What conservatives think war is good for

I noticed, recently, that John McCain is running ads touting what a responsible fiscal conservative he is. I'm too lazy to go and find the ad now, but it announced several budget items McCain had voted to cut--all domestic budget items, all in the millions of dollars.

For anyone who's forgotten, the U.S. is currently spending nearly $5000 a second in a war whose ultimate costs will be in the trillions. John McCain fervently believes that we should stay in that war indefinitely.

So how on earth can he run as a "fiscal conservative" as that term is generally understood? He wants to spend more money, to get less, than anyone else in the race.

And yet, he, and other Republicans with similar views, are allowed to go around making the same contradictory claims about themselves and their policies. The press never asks what a supposed "budget hawk" is doing advocating pouring trillions into the military and racking up record debt.

Why doesn't military spending count as spending?

As far as the media is concerned, I have no theories, except to note that the media has a decades-long history of letting Republicans set the framework of assumptions for virtually every issue. But I do think Republicans are consciously taking advantage of this loophole.

The following are more or less core beliefs of the modern conservative movement:

1. Increasing military spending is always a good idea.
2. Military engagement is often in and of itself a good thing.
3. Domestic spending is often in and of itself a bad thing.
4. Slashing domestic spending is always a good idea.

So it's perfect, isn't it? If war is good, or at least not-bad, and domestic spending IS bad, what's the best thing you could possibly do? Start as many expensive, prolonged wars as you can. Then, all the money will have to be poured into the war hole, and nobody will be able to propose any meaningful domestic spending ever.

That's my conspiracy theory for today.