unless Republicans curb government spending by reforming the budget process, we may lose our majorities in the House and Senate. I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities.

Really? Deserve to? I have no reason to believe that the Democrats would even consider it an issue that needs to be addressed, much less solved. No thanks. I'll stick with the Republicans, despite the apparent inability to effect a change in the budget process. At least on our side, it's supposed to be an issue, and there are people (such as yourself) who care about wasteful spending. The thought of a Democrat holding the reins to the all-important committee chairs (and hence, the budget--not to mention the war, which in my humble opinion trumps everything) makes my skin crawl.

I understand you and several other senators met with the President on Tuesday to discuss the proposal of the line item veto. I completely support the line-item veto, but I have to wonder if it has any more chance of being passed than there is a chance of passing a law making tomatoes illegal (I wish!).

Thanks for addressing us in the blogosphere, Senator McCain. You heard correctly--and probably not quite as tactfully as you put it--that commenters can be "ahem, blunt." (If "blunt" means "idiotic poo-flinging monkeys," that is.) Expect the worst--and then watch as the cluetards complain that people in leadership positions don't take them seriously. ;-)

(Thanks & kudos to N.Z. and Glenn.)

My hat's off to you, Senator. Heck of a post and thank you for engaging us on this important issue. We sure hope some of your colleagues saw things they way you do.

I am in full agreement with you and the editors of NR--sorry, Beth--that if the Republicans don't fix this budget PROCESS soon, even die hard Republicans like me will throw up our hands.

Let's just hope you can convince Sens. Stevens and Lott, et al. before it's too late.

Among the core values we Republicans share with Pres. Reagan is a passion for free market principles such as lower taxes and opposition to unnecessary government regulation; and, very importantly, belief that the government that governs best governs least. I don't think any Reagan Republican would disagree that fiscal restraint and small government are bedrock principles of conservatives.

Is this the same person who opposed the Bush tax cuts and created new regulation with campaign finance reform? Senator, I'm glad you're against pork, but I'd be happier with you if you lived up to that paragraph.

Senator McCain,

I am glad to see you here. I hope you continue the bloggingprocess, even though, yes, you are liable to see bluntness and much worse.

Senator, I appreciate your comments on earmarks and pork spending, and yes, the Republicans deserve to lose if they do not change course.

What I find amazing is that Republicans fail to realize that if they TRULY came out for reform, showing rather than saying, they would win handily. Instead of "Show me the money!" people would like to hear "Show me the restraint!" I hope you can convince your fellow Republicans.

On a side note, Senator, I have great regard for you in general, and I think you are a viable candidate for President. I have a liberal Democrat friend who is encouraging me to support you!

I would, but one thing really riles me about you. I do not agree with your position on campaign finance reform. I understand your reasoning, but I still think it is a dangerous and unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights. I wish you would reexamine that issue and reconsider.

Nonetheless, Thank you for your service to the country, sir.

WG

Senator McCain,

You used to be my favorite senator but I think the turning point was the whole Falwell thing. You can not simply convince me that in such a short period of time the agents of intolerance are now paragons of virtue.

Now to the business at hand. However painful it is to admit it. I think that we deserve to lose if we don't change course.

By the way, wasn't the line item veto declared unconstitutional in 1998 by SCOTUS? If this happens to be passed into law again, will it only be limited to budgetary items or to all laws? Can you picture a scenario, say an anti-torture amendment that is gutted by say a LIV to be perfectly toothless? Or perharps can you picture a scenario where a LIV is threatened in exchange for votes ( I dont LIV your pork, you vote for my law)? I dont mean to insult you but the authourity handed to GWB will be handed to the next and the way thing are looking (Oh, I forgot another one: can you see a LIV being used against faith based initiatives?)

By requesting the LIV, arent our Republicans actively saying that they cant trust themselves to be fiscally responsible but they need the president to erase their indiscretions?

I say Instead of the LIV, lets make all ear marks to be voted on their own merit, in the house and in the senate. How about re-enacting the law ( I cant find references right now) that required a bill drawing up spending to show where the money was coming from too). This was repealed by this same administration enabing it to spend like money was going out of fashion. I beleive this two proposals could end up doing much more than a token LIV. Please enact real change.

Fiscal constraint should start where the bills start: in the House of Representatives, not by the President striking out lines wrote by his party (of fiscal constraint) and passed by his party (of fiscal constraint).

Forgive my rumbling style and my atrocious grammar.

I believe what you say is correct...but I agree that the LIV is probably not the answer. I agree with the commenter who suggested that all earmarks be voted on individually so that they can stand or fall on their own merit.

Kudos to you Senator, for taking the time to post. It is nice to see an elected official reaching out to more than their own constituency.

As for pork, I agree with Conservative Moonbat, the Line Item Veto (LIV) is too fraught with the potential for abuse. Congressional Members from both houses need to remember that no one said their jobs are easy and that they need to read and understand what they are voting on. All earmarks need to be voted on individually and a financial source must be declared. Actually, maybe we should just make it so that the President has an Earmark Veto Power, which would mean if he killed one Earmark, he killed them all in that particular bill.

On a related thought, when did the party that governs best by governing least decide it needed to legislate for the religious right? I hate government intrusion into how I live my life and republican support of legislation and amendments such as flag burning, faith based whatevers, and gay marriage bans has cost the GOP my support for the past decade or so.

Sen. McCain,

I'm a former Arizonian. Please keep up the good work and consider running for president in '08 (I'm sure you have already).

Also consider the cost of earmarking; much less to spend on science research and education. In science we are in a dire crisis of funding, one we can only hope will get better when the Dems take back control of congress and the executive. The crisis will cause many researchers to abandon science for other fields. Due to the nature of the game, once we leave science, there is no going back. So, either science funding will increase, or people like me will abandon science, since we can't find funding and jobs.

Dr. Rob

Can this be the same Senator that voted to preserve depression era farm subsidies, against the Bush tax cuts, and took bribes from Lincoln Savings?

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but will vote for almost any Democrat over John McCain. The First Ammendment - despite it's recent abuse by the NY Times - is too important to risk. If we loose the ability to critisize and petition government, the corruption will be overwhelming.

Osama Bin Ladin can kill a few thousand Americans. John McCain is more dangerous. He can kill the constitution.

I'll be the first to agree that the budget process needs reform, something akin to the following would work.

"Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

That small statement right there was contained in the constitution of the Confederate States of America. While they got a lot wrong in that document, I think thats probable the one thing they got right.

Senator McCain,

Thank you for your thoughtful words on this subject. As an American citizen, I am outraged that the Congress just passed another tax cut - this time for the wealthiest millionnaires - while they continue to pile on more deficit spending.

President Clinton left office with a surplus, Bush will leave us holding a rather large bill. The US dollar is plunging in value against major world currencies and the Saudis and Chinese are bankrolling our budget.

Leadership means more than passing out the pork, as you well know. Leadership means, at times, asking Americans to sacrifice. I believe most Americans would, if asked, gladly do their part to restore this nation's fiscal health.

Dear Sen. McCain,

I just wanted to praise you for first of all contributing to a blog for the first time.

Secondly: although I am European I hope you'll have time to answer my question nonetheless.

How do you plan to cut the government's budget? What is your proposal except for the earmarks? The earmarks are of course an important part of resizing government spending, but it's far from enough.

I was surprised to find out that Senator McCain was one of only a handful of U.S. Senators sticking to the principals of Reagan Republicans - namely low taxes and limited government. Others are talking a big game, but McCain walks the walk with consistent conservative votes.

The Republican Party needs more people like John McCain right now and I hope we have the sense enought to nominate him for President in 2008. Guys like Mitt Romney and George Allen are all talk and no walk. If you don't believe me, check out their public record and compare it to McCains. There is no comparison. If you liked Reagan, McCain's the choice in 2008. Again, this conclusion came as a bit of a surprise to me, but records don't lie. Check it out.

Talk about chutzpah. Of all the people to stand up and accuse Republicans of acting in opposition to their principles, the man who's fled fastest and farthest from them for media attention? The man who's worked harder than anyone save his partner in crime, Russ Feingold, to undermine the freedom of political speech? Ridiculous.

It is a personal policy of mine to pay little heed to snakes like Mr. McCain. I do however nominate his picture to be the one the US Mint uses on their new three dollar bill.

John, you are not a Republican, you are not a conservative. What you are is a raw-ambitioned politician who will do anything and say anything you think will impress people. You come to Porkbusters yammering about spending. Yet you voted for that insane immigration bill which would cost us untold hundreds of billions or even trillions if signed into law. Fortunately the House is onto ploys like that and will kill it.

And when all is said and done, I choose not to give any credence to a hack who co-sponsors the biggest assault on free-speech in my lifetime - the McCain-Feingold Act. And I was born one year after the end of WWII so that covers a lot of time. Buzz off, you phony.

Earmarks sound a lot like taxation without representation. As I recall we went through this once before resulting in some serious governmental changes. The line item veto would be a good way to stop earmarks provided we always had a principled President. Making congress(persons) have to justify their earmark might curb the practice. Wouldn't it be nice if the New York Times, the defender of my freedoms, would be as anxious to expose the wasting of my tax dollars as they are printing classified information.

Wait.. is the the same John McCain from... MCCAIN-Feingold? I find it hard to believe Ronald Reagan would have supported restrictions on free speech.

Oh wait - aren't you also the same Senator who voted to retain farm subsidies? And voted against Bush tax-cuts?

This isn't an insult, btw, just a restatement of fact.

I think that Senator McCain should consider hiring new writers. This sentence was impossible to read:

"Where corruption can easily occur and where profligate spending is presently out of control is when a lobbyist, knowing the rules of the game, receives special treatment for his or her client, irrespective of the public interest, simply by enjoying a relationship with a member of Congress who can, by this process we call earmarking, provide their clients a benefit that is seldom scrutinized by Congress as a whole."

Nonetheless, I agree with his greater message.

You still offering 50 bucks an hour to pick lettuce?

Senator McCain,

Thank you for talking about the big pink elephant in the room.

I have always admired your fiscal stance on things. What I don't understand is why, after GWB dragged your name through the mud during the 2000 campaign, you continue to support him? I voted for you in the primaries. You are the moderate that would get me to vote Republican... Well, you were until I realized that you let people in power use you for their benefit and then turn on you when it suits them. It appears to be a lack of self-respect or backbone.

I do agree though, big government needs to be cut back. Our spending needs to be reigned in and we have to set some priorities, meaningful ones, like keeping our population healthy, fed, educated, and alive. The people of the United States must come first.

Senator McCain,
Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughts on the out of control earmarks now pervasive in the Republican party dominated US government. I completely agree with you and hope that you will continue to exert as much influence as possible to bring them under control.

In addition, I salute your courageous bipartisan position on campaign finance reform and urge you to continue that effort. If money = free speech, then don't those with more money have more speech? Stop the K Street hords and huge campaign donors from taking away our democracy.

Lastly however I would like to caution you against sucking up to the mullahs of the religious right in an effort to gain their votes. This country has never more in it's history needed to uphold the priciples of separation of church and state. Religion, by it's very nature, seems an irrational and intollerent philosophy (especially in these times) and must remain out of unduly influencing government policy.

Dear John,

You had me...Then you lost me

The former; with Campaign finance reform; porkbusting, and just a general sense of you not being afraid to speak candidly that compliments your obvious personal qualities and life experience.

The later; ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!! You have lost my vote, but I do still admire your other contributions.

Can you imagine the PORK laden beurocracy (sp) (just by its sheer size) it will take to process 20 million people? I dare say this new agency will be larger than the entire Department of Defense--after all, we do not have 20 million military personnel.

Good Luck to you Sir,

M Jagger
Chicago, IL

someone need to put a stop to all this pork spending with all that pork money they could give the active duty troops a 15% pay raise and still have money to take care of the veterans and buy all the new equip needed

DL.PRUDEN USN RET

Why isn't President Bush at the top of the fiscal irresponsibility hall of shame list? By some estimates, this war which seems to be a net benefit to our enemy will cost up to a trillion dollars. How can anyone take any budget process seriously when a major expense like this is left out? All of the "pork" issues combined don't come close to this expense.

Senator:

A brave (not necessarily wise) move coming out for open-season on candidates. The blogosphere offers public figures a chance to interact with the electorate and I hope to read more posts by you (or Mark or Andrea) prior to your 2008 bid.

Respectfully,
Sirrah
http://rise-to-vote-sir.blogspot.com/

Senator,

Thank you for efficiently laying out the problem. But I and others would appreciate it if you and your colleagues gave thought to a solution, besides the line-item-veto.

The LIV allows congressmen to behave as irresponsibly as they please, and places the onus of the President to restrain them. I would prefer the system to change so that congressmen find it impossible to authorize wasteful spending in the first place. I believe that Senator Tom Coburn has a few proposals along those lines.

I would also like to add my voice to those expressing dismay over the so-called Campaign Finance Reform that you co-authored. It has already been used to muzzle the free speech of media personalities in Washington State and elsewhere, under the spurious justification of limiting "in-kind contributions." What we may see in the future is worse.

The excessive inflluence of money over Congress is troubling, but it should be solved not by limiting the funding (which will always leave openings for abuse) but by restricting the ability of congressmen to provide a quid pro quo.

Senator,

Thanks for posting. While I agree with most of your thoughts, one thing I disagree with is this: "I will go one step further and say that if Republicans do not reform our budget process, we will deserve to lose our majorities."

Republicans in Congress already deserve to lose their majorities. The GOP-led Congress has failed: on Iraq, spending, and maintaining a check on executive powers, etc. Re-electing the same congressmen who've spent us into this mess amounts to an endorsement of the job they've done. What incentive would Congress have to reign in spending then?

That's bad enough, but what really gets my blood boiling is how many much time and taxpayer money congress has wasted on non-issues like steroids in baseball, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage, flag-burning, etc. while problems like gas prices and the immigration issue don't go away. Clearly these guys would rather campaign on DOA wedge issues than do the heavy lifting. Enough is enough: Vote them all out.

At least Democrats have some incentive to reign in spending and get some hard answers from our out-of-control President. The GOP congress is toothless. I used to be a fan of yours Senator, until you started cozying up to the American Taliban in a transparent bid to run for President in '08. These days Arlen Specter is one of the few Republican congressmen I respect. Too bad he's handcuffed by his own part.

My (blunt) two cents.

Thanks Sen. McCain. We need some restraint back in Washington! I can't wait to vote for you for President!!!

Our next President (hopefully John McCain...hope,hope) wil have to address the taboo issues of Social Security and Medicaid. Seems like an obvious statement doesn't it? I believe John McCain has the courage to address and attack these issues head on and that is why I will support him for prez in 2008.

John,

Cutting pork is great, we need more of that in Congress.

Cutting Pigheadedness and backstabbing is also needed!

You need to deside if you want to belong in the Republican party, or if you prefer a moderate Demonrat party?

Make a choice, your speel is only selling to the MSM and the RATS!

I'm sorry, I realize its a logical fallacy I should be able to overcome; but once someone tells me that Political Speech is not First Amendment Protected speech (and as we've learned, stripping = protected speech by court fiat); so the First Amendment allows restrictions of Political Speech near elections to restrict the flow of political ideas and enable the easy re-election of incumbents...

Anyhow, once someone has posited that theory, I cannot credit another of their ideas with the possibility that they might be correct. If such a person told me that ice was cold, I'd want independent confirmation.

"So why has my party, the party of small government..." decided that the proper role of a small non-intrusive Government was to regulate any and all spending, speech and political activity that might potentially be intrusive to an incumbent running for re-election? Oh sorry, that wasn't your question? Hunh, but isn't it realted?

Now (due in a large part to your efforts) that incumbents are likely to hold poitions for life, why do you believe they would possibly want to restrict their own powers? If they thought they might lose an election race, that would be one thing; but being able to silence those who might oppose them seems to give the "elected for life" more (not less) incentive for back-room deals, crooked politics and freewheel spending to line their own pockets.

Good thing we got "money out of politics". Too bad we had to take free speech, accountability, truth, and competition out as well. But, at least we got rid of the bathwater... dirty, dirty bathwater.

Senator McCain, we need a better system of regulating the financing of campaigns than the McCain-Feingold legislation. How about using the billions that now go into earmarks to create public financing of campaigns?

Public financing as the sole source of campaign funding would give candidates a chance to run based upon merit and leadership abilities instead of based upon money-raising connections.

Perhaps if we elect candidates who aren't beholden to those special interests who finance their campaigns, we would not be having a problem of 6,731 [hidden from public view] pay-back earmarks.

Dear Sen. McCain,

Your post raises an important issue that Republicans have not been seeing eye-to-eye on. I hope this brings about more discussion among your fellow Republicans. How anyone can support a presidential candidate who opposes exposing earmarks is baffling to me. I fully support you in your efforts and hope you decide to run in '08.

Congratulations on your first blog.

Katherine

Senator McCain, I've been a supporter of yours since the 90's and this is why. I no longer support the Republican party which leads a government more intrusive and more expensive than the one that was inherited from mixed government and before that, the Democrats.

I continue to hear Republicans argue why the new extensions of government are better justified than the old ones. It doesn't matter. What distinguishes conservative thinking from progressive thinking is the question of whether society can be optimized by individuals enjoying maximum liberty or if it can be perfected by the instruments of government. I still believe duty to the common good is the choice free people most often make and the obligation we're soonest to resent. I've stayed conservative, I wish the party had too.

Thank you for your service in the Navy and in the Senate.

I'll come back with an insult maybe later.

By the way, I think there's an open link tag somewhere above that someone smart should fix.

Dear Sen. McCain,

Long before this became a popular issue you were there telling anyone that would listen about the way that special interest groups in Washington used this process of earmarking to get what they wanted from the congress. I appreciate your service to this country, and I can't wait to vote for you again for President. Please don't forget about Illinois. I know that it can be McCain country in '08!

Senator McCain,

I am glad to see that you are "straight talking" about pork, which has always been an annoyance to you and many others.

However, what about some more "straight talk" about the taking positive control of the southern border? Your current stand is not "straight talk" and will not get you votes from the conservative republican base.

Go back to your old ways and you will be President. Continue to "deal" and it will be "no deal" from the heartland.

I wish you the best.

I am a conservative Republican and have always been an admirer and supporter of you, but whenever I blog on you at my blog I get angry comments from other conservatives who cannot abide by your campaign finance issues.

I truly feel that this is something that you need to continue to explain and you need to expand on other issues where you do agree with conservatives.

I personally feel you are the one to win the Presidential election in '08. But we need to get through the primaries first. I think you have some work to do there. Good luck and God bless!

Kathy/Rightwingsparkle

Senator,

I stopped calling myself a Republican six years ago after that pathetic excuse for a conservative stole the White House from you in the most unethical way. I hope for the sake of this country that the Republicans lose the congress in 2006 and (if you don't run) the White House in 2008. Why? Because I see it as the only way to stop this inexcusable spending spree that our Republican controlled government is set on continuing.

Senator:

Thanks for taking the time to write. I believe you when you say you're committed to eliminating pork from the budgetary process.

But, and that's a big but, your adherence to Reagan's philosophies leaves much to be desired. You were, and I believe, are, against Bush's tax cuts which owe their existence to the very supply side philosophy Reagan championed.

And your policing of free speech through campaign finance "reform" is just shameful.

You clearly have some conservative credentials, but you have too many loony ideas to be considered a contender for president. Stick to what you're good at, Senator - being a senator. While you do, you have my support (even though you're dead wrong on taxes and campaign finance).

Respectfully,

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for keeping this important issue under scrutiny, although I would like to see someone (you?) propose a bill that would make these type of "earmarks" a thing of the past. As a fairly educated member of the voting public, I have no idea how to review the transportation bill you cited in your blog to see which members of congress were responsible for perpetrating the thousands of earmarks onto the bill. My guess is if we required a member of congress to assume full responsibility for each earmark that "has" to be added to a bill that we will see a decrease in the number of these earmarks. I am sure that it is supposed to work that way now, but somehow everyone skirts the issue by adding on to the bill on behalf of someone else, and so on, and so on, and so on.... In any case, there seems to be no transparency in the process, or individual accountability.

Secondly, many years ago I wrote a list of what I considered the most important issues facing our country were. Not surprisingly, National Security was at the top of my list.(Of note, I happen to disagree with you on the war in Iraq as I never believed that Sadam posed enough of a threat to warrant an invasion even when we thought he had WMD. I was concerned then, as we all are now, about North Korea and their insane leader who really does have nuclear weapons and a missile delivery system that exceeds 100 miles. I was also concerned about our own Homeland security; our ports, our airports, our subway systems, and what I believe to be our most vulnerable area, our inability to effectively react to any type of biochemical attack.) Now, however, my number one National Security concern for our country is our financial solvency. Deficit spending without corresponding budget cuts, and pork barrel spending when we are at war, should be recognized as nothing short of TREASON.

As a fellow admirer of Ronald Reagan, I think it would be prudent to remember that we ultimately defeated communism in the Soviet Union not through military action, but by pushing them to spend themselves into bankruptcy. I am so very concerned that this is where the future of our country is headed, and I do not understand why our congressional leaders are not addressing and resolving this issue.

Senator, I am pleading with you to elevate this discussion beyond this blog and on to the Senate floor where you will introduce a bill that will put an end to this.

Thank you in advance for your service and your continued attention to this very serious matter.

Dear Sen. McCain,

I am happy that I have the opportunity to address an issue that has been bothering me for quite some time now – and have it read and considered. So rarely we, the little people, have a chance to address our most preeminent representatives!
I must say that I am impressed by the political skills that you posses and that I think that you have a good shot at being the next president of the United States. That is, of course, if the Mormon religion will prove to be stronger than universal health care and if there will be more people like the New Republic’ Ryan Lizza. And, after the Falwell prank (that was a good one!), I really must say that I admire your skill at learning from past mistakes.
I am a person who does not like to vote. I like to keep an academically critical eye on the elections, and I have so far agreed with the Democrats as often as I have with the Republicans. I do consider going out and voting against you in 2008 though. And here is the reason why:
In 2008, you will celebrate your 70th spring among us. While I wish you all the best and many more springs to come, I can’t help but wonder: what if nature will prove stronger than your ambitions? What if, once elected president, your health will prohibit you from fulfilling your duty towards the American people? As a president, you will have great respect and a heavy word a world in which America is still, no matter what other say, the first country. But along with that comes a great burden: you will be responsible, just as President Bush is now, for the well being of your people. While it is also a privilege, being the President of the United States is also a responsibility. What will happen with your people if, God forbids, nature will follow its deceptive course and claim its toll on your over-worked person? An aging president, even if he is surrounded by trusted advisors, is nonetheless an aging president. The hand that signs daily the fate of roughly 300,000,000 people needs to be firm, Senator.
There is no demeaning purpose in this post. I myself will find my back curved by the passage of years, and my hair will one day be as white as yours, Senator. We all age. However, as the years come and go, we need to rethink our priorities. Perhaps it is your wish to become the President of the United States in order to make a grand stand before departure. I admire the thinking. However, should anything fail in the 8 year spectacle, your grand stand will turn into a disaster for the American nation. Think of your priorities Senator, and consider if, perhaps, it is not better to let the youngsters have this one. Not for me, and not for you: for the American people. And, if the White House ambition stays, despite my sincere advice, be prepared to answer this question over and over again over the course of the next two and a half years…
No matter what path you will choose, you have my respects and sympathy. All the best, Senator.

Senator,

First, thank you for being bold enough to submit yourself to the ether. You comments are right on, and reflect what many of us as republicans currently think about congress. While I feel that republicans are the right party to be in power, I am aghast at what I see coming from what is supposed to be, as you say, responsible lawmakers.

One other repercussion that does not seem to get stressed enough is the aftershock of extremes. By going overboard now, the republican majority is setting the stage for a retaliatory performance if and when our party becomes a minority again. Republicans can not then stand on firm ground with a Democrat congress matching the current expenditures when they are in power. Seldom does excess breed restraint.

The line item veto, in my opinion, is only a part of the answer. Allowing a president to strike items of his choosing merely adds a partisan mechanism to the executive branch. As such, I believe all earmarks should be attached to a bill as a single line item, to be struck or included together. Either all or none.

To remove the partisanship component, instead of a line item veto, simply remove all pork. Pet projects competing for earmarks can compete for federal funding just like everyone else.

Thank you for the forum on this issue.

Dug

JSM:

First of all, I commend you for drawing the public contrast between Reagan Republicanism and current earmarking practices in Congress, and also for drawing attention to the earmarking phenomenon generally. I hope, though, that your inclusion of boilerplate rhetoric about the relation of earmarking to Republicans' electoral prospects does not mean you believe elections will turn on this issue. They won't.

Earmarking will be restricted only when the deficit becomes an issue of public concern again. It isn't now and hasn't been for a decade or more. Congress as a result has run off the inertia generated in the boom years of the late 1990s, when all new spending looked fully funded and then some from tax revenues. Rampant earmarking is one result of that, but the practice by itself is too arcane to motivate more than a few voters.

You should consider as well that earmarks have become a fact of life for federal agencies and the many non-governmental groups that deal with them. An earmark for a useless bridge or road in the highway bill can be a simple raid on the Treasury, but most federal agencies have learned to deal with the pressure for earmarks from Congress by arranging in advance with non-governmental groups the terms under which these groups will do things that the agencies want to do anyway -- and in an earlier period would have done themselves. Their agreement is then taken to the relevant Congressman or Senator (usually though not always a member of the Appropriations Committee in the House or Senate), so that he or she can claim credit. As you know, this is the only reason most Senators and Congressmen want to be associated with earmarks in the first place.

After the money is appropriated, it is often disbursed by means of a grant agreement, which specifies the work to be done, the time by which it must be completed, reporting required to be done by grantees to the funding agency and so forth. Now, the downside to this procedure is that it is more expensive and time-consuming than having an agency, say, perform research or initiate a demonstration program itself or grant funds to an non-governmental organization to do the same, without involving Congress through the earmarking process. However, there are two considerations pointing in the other direction.

First, the spending restraints on federal agencies funded through the the discretionary domestic part of the federal budget from the late 1980s onward badly depleted agency resources of experienced personnel. Many federal agencies that want to initiate, expand, or change programs to serve some public purpose are no longer able to do this themselves. They have to pay someone else to do it, and earmarks at least ensure that there is some political support to fall back on if what they are doing is questioned later. Second, as earmarks have become a part of the appropriations process they have forced agencies to seek out the perspectives not only of non-governmental organizations but also of state and local governments, other federal agencies, and private citizens as they plan their work. This has never been prohibited, but not all federal agencies did this very much in the past.

Looked at in toto, the earmarking explosion is no way to run a railroad. Many earmarks -- in the highway bill, in every single Defense and Milcon appropriation, and to a greater or lesser degree in most other appropriations bills as well -- represent plain, egregious waste (apart from the fact that much non-earmarked spending in these measures, especially in the military procurement area, is as difficult to justify). Finally, you are doubtless aware that earmarking in the appropriation for the State Department, and for other agencies dealing with our international relations, have helped cripple our government's ability to conduct a positive foreign policy, except through the Pentagon.

However, you should understand that many departments and agencies -- though they do not like rampant earmarking -- have by now adapted to it. Officials in departments like Agriculture and Interior know that unrestricted funding for their agencies' operations has little support on the Hill, and that earmarked approprations provide one means of funding work that could not be done otherwise. Much of this work is important; some of it is necessary. America loses little by not funding another of Ted Stevens' bridges, but by this time a plethora of other and usually much smaller earmarks have become an integral part of agency operations. Legislation directed at earmarking should take this into consideration.

All-

What's with the talk of line item vetoes? If a bill was $12 BILLION dollars off the mark, why didn't Bush just veto the whole thing, and make Congress work harder to get one that didn't contain so much pork? We don't need a line item veto as much as we need a president in power who will actually USE the veto power he has.

McCain: Run. You're one of the few politicians who don't turn my stomach. Just don't ruin it by trying to suck up to the wrong folks.

First of I applaud you for your first time blogging efforts, and to subject yourself to our scrutiny.

Second, I find it very refreshing to see a member of Congress actually hit the nail on the head. I am becoming very distressed with the antics of late in Washington that are simple ploys for members to retain office such as proposed Constitutional amendments that appeal to the emotions of voters. The subjects of the proposed amendments are not pressing matters. I have posted on this a few times lately myself. http://historyiselementary.blogspot.com

I agree with you that it seems that members of Congress simply sit in Washington to point the finger at the other side and never seem to get down to business. We have real problems.....when solutions are suggested that could really solve the problem they become so watered down by the time they are ready for a vote, what's the point? Members of Congress are attempting to please too many special interest groups and by doing so we are not gaining ground.

Yes, you and the other members of Congress need to stop it and stop it....now!

We agree on the need for reforming the budget process.

The republicans are broadly 'crooks', representing corporate interests, and getting elected with an effective machine to get money for 'pay to play' from the corporations, and by marketing to the voters using all the cheap patriotic words and symbols they can hijack, wrapping themselves in the flag.

Most republicans clearly don't understand yet that they are being lied to by the republican leaders. Better informed ones, such as Kevin Phillips, have left the party in horror. Senator McCain is sitting pretty in the middle, well positioned behind a facade of integrity to have a good chance at the presidency in 2008.

Why are republican voters incapable of seeing the lies for what they are as the budget skyrockets? Poor education?

As for Senator McCain's praise of Reagan, Reagan is where the huge deficits started, he's where the economic distribution shifted away from Middle America, and he was a war criminal supporting the terrorism his government organized against innocent Nicaraguans, paid for in part by illeal missile sales to Iran, at first through Israel.

The fact that McCain has no criticism of Reagan but rather still says he supports him disqualifies him for office.

Don't let all those rich hippocrates who equate money with free speech get you down. Last time I looked at our constitution it said 1 vote for 1 man not who can buy the most votes cuz they have the most money. That's why I gave to you in 2000 and why you lost because George (i.e.Karl) raised more money and spent it smearing your good hard earned reputation.

Keep doing what your doing.

Thanks for the post Senator McCain, and welcome to the blogosphere.

Hopefully, this post represents a change of heart and a new direction for you on issues of particular importance to conservatives and bloggers alike, among them the attempted silencing of patriotic groups like the Swift Vets through CFR, your office's near-total silence on the Online Freedom of Speech Act, and the harsh rhetoric directed at critics of the Senate immigration bill.

Senator McCain, I would like to thank you for all of your dedication and service to our great nation. From one moderate conservative to another, it is refreshing to know that someone is looking out for the nation's best interests, and not pandering for votes.

Republican's are spending like drunken Democrats, and we need to enforce fiscal discipline. Lower taxes only works with lower spending.

Thanks again.

Senator,

Thank you for making the time to write here online and for your amazing service in the unfortunate Vietnam conflict. I hope you realize by now how very much like that war our current primary conflict, the war on something which cannot be defined ("terror") happens to be, and I hope you realize how much more pork is wasted on that particular war than any other.

I'm disillusioned with political parties as a whole since the divisive election of 2000 and worse when Al Gore, a man I respect if only for his acknowledgement of the serious turningpoint in history we are at environmentally (which your party, and Reagan too would have--in fact also contributed greatly to the ignorance of--is clearly and intentionally ignorant of). I vote democrat only because at this time in our nation's history the democrats are the only people talking any sense, and that includes yourself. If this, overspending, is the most important thing to you, then you're clearly a mere politician. There are much greater issues at stake--I work seventy hours many weeks and still I struggle to make ends meet, I don't even have a telephone for fuck's sake!

The young in this country are getting screwed worse than anyone. We're witnessing a rollback of progress to the 50s and before, without the good benefits like a common sense of right and wrong and the freedom to move about, associate, and solve our own problems. Monopolies are dominant. Corporations are sucking this nation dry, and Mexican illegal workers don't respect themselves enough to quit lowering our wages.

In short, if you do become president, which you won't--we are certainly going to either witness an FDR-like blue reign or we are, I do promise you with all the sincerity my American pride will allow, going to witness the second violent American revolution. Plutocracy speaks only one language when it comes to change: action, and there are plenty of out there (we talk among each other every day; the most ignorant gang members are discussing politics these days, and they're not talking about the ever-more confusing ballot box, my friend) with not quite enough to lose, mark my feeble words, Senator. But if you do become president, you need to take on a host of issues and realize that this is not the 1980s. If Ronald Reagan had not ignored AIDs for his entire term in fear of the religious right, we being the most powerful and arguably advanced country in the world--certainly still the richest if only for awhile longer--then it might not be so wide-spread; hell, there could even have been a cure by now. I want you to understand that you will need to listen to the wisdom of science and you will need to do your best to get a finger on the pulse of this nation.

Thanks again and I hope you do this again. You're free to send a letter to my magazine if you want to make me look like an asshole, I publish hate mail first: http://litdispatch.net

P. H. Madore
Editor, DISPATCH LTIAREVIEW
American Citizen/New Englander Out Of Water
phmadore@cashette.com

Please excuse my careless spelling mistake!

DISPATCH LITAREVIEW

Well, the whole letter's full of mistakes and incomplete sentences. I'm going to bed now.

Dear Senator McCain:

Thanks for posting the porkbusters blog.

I salute your work regarding lobbying reform, but you did not go far enough.

I have just retired from an extensive business career. In that career, many people tried to convince me that it was necessary to accept favors ranging from lunches to fishing trips to Canada in order to smooth the wheels of business. I never bought on. My personal standard was that accepting any favor from a vendor or supplier was unacceptable. There was no $25 or $50 threshhold; the threshhold was ZERO. This standard was expected of all members of organizations which I managed. We had no problems with it, and our business needs were never impaired by the standard.

Lobbying reform for the federal government ought to prohibit the acceptance of ANY favor--EVEN A LUNCH AT MCDONALD'S by ANY government official, civilian or military. That should be applied to all members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The standard is clear and simple, easy to apply. If we REALLY want to clean up lobbying, we ought to have the courage to do this. I'd certainly salute your effort in this regard. WHY DO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS NEED TO ACCEPT ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY??? If that trip to the Riviera is really a crying necessity, then the taxpayer should foot the bill, not some guy expecting a favor in return.

Keep up your position on immigration! No immigration bill of any kind should be passed unless there is a broad consensus supporting it...regardless of what it is. An immigration bill passed without consensus will fail before it's signed.

Thanks,

Mike Brown
DuPont WA

Thank you for being open to the public. I am not a politician and do not profess to be knowledgeable of government procedings, inside goings on, etc. and can only speculate as to what the world will be like in a year, or the actions of today as they will translate into my wallet. I do happen to travel extensively into the rest of the world. I always find it amazing how each person in each part of the world does not know, trust or understand what their government is doing or why they are doing it. We can all speculate on the armchair quarterback critizing the cost of taxes, gas, wages and jobs. So, read between those lines. The bottom line,to be frank, I really do not care about what "party" is doing what, except that they are all having TOO MUCH OF A PARTY at the taxpayers expense. So- 1) I cannot understand why the simple answer to the mariage issue is not being said. Ergo, the only reason for marriage issue in law boils down to filing your taxes and what benefits you get from programs. Sorry, but any marriage is performed for a spiritual bond. Why do you need a license to be spiritual. This seems to violate separation of church and state. Do away with laws that infringe on church and state. Benefits are monetary, not spiritual. Tax code should be per income $$ not spirit of bond. End of tax structure on the basis of a spiritual bond. End of story. 2) The rest of the world has diesel and biofuel vehicles that put our EPA to shame. Mandate all vehicles, even aircraft, be biofuel, static impulse generators or hydro/elec magnetic within two years and end subsidies to farms, (everyone would be growing corn, soy and refining it in co-ops) ban oil companies from ownership of anykind, ban taxation on consumer mass quantity items. Make it illegal to own more than one refuel station in any city to prevent price structuring. 3) Save social security? OK-start by puting a 5 year freeze on ALL fed/state/local payscales,no more annual cost of living increases, including the military. Then raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour, attach the annual cost of living increase to it only and dissolve ALL PENSION PLANS OF ALL FED/STATE/LOCAL entities and transfer pension funds into social security. Soc sec to be dispersed to all FED/State/local beneficiaries WHEN THEY REACH AGE 63! I'll bet the politicians would find a way to build up soc sec duispusrement amounts and secure its financial base. What is wrong with the politicians. It seams so simple?

Dear Senator,

I have respected you for a very long time. As a proud liberal, I am strongly pro-choice, I oppose the free trade agenda, I oppose the death penalty, I support the rights of gays to marry, etc. etc. In all those areas my views are diametrically opposed to yours.

And yet watching you in the late 90s and early 00s fight the good fight on campaign finance reform, tobacco, fiscal recklessness even where the Defense Department was concerned, etc. etc., convinced me that you were a very rare breed of courageous political leader, whose adherence to your own conscience was more important than your political future.

I am also very strongly in agreement with you on the need for dramatic earmark reform. It's a lonely battle in some ways, and it is typical of your willingness to wage such fights that you have decided to take on this very thorny congressional practice. I also applaud your decision to try to lead the Republicans in a human, intelligent, and common sense direction on the very volatile issue of immigration. Kudos to you.

But ---

I fail to see how you can be serious about fiscal responsibility if, on the one hand, you are calling for earmark reform while, on the other, you have caved on the issue of Bush's, and your party's, outrageously irresponsible debt-ballooning tax cuts. Your opposition to those tax cuts over the years were, I thought, one of your most significantly courageous political stands. It was a linchpin of my support for you, in spite of my complete opposition to the Iraq war. And your decision to pull a 180 on those millionaire boondoggle tax cuts have left me very disappointed and deeply offended. Senator, senator, are you aware that those tax cuts are probably singularly more responsible for the yawning debt and deficits we face over the next decade than virtually any other factor?

It reminds me of that scene where Inspector Clousseau is standing outside of a bank that is being robbed and his attention is focused on an illegally parked monkey. You're a better person than that, and it has been painful watching you attempt to carry the spendthrift Bush Administration's water on this issue.

So let me close with the following question: Are there any tax cuts which you would still be ready to oppose? For example, what are your views on the estate tax?

You stated above that you will be reading and will be ready to "entertain" the reactions to your first blog. To be frank, I don't believe it. Blog postings are typically used by many politicians as a means of showing that they are staying in touch with the grassroots without really having to do any heavy lifting. In addition, you are one of the busiest men in Washington these days, and I have a big picture of you having the time to wade through any of these comments, let alone posting even one word about them. To the extent that you have decided to make the claim that you ARE reading these reactions, and DO intend to "entertain" them (which I presume means to respond), I hope you will pleasantly surprise me and prove me wrong by actually doing so.

Yours in reform,

Charles

I think McCain should live blog from Congress. :)

First off, thank you for your service during the Vietnam War. You are, in that respect, a far better man than I was or will ever be.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about your service in the Senate. Whether it's earning a 100% rating on gun control from the left-wing site "Progressive Punch", caving into Vicente Fox and George Bush on the "guest-worker" (read "amnesty/open borders") policy or trashing the First Amendment just because you're too thin-skinned to handle criticism, you've managed to convince me that I wouldn't vote for you for dog catcher, let alone President of the United States.

Sorry, but I forgot to mention that I find your attempts to wrap yourself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan particularly repugnant.

Senator McCain is the most awesome politician that ever lived. If he doesn't get the Republican nomination for president, I will make it my full time job to get him elected as an independent. He gets more done than any other ten senators combined.
AS FOR TAXES:
Lowering them and then quickly hiking them not only erases any good that the cut did the economy, but severely hurts it. Why does nobody else get this? Cutting taxes may not always be the best financial decision, but raising them is always bad. If you want the government to spend all your money for you, move to Canada or England...

I just came from my congressional primary TV forum a couple of hours ago. I was also asked in a questionnaire about whether as a congressman, I would support presidential line item veto, which is often asked.

However, with the current President, I am more concerned he would abuse it. It seems a line item veto would be a part of the check and balance system on congress necessary to effectively stop earmarking. I also notice that there is more earmarking being done by Senators at the very end of a bill, without any discussion. What do you suggest?

Finally, I adopted your PAC reform agenda. Your staff did a great job in writing it. I am very eager to meet you in person as fellow veteran. I also picked up a couple of your books today for inspiration. I will be glad when our nation's voters elect you our next president. For we certainly need a better leader.

On Sept 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced the US gov't
could not account for 2.3 trillion, as in trillion, dollars.
On Sept 11, a missile, er, jet airplane, decimated the very
accounting office in the Pentagon that might have shed light
on the missing 2.3 trillion dollars. What is being done about
looking into this missing money? Or since most Americans
appear to have been successfully distracted from this minor
bookkeeping error, are we to simply forget about this?

Thank you Senator. Limiting terms of office to two terms FOR ALL "public servants" would greatly reduce pork. Serving in Congress has become an entitlement rather than a service to our country. Turning over our "servants" every 8 years would dismantle the "good ole boy" network and result in "less government" which we desperately need.

I just think this is what our founding fathers envisioned rather than lucrative career positions passed down from family member to family member.

Honorable Senator John McCain:

First, I am very grateful to have a moment to send an email to a distinguished military man who proudly served his country. I am a military personnel, having served 18 years in the military. Six of those years, were active duty and the remaining years was in the reserve in the Air Force and in the Air National Guard.

A question I have is how can I report, or what can I do, to report fraudalent use of taxpayers dollars? In my particular case, I know members who have taken military positions at Selfridge Air National Guard Base (in Mount Clemens, MI) and do not report for duty at all but accept a monthly check for those position. To compound the problem, management doesn't do anything about it. In my opinion, this makes the situation worse when management has "no teeth" to fix the problem. As a military personnel, it is quite embarassing to know that they are in the same military I am in. We have different cases of what I consider AWOL personnel. We have individuals who work a half day and constitute it as a full day. We have individuals who take two hour lunches as well.

I do understand that this is a very micromanagement issue and much lower in the realm of matters that you do. Yet, I go off a very pragmatic military issue that if you can sign up for military duty, then show up! I have raised the issue many times with the Employment Equal Opportunitiy Office but they have decided not to return my calls and now I've personally see this office as a "problem" and not a "solution".

I do not mean to bother you with small issues. Yet, with over 2,500 military personnel dying in Iraq, I am a bit embarassed on my counterparts and their actions. It is embarassing to me.

What suggestion(s) can you give me?
Who should I take up the matter with?
How in the world is this concievable?

Again, I am confused in this military behavior and do not see this as proper behavior, especially in the military and fraudalently cheating taxpayers.

As one to end any matters on a positive note, I have to thank congressman Ralph Hall of Texas for some work he did on my behalf. I'm glad he "smelled the roses" and changed his party affliation from the donkey party to the Republican Party.

Thanks for serving our country and still doing it!!

Sincerely,

Ken Rooding (MSgt Ken Rooding, NCOIC of Education)
Clinton Township, Michigan.

I hate the skyrocketing federal deficit, I hate the war in Iraq started on false intel, I hate being ridiculed by foreigners because of Bush's impotent diplomacy, I hate the ultra-liberalism of the ultra-liberals who think we human being can survive w/o any social morals, I hate the law makers who tackle nothing but enriching themselves (porks, corruption, political gains thru ideological wars, etc.). So it is so refreshing and encouraging to read Senator McCain's blog here. I see America's hope in you, Senator! In fact, you were already my hero with your Straight Talk Express during the 1999/2000 GOP primary. I do not agree with you 100%, but I'll be on your side if you ever decide to run for president again.

America is badly in need of your leadership!

I wonder if Senator McCain is working to cut the pork in the obscene military spending and no-bid contracts to K Street contributors. How about all of the waste in the 911 cover up? I used to be a fan of McCain, but the striaght talk express has become the 'anything to become President express'.

From a fical standpoint, it is embarrassing to have claimed to have been a Republican. The last eight years have been shameful. For the president not to have used his veto power once in that time is an abrogation of responsibility; that is, unless he supports the wild spending. My confidence in the Congress is pretty much in the toilet; my confidence in the leadership in Congress is even lower. The earmarks are disgraceful. The whole Lobby issue stinks. Everywhere, it seems lately, we learn of members of Congress on the take. Money does corrupt.

I voted for Bush last time as the the "lesser of two evils". Gad. Where have all the leaders gone?? The thought of the Democrats taking the House is scary from the standpoint of where their leadership will take them; the very thought that we need a Democratic something to balance power points to huge failure the Republican party to govern.

We need a third party. We need another choice. (I sent you a contribution when you ran against Bush the first time.)Your treatment at the hands of the Republican party in 2001 was terrible. With friends like that, who needs emenies?

Couldn't agree more, Senator, outside of winning the War on Terror, I can think of no better priority than cleaning up the scandal of earmarking!

Earmarking could be stopped by a Senate rule. It wouldn't even require the passing of a law. Why not ban earmarking and just have an annual pork bill with say a limit of 20 billion dollars. It would be a lot cheaper than now and it would require senators to bargain for their projects rather than the current method of "I will vote for yours if you vote for mine"

Senator, when is the last time you read a bill of over 100 pages in its entirity? I think bills should be short enough that no senator or represenative can ever use the excuse "I didn't have time to read the bill before voting on it."

I am an average member of the Republican base, a constant contributor and campaign worker, but I would actively work against McCain if he got my party's nomination.

From gun control to immigration, he's a dead end candidate and a barrier to real conservative government. Let the illegals vote for him, I won't.

Senator McCain:
Let me be one of many to thank you for your service to our country, for refusing to capitulate and leave the men you were responsible for behind during your capativity, and now for your service to your country once again as a member of the United States Senate.

If I truly believed that not only you in 2008, but also nearly all of the decent, anti-large-government interference Republicans could win in 2006 and again in 2008, I would have no reason not to support you.

I'm speaking as a former Republican Central Committee Precinct Committeeperson, also as a secretary for that county organization. I didn't vote for president in 2004; there was no choice for me nor for anyone I knew. However, I did vote in all of the state and local contests.

I've asked this of several candidates I'm supporting this year, so now it's your turn, Senator:
I would like to have so that I can reprint on several sites a copy of the Republican Creed. Our county chairman used to read that very important document at the opening of every meeting.

If President Bush, Vice-president Cheney, any cabinet appointees, any of our president's followers, or any of our current Republican leaders in Congress have read it, they sure exhibit no signs of believing it nor of following its precepts.

I am not a "current" Republican and will not vote that way except for individual persons of character in my own state. Nor can I vote for you unless the 2006 and 2008 elections show the improvements my friends and I are asking for as mentioned above. I wish it were different, Senator. I believe you are a decent person and that you will, and now do, say what you believe - not what you're expected to say to get elected. (At least this time around!) A personal Bravo! for you.

No "Bravos" or very few indeed for the rest of Congress and none at all for our current administration.

As you've guessed, I'm sure, many of my votes this year will be for Democrats. The ones I'm choosing are definitely the lesser of two evils.

A Former Republican From The Northest Who Would Like To Be One Again

Senator McCain,

Thanks for your post. Please push the issue with the majority, and with those Democrats who have some shame. Please don't just write about it once and move on to something else.

One more thing: Re-read George Will's pieces over the last two years on yours and Senator Feingold's campaign finance reform legislation. I say re-read because I assume you've read them once. I'm a lawyer, a diplomat serving overseas, and a constitutional hobbyist, but I cannot make the argument against McCain-Feingold better than Mr. Will. If one respects the judgment and dignity of the polity, one allows it to function with greater freedom in selecting its leaders. Are you going to accept federal matching funds in your campaign run?

Al.

There is much in which I disagree with Senator McCain on, and he will not get my support in any presidential run he makes; but what he says in this post is absolutely correct. One of my greatest disappointment in President Bush and the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate is the seemingly uncontrolled and irresponsible spending. In the State of the Union address, President Bush made a renewed call for the line Item Veto. While I thoroughly like the Idea of a line item veto, it was ruled as unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision. So for a Line Item Veto to actually become law a constitutional amendment would be necessary. In the partisan climate of today I absolutely see no possibility of two thirds of both the House and Senate passing the necessary legislation. On the bright side all but 7 states allow a Line Item Veto for their governors so state ratification would likely not be a problem. Another alternative would be for the House and Senate to adopt rules prohibiting or at least severely restricting the practice of amending legislation adding unbudgeted spending. While this option would not have the force or permanency that a Constitutional Amendment or even a federal law would have, it would require only a simple majority vote in both houses to implement.

Senator McCain,

Thank you for taking the time to blog this subject and submit yourself to this limitless criticism. In the true spirit of our founders, I believe you have proven, once again, that your willingness to serve this great nation goes beyond your own self preservation or any type of personal agenda. Any commentor who suggests your reputation is deserving of anything less than our sincere gratitude, is mistaken, unfortunate, and in fact, naive.

I invite the blogger above who doesn't find it necessary to vote to re-read his 6th grade American history books and then take a long look in the mirror. When did this country's liberties and freedoms extend to include the freedom to tear down the very institutions one elects to abstain from? While I understand and appreciate that our constitution and it's amendments allows for each and every individual's freedom of speech, I also know that this 'lazy left-sided liberalism' is exactly how horrors like 9/11 happen. In fact while this individual was electing not to vote, there were thousands of others who didn't find it necessary to get off the couch that day either.

I agree with your comments about our party and the urgency for change. If we can't get the job done when we have the majorities, will the job be done at all?

Much like you describe yourself as a Reagan Republican, I consider myself a McCain Republican. For my generation, who were too young to serve in Vietnam and are now too old to serve in Iraq, YOU embody the American story. Sacrifice and Service = The American Way.

I encourage you to continue your fight for our freedoms ALL the way to the White House. Our troops, our country, and our children's children are counting on you.

My sincere thanks.
:)

This has been the gospel preached by Senator McCain for years. Where's the dignity & pride from the other members
of Congress. I believe,that their belief is that we're just
fools. If they were CFO's of privately held companies,no
doubt they'd be summarily fired by attempting to bankrupt
their company.

I believe it was James Madison who said democracy will work only until the people find out they can vote themselves the treasury. You will pardon my cynicism, but I'm from New York, where we have a GOP state senate majority leader who makes the national party seem principled. Part of the problem is that when Republicans are responsible with spending, the unions take our tax money and bash them over the head with ads painting them as Ebenizer Scrooge. So, naturally Republicans conclude, okay, have your spending, we'll just cut taxes and run up the card. They look compasionate, voters are happy, and no one really cares about who will pay. The problem comes when the deficits start pushing up inflation, then interest rates go up. But this process can take several years, by then re-election is over. What we need is to educate the people that government cannot spend a dime without someone paying, and the back-pocket eventually pays more then the front. Therefore, every promise must be met with suspicion. I've started a program educating underpriviliged children how citizenship finance works. We need more practical education efforts if we are to save this great republic.

My Best to the Senator, and God Bless American

Kevin Degidon

In reference to Senator John McCain's blog. Bravo Senator you are hitting the nail on the head. I agree that our Republican run Congress has not only drifted from Conservative ideals it seems to have abandoned them. Who are these people anyway? Is it a new party perhaps the Liberal-Conservatives or the Torries? Maybe President Roosevelt's (Teddy) Bull Moose would be appropriate. After all I do hear an awful lot of BULL from this Administration both Legislative and Executive. Senator I am very proud to say you are our Senator here in the great state of Arizona keep telling the truth and keep up the good fight. I must say a change is needed checks and balances seem to have disappeared lately too much power in too few hands breeds problems. Thank You for speaking your mind. Bob Davis

Senator,

I understand you have to tap-dance to the right in order to get the nomination, but don't go too far. As long as you are pro-life, anti-pork, and support strong national security...you can count on my vote. I believe you are one of the few that can build a bridge to somewhere for America. The things we have in common are greater than the things that rip us apart. If i might add, I think my buddy Chuck Hagel would make a great VP. Thank you for standing on principal.

May Jesus Christ bless you Senator,

David Wolfe

With all the Governemnts waste comes oppurtunity.
I recently traveled to Washington to ask the US Governemnt to stop funding torture through
"extraordinary rendition" I stopped at three Senator's doors for a chat on behalf on Amnesty Imternational and violation of laws that the US is engaged in. Senator Mcain,Reed and Chaffee who our always helpful in protecting the true America and its principles of human rights, this is just a small ammount of wasteful spending but has large implications in the war on terror if you make the connection.
With all the wasteful spending our Government could set up a national healthcare system amd help drive down the cost of healthcare in America- Senators keep up the great work and cut wasteful spending- "extraordinary rendition" is one of them Thank you Mike from RI

"I have never blogged before. But I understand readers can leave comments on each post and that these comments can be rather, ahem, blunt. So I am happy to entertain any questions, comments, or insults you might have for me at this time."

Posed June 27, no resposne from McCain or any of his staff in any form (as of July 3rd).

By "entertain any questions, comments, or insults" he apparantly meant "ignore you completely once this is posted". Can't see how that makes him any different from any other politician.

He put out a press release to a blog, it got posted word-for-word, and he ignored it completely as soon as that was done. It works with Newspapers, and I doubt he knows the difference (he certainly hasn't done anything in the past week to imply otherwise, except have a caveat claim at the end of his press release claiming he knows the differnce...).

So, his idea of give and take is to give you his opinion and leave? Typical for a politican, but then I always thought he was a typicial politician... so, color me unimpressed.

McCain,

McCain-Feingold has been a devastating failure.

What do you propose to do about it?

McCain,

McCain-Feingold is a travesty against freedom of speech, and has proven utterly ineffective in limiting big money influence in national politics,anyway.

What do you plan to do about it?