Steve Forbes: McCain Isn't Bush

[DavidRoss]

A recent thread about Palin & Israel cited an article correcting the malicious misrepresentation of Palin as a supporter of Pat Buchanan. According to that article, Palin did not support Buchanan's campaign, but did work in support of Steve Forbes's candidacy. Steve Forbes, those with functioning memories will recall, was the other noteworthy candidate besides John McCain who contested George W. Bush's nomination in the 1980 Republican primaries. A strong advocate of fiscal responsibility, Forbes's focus on simplifying the tax code and policy guaranteed strong opposition from all the vested interests in both parties whose livelihood depends upon inflicting that inefficient insanity on our nation. And his status as a party outsider assured opposition from the "good old boys" who viewed him as a PITA nearly on a par with McCain.

Today Steve Forbes is one of John McCain's economic policy advisors. CBS news recently interviewed him about McCain's fiscal and energy policies. An excerpt:

CBSNews.com: But why should voters trust Republican leadership on this issue when the current Republican president inherited a surplus and is leaving his successor with perhaps the worst deficit in American history?

Steve Forbes: We're talking about John McCain, not the Republican Party or the current incumbent in the White House. And we're looking to the future, not what George Bush has done in the past. Bush is not running for reelection. John McCain is running for election. And John McCain has vigorously opposed many of the spending measures of the Bush administration. His tax proposals are far more comprehensive than what the Bush administration has proposed.

And on the energy front, he has got a far more vigorous approach than either Senator Obama, the Congressional Democrats, or the current incumbent in the White House. So in terms of what voters are voting for--the programs advocated by Senator McCain, and the programs advocated by Senator Obama--I think Senator McCain's are hugely more beneficial for the economy and for our security.

CBSNews.com: What do you say to economists who argue that it's actually the Bush tax cuts that have contributed more to the shortfall than increased spending?

Steve Forbes: The tax cuts enabled the American economy to go from stagnation, which started under Bill Clinton in 2000, the high tech bubble burst in 2000. And the losses from high tech still vastly exceed what we've lost on the subprime crisis.

And the tax cuts of 2003 took the U.S. economy from a subpar one percent growth rate to three to four percent real growth, and between 2003 and 2007, the expansion of the American economy, just the growth alone, exceeded the entire size of the Chinese economy. We grew China in four years. Now, obviously, their growth rates are higher, but they're coming off of a much smaller base. So the tax cuts worked. What didn't work was the reckless spending by both the White House and the Congress.

The complete transcript is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/ ... 0114.shtml

[greymouse]

John McCain can be trusted with fiscal responsibility - he didn't participate in the decadent spending spree of the early 00's. This is a time he went against his own party for the public good. I say give the man line item veto power.

[Steinway]

Going against the Republicans for the public good??

Is that why anyone should vote them into running this country for another four years? Because they've been operating against the public good?

We can't afford another four years of Republican rule. John McCain , whatever his intentions may be, cannot change his party's overall philosophy and will have to suffer the consequences of the Bush/Cheney disaster.

The American people have had enough and perhaps have a chance at electing a President who might think doing the right things for the public good is the right thing to do.

[greymouse]

Going against the Republicans for the public good??

Is that why anyone should vote them into running this country for another four years? Because they've been operating against the public good?

We can't afford another four years of Republican rule. John McCain , whatever his intentions may be, cannot change his party's overall philosophy and will have to suffer the consequences of the Bush/Cheney disaster.

The American people have had enough and perhaps have a chance at electing a President who might think doing the right things for the public good is the right thing to do.

This doesn't make sense to me. My point is McCain has a record of going against his party in ways I find admirable - on spending discipline and the torture issue. There are other issues where McCain has proven he is not beholden to his party - I just named two that matter to me.

Obama has never gone against his party in any meaningful way. He seems to be a pure DNC conformist. If any issue comes up when he has to demonstrate independence for the public good, I can't trust him to tell his party to take a hike. This is based on his record and statements, and correct me if I'm wrong but I can think of no exception.

[Werner]

Of course, McCain did have to submit to his party in being denied the running mate he really wanted. So the power of the base remains as potent and threatening as ever.

Sure, McCain isn't Bush. Equally true, Palin isn't Cheney. so much for the good news..........