, here's hoping for actual results.

-TS

Hopefully the true conservatives are fighting fiscal battles, not just those in the social sphere.  

My thoughts on the GOP fiscal arena.

But at least they are in the right direction - for a change.

Cheers.

Don't forget John Sununu as another great senator who was elected with Club for Growth member support and was mentioned in the Novak article.

I know I'm tooting our horn here, but all of the lawmakers who are out front on this issue of offsetting the costs of Katrina were backed with the Club's support.  Pence, Hensarling, Flake, Blackburn, Poe, Musgrave, McHenry, Feeney, Coburn, DeMint, Sununu.

Imagine what our Congress would look like if there were 100 of these guys in Congress. 200? 300?

Andy Roth

Director of Government Affairs

Club for Growth

is pleased and relieved to hear there is momentum behind a movement to reduce spending. For a very long time, I've been uneasy with the direction the leadership has been taking us, and now I realize that unchecked spending was the reason. Increased social spending doesn't endear us at all with the moderates and the left, so why do it? A waste of time and money.

Although speaking as a religiously-based person, I would also like to see a veer away from issues that focus on Christian social mores. Doing so only emphasizes the fact that many conservatives are prudish and fanatic, giving the media even more ammunition to wrongly stereotype conservatives as being intolerant bigots. Our priorities have become skewed, and it would be great to reemphasize the value that can unite people across theological divides: A lean, mean, fiscally-responsible government.

is not a great value to build a party on. Just one opinion.

both in your private life AND in your wallet, however, IS a great value to build on.

Financial principles certainly can't be the platform, but they need to be a central part of it.  Couple this with keeping laws out of the bedroom/personal lives of citizens, and you've got a great platform.  Clearly, this party already exists, but the Libertarians aren't yet viable on the national stage.  

That's excellent news. But I wonder where these guys were when the $80 billion was passed for Iraq with no spending controls whatsoever?

Although I am hoping for less government intrusion, rather than negligible government intrusion. If I may be explaining my understanding of libertarianism correctly.

There is something going on that is extremely dangerous.

Does it make sense for Federal Aid to be given to Katrina victims beyond what the current LAW requires? Does is make sense to assist businesses in NOLA that were wipe-out? Then does it make sense to help businesses that were wiped out in Punta Gorda from Charley (the scale may be bigger in NOLA but not the scope)? If one business is insured but one business is not then do both get aid or just the needy? Do we reward a business that took home more money than the business that bought business interruption insurance? What about the dairy farm in the middle of WI that gets hit by lightening and burns down? Is that not a disaster?

In other words does the federal government become the great insurance company in the sky?

...to protect the rights of the people.

Of course, if you ask n libertarians how much government that is, you will get at least n (possibly more) different answers.  So says this l(and L)ibertarian.  Although, I am more socially conservative (read: pro-life/anti-gay-marriage) and hawkish than your typical libertarian.

This type of comment makes me sick:

Increased social spending doesn't endear us at all with the moderates and the left, so why do it?

I would like you to consider putting the good of the country before the GOP.  Perhaps social spending programs, or lack of same could be good for the country?

can't say that I agree with that.  Libertarians have made considerable strides in popularity in recent years, probably due to the popularity of Libertarians such as Boortz.  He's a fiscal conservative who appears to be pro-choice (doesn't let callers talk about it, but his opinion seems obvious), neutral on gay marriage, etc. and has a huge following.  Impossible to deny the progress Libertarians are making.  The platform is attractive.

of the Fiscal RINO's.

DeLay

Frist

Hastert

Bush

Stop the Katrina Looting from moving to Washington

wondering, the inability to see the difference between spending on the War and spending on pork, is why you will continue to lose election after election.

-TS

"Vote their conscience." Right.

I look at the most likely explanation: the only reason this is an issue now is because it's in the news big-time, so the ones that campaigned the hardest on the issue (Coburn stands out in this regard) need to get in front of it to stay politically viable.

As far as I know, McCain has been the only reliable vote against runaway spending in the Senate. If someone is inclined to "vote their conscience", they do it whether the Hammers of the world are mean to them or not.  That's what a conscience is.  If they can only follow it when the Leadership lets them or is weakened, it's not a conscience.

But given that most voters vote after they've gone through their youthful indiscretion/no ties to society/libertarian phase, you're going to have to pardon me if I don't exactly quake at the Rise of the Libertoids.

My biggest annoyance when people criticize libertarianism.  There are so many legitimate reasons that stooping to that level of idiocy bothers me.

I decided I was a libertarian in my mid 20s, well after my non-existent youthful indiscretion phase.  The author that was the biggest influence on me becoming a libertarian was...come on its obvious...CS Lewis.

It seems that I have at least one senator who will stand up to his party leadership.  It is unfortunate that Senator Reid, as his parties leader, doesn't have the guts to stand up the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, et al.

How so? I love Lewis and have many libertairian views consistent with conservatism. I have read  alot of lewis's work. Can you reference?

They should be willing to cut the pork going to SC by 1/3 since that is the additional money that the state gets from the feds.

Anyhow, I wonder if the Senators, other than McCain, aren't really against pork for a state like CA while they support pork for their own states.

One mans pork is another mans needed project.

....should have no accounting controls? I certainly hope you're never elected to anything. You're dangerous enough as a voter.

Libertarians don't have to get 10-20%, win seats, etc. to be effective in influencing policy.  They just need to erode GOP support to an extent that it puts typically safe races in play.  

yes

is that government programs are designed to grow on their own accord. So if you are not ACTIVELY trying to cut spending at all times then you are part of the problem of runaway spending.

  We have gone so far with the waste, fraud, and pork that I am not sure if anything can be done. This spending will begin to be an enormous drag on our economy.

  Get ready for European style growth.

on your smart alec comment.  My apology for me having a relationship with God and believing in Jesus as my savior.  Now, if you can get over your hatred of those who choose to "believe" and just focus on the things we can agree upon and unite within the GOP! Or are you a stealth conservative that belongs on another blog?  However, I agree we conservatives need a strong fiscal conservative leadership in the Senate and the House to put forward a winning agenda.  Without "leaders stepping forward" between now and November 2006, not the Democrats but the Libertarians may need our support.

Bill,

No attempts to deceive here.  Like I said in my original post, I consider myself a fiscal conservative.  I don't agree with most of the GOP's social platform.  Last time I checked, the GOP still wanted to be the home for fiscal conservatives, right?

To me, that basically boils down to 1) low taxes 2) low spending 3) exceedingly little backdoor *"emergency"* spending and 4) a balanced budget (I know some like to debate the merits of running a deficit, etc., but I simply think this is an admirable and achievable goal for this country).    I'd also like to see something like FairTax enacted.  

Bush and the GOP congress have clearly succeeded on step #1, but have failed miserably with regard to the other criteria I personally consider characteristic of fiscal conservatism.  So from my perspective (and probably from the perspective of other fiscal conservatives) its basically like getting all of the stuff I don't like about the GOP without many of the things I typically find admirable about conservative politicians.      

Point #3 has particularly irked me.  Can anyone honestly say that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars represent "emergency spending"?  PLEASE!!!  These are some major big ticket items, the costs of which should unquestionably be a central part of the stated budget.  It's like me saying that my house payment is an "emergency expenditure" or that I didn't know my electricity bill would show up at the end of the month....only with about nine zeroes tacked onto the end.  It wouldn't even bother me as much if they over-allocate, but for Pete's sake, take a realistic stab at it!!!  Last time I checked (quite a while ago) these "emergency" bills totaled nearly $200B...perhaps more now.  Anyone have a current figure?  I'd really like to know the actual amount of debt this country has tallied up since '00 inclusive of all backdoor emergency spending.  

Anyway, I know a lot of people on this site don't like him, but I'm glad to see McCain leading some of this fiscal revival.  Even though I don't agree with a lot of his social platform, it's unambiguous where he stands on spending and I could easily vote for him.  I can't say as I particularly know where many of the other (any?) would-be '08 GOP candidates stand as regards their fiscal credentials.  But if there isn't a solid fiscal conservative on the ticket in '08, I would probably just vote a) on social platform or b) Libertarian.

   

FWIW, I recommend you watch GOVs Sanford (SC), Pawlenty (MN), and Bush (FL) as the best FisCons in the country.  From the Senate, Sens. McCain, Coburn, DeMint, Sununu, and Kyl have been pretty admirable with Sens. McCain and Kyl leading the pack with their votes against both the Transportation pork and Energy pork bills.

Probably the book with the most influence on my political views (I started reading Lewis for his religious writings, actually I guess I read his fantasy first, but you know what I mean) is God In The Dock - Essays on Theology and Ethics.

One great essay in it is "Is Progress Possible?  Willing Slaves of the Welfare State".  

Quote from it:

"To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death - these are wishes deeply ingrained in white and civilized man...From their total frustration disastrous results both moral and psychological might follow."

If I ever run for office, those 5 points are my campaign platform.

Let the deconstruction of CS Lewis begin.

of your points.  Point #3 about Iraq and Afghanstan spending is a concern for me but is more understandable.  Sec. Rumsfeld has been trying to slim and trim the Pentagon under "transformation" while fighting a war on terror around the world!  Each congressman wants to hold onto every little penny of DOD spending in his or her district as you know.  It doesn't matter which party the congressman or senator, they want to hold on to the DOD jobs and complain about something else. True DOD reform and consolidation has been needed since the 1970s from my prospective as a person retired from the military. Now, how do we unite together with other "conservatives, both fiscal and social" and get real like minded people to represent us in Washington, D.C.? WE NEED REAL GOP or CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP, not "faux conservatives" pretending to lead.