Obama and the farm bill

My email to Andrew Sullivan in response to this post:

Andrew,


You wrote:

But again, no Democrat has done or could have done as much damage to spending restraint than the current president and Republican party andMcCain is running as Bush's heir, wheter he lieks it or not. The current Republicans, moreover, made this kind of spending legitimate - and they voted en masse in favor it as well. I suspect McCain would be a marginally better president on spending than Obama - he voted against the Medicare prescription benefit, after all. But he won't tackle entitlements or defense - and they are the only real items that make a significant difference. And his insistence on no tax hikes also means he would leave a bigger debt than Obama would. That's the choice. It's not an easy one fiscally.

This is illogical. Because McCain is running to fill Bush's spot that makes him responsible or somehow tied to the profligacy of the past eight years -- even though he voted against many of these spending excesses? Your criticism of the current crop of Republicans is likewise irrelevant. The man up for election is not Bush or the GOP Congressional leadership, it's John McCain. The reason you are so eager to conflate McCain with Bush and the GOP Congress is to justify your continued support for Obama -- I imagine that such tortured logic will become a common theme as the campaign progresses as you are forced to find further justifications for your Obama adoration.

You are correct that McCain won't take on defense of entitlement spending -- and neither will Obama. But he is willing to take on spending at the margins -- farm bill, energy bill, earmarks, etc -- which Obama certainly has shown no predisposition towards. Change begins at the margins -- you've got to start somewhere.

If the best case you can muster for Obama is that he will raise taxes then that is some faint praise indeed.

Regards,

Colin