All About McCain

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

What I can't understand is why any intelligent, informed voter would choose McCain's policies; which the last eight years have shown to be a resounding failure.

This is exactly why every time someone on the left mentions "McCain" they have been told to mention "Bush". It was absolutely amazing watching Chuck Shumer on Meet the Press, because he talked about Bush more than McCain. Those campainging on the left must convince the center that McCain equals Bush and are trying everything to to run their campaign that way...if they fail, they lose, and they know it. It would seem as if, at least at present, McCain and his campaign are doing a good job overcoming that effort.


And remember....those 8 years of "resounding failure" vary in definition of why it has been considered a resounding failure (failure, I agree - resounding I don't). I am not a Bush fan for vastly different reasons than most here are not.

I can't understand why any intelligent, informed voter would want to go in the direction that Obama has proposed in many areas - except that they're different. Different does not equal better. We can each go through a broad spectrum of exceptionally learned people who support the candidate we support and oppose the candidate we oppose. Just because your reasoning leads you to a different conclusion does not mean that intelligent and learned people do not come to different ones than you do.

And really, Eve Ensler writing in opposition to Palin certainly does not affect my viewpoints....in fact, it probably strengthens my positives for Palin.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This is exactly why every time someone on the left mentions "McCain" they have been told to mention "Bush". It was absolutely amazing watching Chuck Shumer on Meet the Press, because he talked about Bush more than McCain. Those campainging on the left must convince the center that McCain equals Bush and are trying everything to to run their campaign that way...if they fail, they lose, and they know it. It would seem as if, at least at present, McCain and his campaign are doing a good job overcoming that effort.

They mention it because it's true. If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And remember....those 8 years of "resounding failure" vary in definition of why it has been considered a resounding failure (failure, I agree - resounding I don't). I am not a Bush fan for vastly different reasons than most here are not.

Eight years of Bush policies in the White house, six of them with the cooperation of a Republican Congress.... Pray, tell us what else it could be?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by JWBear

If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.

Let me see if I got this right: John McCain, who has a lifetime record of being a maverick, a thorn in the side of the Republican party in general and George Bush in particular is going to be "no different than Bush"

but...

Barrak Obama, who in his very short political career has made no attempt to rock the DNC boat says he plans to make big changes.......and you believe it.


I am delusional?

Really?

So far, both men have made a single Presidential decision; one chose a long time Washington insider to be his running mate the other made a bold(some might say "maverick") choice in someone who could not be more outside the beltway.

It's really too bad both these men can't win so we can compare their respective decisions and just see who is more about change and who is more about business as usual. Since we can't, we must go by their records and I could say I believe that anyone who thinks Obama has a better record of going against the flow of things is quite Delusional but I know better than to presume my world view is the only correct view so I won't.

/

[Morrigoon]

As long as the Not/Bush ticket wins, we're all better off

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

They mention it because it's true. If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.

Eight years of Bush policies in the White house, six of them with the cooperation of a Republican Congress.... Pray, tell us what else it could be?

Name calling, name calling. Tsk, tsk. I didn't think we were going to do that anymore. Thankfully I have a signature line. I'll just leave it at it's really sad that you have bought the entire democrat party line and are such a echo chamber for them.

I have an idea. Let's look at where the economy was prior to the dem takeover of congress in 2006. Dow above 14K, gas just over $2 gallon, enployment at 4.5%.....Reid and Pelosi have done such a stellar job! They have such incredibly high approval numbers as well. Obama will simply empower them to do more of the same.

Let's also look at how many times Obama hasn't voted the dem party line, and how many times McCain hasn't voted his. Let's look at how many times Obama has sponsored legislation with someone from the other side of the aisle vs. how many times McCain has, if Obama has sponsored anything at all....don't really think he has. Yet Obama is supposedly the one who will work with the other side of the aisle and bring about and end to partisanship. For Obama and the dems, an end to partisanship means do it the dem way without debate. Kind of like Pelosi shutting down debate on gas prices. Why talk about it if it isn't politically expedient?

Delusional? I don't think I am.

And how fortuitous that I have come across this anaylsis of voting records...yes, I'm sure that a Bush clone would have primary cosponsors of his legislation be membors off the dem party over half the time.

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.

An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.

The Obama camp didn't want to comment? I find that amazing. Being that he is the candidate who is willing to work with the other side of the aisle to find compromises for the American people, surely, there must be some mistake.

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The Obama camp didn't want to comment? I find that amazing. Being that he is the candidate who is willing to work with the other side of the aisle to find compromises for the American people, surely, there must be some mistake.

Looking at it from another angle, it could be that Democrats are more willing to co-sponsor a Republican bill than for the reverse to be true.

[scaeagles]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I'd be curious as to how many Republican bills Obama has signed on as a cosponsor to.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm ok with Obama voting with the Democratic party- he's not the one claiming maverick stance.

McCain may go against his party enough to give examples of being a rebel, but on the whole, he does go with the party. He stands for the same things the party does- and a lot of that I consider reactionary views left over from the 50s and not in tune with the modern world.

Not a world I want to live in.

[Moonliner]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if the country as a whole is getting past the "personality" phase and back onto the issues.

[wendybeth]

I sure hope so, Moon.