Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Pick: 'McSame' as Bush?

John McCain = George W. Bush.

For much of the last few months, Democrats and their affiliate groups have worked hard to ensure voters become familiar with that equation.

The Democratic National Committee has run ads that end with a picture of President Bush with his arm around McCain. Campaign to Defend America, a since-defunct third party group aligned with Democrats, called McCain the "McSame as Bush." In nearly ever speech he gives, Obama makes clear that he believes McCain's agenda for the country -- on issues ranging from the economy to Iraq -- represents nothing more than a third Bush term.

It's hard to miss the message. And, according to a new poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News voters are internalizing the message. Thirty eight percent of those surveyed said McCain would take the country in a "new" direction, while 57 percent said a McCain administration would mostly keep America on the "same" course.

In a New York Times/CBS poll conducted earlier this month, 43 percent of respondents said McCain would "continue Bush's policies," 28 percent said McCain would be less conservative than Bush, and 21 percent said McCain would be more conservative.

Does that perception of McCain match the reality of the Arizona Senator's record over the last eight years? Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times attempted to answer that question in a front page story that ran on Tuesday. (One benefit of a cross country flight is that you can read all the major papers cover to cover.)

Bumiller's conclusion? Yes and no.

Yes on many major issues including the future of American involvement in Iraq, the economy and health care. No on the environment (McCain has been relatively outspoken within his party regarding the perils of global warming) and American diplomacy.

"While it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick," writes Bumiller, noting McCain's reversal on Bush's tax cuts -- he voted against them in 2001 but is now a supporter.

But, she also notes -- and this is an important point -- that McCain and Bush are stylistically opposite, meaning that a McCain presidency might resemble the current administration on many policy matters but would have a very different personality.

"Presidencies are about more than policies, of course, and Mr. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House should he be elected in November," says Bumiller.

One of the biggest and most important decisions for voters in the coming general election is whether or not they believe that McCain will be the same as or different (in a good way) than Bush.

Given Bush's dismal approval ratings, if voters decide McCain is too much like the current chief executive Republicans will have little hope of keeping the White House this fall.

McCain and his campaign are well aware of the peril posed by being tied too tightly to Bush and are doing everything they can to put distance between the two men. Witness McCain's latest ad in which a narrator notes: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming, five years ago."

One ad will not solve McCain's "same as Bush" problem. According to the current numbers, McCain must create more space between himself and Bush in order to win the White House.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 18, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What Does the Goreacle's Endorsement Mean?
Next: McCain Pushes On Terror

Comments

Obama is such a deceptive liar. Period. When the DNC was attacking Cindy McCain over the tax returns, Obama's allies at the DNC backed the attacks.


However NOW Obama is full of it - he now says spouses are out of bounds.

The truth is Obama wants one rule for McCain and one rule for Obama - affirmative action for spouses now - it is OK to attack McCain's wife but not Obama's


Can anyone else here see the hypocrisy???

Obama is a joke. The American people are slowly realizing that. Obama is thin-skinned, an empty suit, he couldn't get a job at a big corporation and he has maxed out every affirmative action program he can find. It is sickening.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

why do we need to use soundbites when our positions are better?

W was a uniquely aweful "leader"- incompetent, megalomaniacal, prone to following and viewing the world in black and white.

McCain is definately not W.--he is more like G. H. Bush- whom I voted against and worked against, but who did not single handedly do irreperable damage to the very soul of the country.

I don't think that after Barak made such a point of a "new type of campaign" that we should be going down these old paths--was that just rhetoric to beat HRC??? I think McCain's age should be off limits and that we can represent his positions fairly and we will actually be more likely to win.

For example, McCain has differences in economic policy from Bush- however, it he still favors a "trickle down" theory that simply does not work. Maybe I am just a policy wonk, and that is why I preferred HRCs very elucidated policies to the rhetoric from Barak's camp- but I think that Barak can still explain how Roosevelt and government investment created a middle class that made this the richest country on earth for 60 years, and how the right wing has dismantled it. I think he can explain why it costs each of us so much more if any of us lack coverage for health care. I think he can explain why continuing to keep troops in a civil war situation abroad is not helpful to our security. On a myriad of issues, we have the better position, yet we have focused mostly on name calling- particularly Move-On- with their McCain challenge- it is silly. If we can even focus on just one issue- supreme court justices- we win- nobody wants a fully regressive court to take away their rights. Most people are sickened by Guantanamo.

I watched as the Democratic primaries became a school yard name calling brawl- and Barak had every bit as much to do with that as HRC did- but that is another issue...Do we have to do this for the generals?

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

"No on the environment (McCain has been relatively outspoken within his party regarding the perils of global warming) and American diplomacy."

Yeah i guess maybe this was the case when the article was written but, he has since flip flopped.

Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Those who have supported the unnecessary war based on deception in Iraq, huge unneeded tax cuts for the rich, and opposed expanding health care and social programs for the needy should vote for Bush's clone, Senator McCain.

Posted by: Independent | June 18, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

PAO-

As far as free markets are concerned, we don't have anything close to a free or transparent market when it comes to energy already - subsidies, incentives, protectionist measures, environmental regulations - all of these really screw up the market, though I'd have to say that the first two are the most.

I'm all about capitalism, but as long as a market is as hopeless complex and opaque as the energy market (or at least until all Americans are ready to start taking intro to energy 101 to learn about what actually goes on in energy markets) I'd say that regulators probably DO have a better idea of what's best for the country than the oil executives who are far more concerned about their profits than about helping out the American consumer who is paying $4/gallon.

Posted by: MP | June 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

OF COURSE John McCain will have a different "style" than Dubya, given that they aren't twins or clones (well, duh! . . . brilliant analysis, Ms. Bumiller . . .). But while "style" does matter slightly (really, only around the edges of governing), what should win the argument about whom to vote for each and every time is candidates' positions on policy and political philosophy, not some assessment of their personalities. That's the point at which the Obama campaign's linking of Bush and McCain gains real traction for those of you think about issues and let the personality questions recede into the appropriate degree of insignificance. The policy differences between McCain and Bush are NOT significant enough for the Repubs to wiggle away from the "McCain = Bush" formula.

That being said, once again I'll respectfully ask my fellow Democrats who have supported Hillary Clinton to think about the issues the country faces. Whatever your level of disappointment and/or frustration with Obama's supporters and/or misgivings about Obama himself, understand that a vote for McCain is a repudiation of what CLINTON stands for and has fought for throughout her career. So while voting for Obama may be downright distasteful for you, it is nevertheless more intelligent. BTW, given the mess Dubya, Dicky, and that incompetent crowd has left the country in, the new president will find himself left with a whole array of choices that, if intelligent, will likely be very distasteful. OK, so grownups know that it's smart to take good medicine even if it tastes bad.

Evidence is that Hillary Clinton thinks McCain and Bush are (near) equals. If she thinks so and you voted for her, why in the world would you vote for McCain?

Posted by: old white male democrat in WV | June 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

McCain definitely needs to distance himself from Bush in a way that convinces voters they would be getting a new administration if they were to vote for him. He can. As the campaign heats up (after the conventions) it will become increasingly difficult for the Obama campaign to paint McCain as Bush-lite because McCain's long record stands in rather stark contrast to the past eight years.

Recent wobbles on McCain's part for Republican party unity will probably be seen as little different than Obama's booming condemnation of NAFTA to blue-collar voters and his sotto voce assuances to Canada and Mexico that he will not renegotiate the deal.

The danger for the Obama campaign is that it could easily overplay this hand. August through October will see various media flooded with info demonstrating McCain's positions that run counter to the current administration. It would make the Obama team look either naive, misinformed, or "Washington-politics-as-usual" if it insists on pushing a characterization of McCain that is plainly counter-factual.

So, Obama's camp can score some quick points and let it drop or its risks eroding the brand built up by Obama's "Change" message.

Posted by: ccarter | June 18, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey d.t.

Give it a McRest already. Get off the cross, someone else needs the wood.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

To Kay Decker: First, I hope you revisit this site because I want to thank you for your intelligent comments.

Secondly, yes, the republicans used the excuse that Bill Clinton was unprepared to be president in 92. If you remember, Clinton was governor of Arkansas for 12 years prior to his run. He was clearly experienced and he did a wonderful job as president. Barack Obama has been a senator for three years, the last of which has been spent on the campaign trail. Granted, he's more experienced than say... me, but I'm just a schmuck from Missouri trying to make sense of this whole presidential campaign.

Here is where I fundamentally disagree with your argument: "Obama, on the other hand, is a thoughtful, trustworthy individual."

Where is the proof? I need more than a handful of carefully crafted words to gain trust in an individual. His marketing team has done wonders with the Obama brand and Obama himself is extremely charismatic and eloquent, but that doesn't mean he is prepared to be the leader of the free world.

Posted by: D.L. | June 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I get it, his name starts with "Mc." But it's a commonly-used ethnic slur. It's inappropriate to use. It's far more inappropriate in the UK, but it's still inappropriate to many, many Irish in the States.

Come up with some other nickname. This is equivalent to referring to Obama as "Hussein" and insisting, "It's just his name!"

Posted by: dt | June 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

So in a nutshell, McCain is just like a Bush but in a different package?

And how does this refute the fact that McCain means another term of Bush policies?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

McSame is short, pale, and senile.

At least Bush met the height requirements.

McSame has led a privileged life of extreme wealth except for a couple years in Hanoi.

Why they let him go, I do not understand. He was bombing them when they caught him.

If he had been on the NVA side, he would have been executed by our people in the region, or used to clear mines as we used the prisoners we caught.

Yet he gripes about his treatment. What's the gripe? Without it, he's nobody.

He should thank God for Vietnam everyday. War made his family rich and it fostered a pretty good career for an idiot.

Posted by: GeorgeW, Anyone? | June 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"2. Drilling for oil now along the coast is like trying to plug the Niagara falls with sandbags. The prudent way would be to invest now and invest heavily in R&D of alternate renewable energy sources (ARES). And I'm not talking in Millions but Billions (as in the profits that Exxon & BP have been raking in for the past few years). Force these companies to contribute to a National Fund for R&D of ARES and promise them the rights to the IP that comes out so they can continue to profit from these new energy sources."

And while your at it lets just throw all notion of free markets and capitalism right out the window.

The democrats had their chance to prove that the market would foster new alternative energy resources over the past 25 years by not allowing drilling in domestic areas. Guess what, it failed. 25 years squandered while middle east nations have been hoarding profits 50 times that of what ExxonMobile took in last year.

Letting the market decide what technology to use is the fairest and most democratic way -- not shoving mandatory minimums that need to spent on technologies that undermine the very core of your business.

Seriously, get out of this magic bullet alternative energy mind set and realize that oil is here to stay for the forseeable future. It doesn't have to be the only source of energy but it is going to be the major one for the next 10-15 years.

Posted by: PAO | June 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

On most economic and national security issues Bush and McCain read from the same script.

So as far as independents go, McCain doesn't have just a "perception" problem -- the problem is his track record.

In order to make a serious play for the center McCain needed to throw Bush and the GOP right under the bus. However, it's too late in McCain's career to do this and further alienating 25-30 percent of the electorate for the sake of 10-20 percent is probably a losing formula.

McCain's moment was in 2000-2001. Instead of getting separation from Bush and positioning himself as an independent running in 2004, he capitulated.

Posted by: JP2 | June 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

Posted by: G. Bush | June 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!!

Posted by: G. Bush | June 18, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I used to think a McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush Debacle.

Now, I think it could actually be even worse.

Posted by: American Lover | June 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Those who support Obama and use little childish name calling like "McSame" are showing the extent of their intelligence.
Posted by: Joe M | June 18, 2008 12:06 PM
-----------------------
You mean like your people Joe M?
----------------
Stay tuned! Larry Sinclair will speak at the National Press Club today and divulge all the lurid details of his gay sex romp with Seantor Purple Lips. It should be interesting. I am so excited!!!!

Posted by: Dianne72 | June 18, 2008 12:00 PM

???????

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I think you can put envirnomental issues as a 'yes' that McCain is the same as Bush given the fact that both men are pushing this enviromentally suicidal idea of off-shore drilling. Who's ready for oil encrusted beaches? That's OK because no one can afford to drive to beach after 4 more years of Bush-McCain. Even industry insiders say that it would take 10+ years for there to be any effect to the price of gas - incidently that effect on gas would be minimal at best.

And will somebody explain the stylistic differences between Bush and McCain? Both make very bad jokes, they both stumble around their words, both have spouses with glazed over expressions and both suffer for being over-macho! Seems the same to me. Now if only the papers didn't feel they had to invent differences so their reporting will be "fair and balanced." When is the Post going to start acting like the Post of 70s and stop playing Fox's game?

Posted by: dre7861 | June 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"The reason Obama continues to invoke Bush's name when referencing McCain is because the comparison simply doesn't fit, no matter how often he repeats it. McCain has been Bush's chief rival on the national scene since 1999, opposing him on any number of issues including torture, our troop commitment in Iraq, global warming, spending restraint, even the confirmation of judges (The Gang of 14).

On the other hand, Obama's parallels with the failed policies of Jimmy Carter are painfully obvious."

Um, the point of the Gang of 14 was to PASS Bush's appointments, not oppose them.

Funny thing, when Obama compares Bush and McCain, he gives a dozen examples of how this is true. McCain seems to miss this by comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter. Simply placing two names in a sentence isn't going to convince anyone.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Those who support Obama and use little childish name calling like "McSame" are showing the extent of their intelligence. They cannot defend their candidate on an intellectual level so they resort to name calling like liitle children do. If your candidate were not an ultra-liberal; not a person wtih bad judgment (opposed the surge); not a person who hangs around with hate mongers (Rev Wright); not a person who hangs out with terrorists (Bill Ayers); not a person who negotiates sweetheart deals with a soon to be convicted slum lord (Tony Retzko); and, consequently, by his friendships with these characters confirms the birds of a feather flock together saying, and not a person who is gutless to say to people who live in small towns, to their face, that they are "bitter and cling to their faith and guns and have antipathy to those not like them" instead saying this behind their back to a closed door group of elite San Francisco fundraisers (a real profile in courage) not a hypocrite by prentending to be a man of fiath, then you would not have to resort to name calling his opponent. You could make concise and logical arguments relating to his policies. But you cannot, and, therefore, you resort to vidictive childish name calling. I am amazed at how little good you have to say about your candidate.

Posted by: Joe M | June 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

To: 761-091 | June 18, 2008 11:57 AM

1) EPAct 2005 actually included a lot of bonuses for renewable energy technologies as well, most importantly a much needed extension of the production tax credit for clean electricity generation. It also included some bonuses for ethanol which a senator from Illinois would be compelled to vote for, though we now know ethanol is not a good solution.

2) The technology to mass produce electric cars is way closer than decades away - Chevrolet is going to release a plug in hybrid Volt in 2009 which gets over 100mpg, the next generation Prius is expected to have significantly higher mileage because of breakthroughs in battery technology and Honda, GM and others have started fleet testing fuel cell vehicles. The alternatives are easily within reach.

Most importantly, if they decided to drill offshore tomorrow, you wouldn't see a drop of that oil for a decade, much longer than it will take to bring those new technologies to market. It's pure political pandering and nothing more.

Posted by: MP | June 18, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Stay tuned! Larry Sinclair will speak at the National Press Club today and divulge all the lurid details of his gay sex romp with Seantor Purple Lips. It should be interesting. I am so excited!!!!

Posted by: Dianne72 | June 18, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

To Fairview | June 18, 2008 11:17 AM

1. Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, the same that gave a lot of the Oil Companies BIG tax break. CAN YOU SAY FLIP-FLOP?

2. Cars still need gas, so we need oil. And a mass production of electric cars is decades away. You want to continue this way? Then go ahead and tell everyone to get ready for $8 gas. And for the 440 billion in sales Exxon had last year, they only made 40billion in profit, the rest, 400 billion went to employee salaries and benefits, taxes, structural upkeep, R&D, payment to refinieries, new technology, transportation of the material, etc.

If you think that is too much, then go work on an oil rig 100 miles from the nearest coast for a month at a time, see if its THAT easy.

Posted by: 761-091 | June 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I wonder when Barry Hussein will come clean and reveal that he is indeed a Muslim.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | June 18, 2008 11:46 AM
------------------
I wonder when will the haters wake up to the fact that most of this country is a bit smarter than they are.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

McCain=Bush?
As is:
Barack Obama=Louis Farrakhan. Just like two peas in a pod. A vote for one is the same as a vote for the other

Posted by: madhatter | June 18, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

21% think McCain will be MORE conservative than Bush??? Jeez, how much more conservative can you get?

Posted by: DDAWD | June 18, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I wonder when Barry Hussein will come clean and reveal that he is indeed a Muslim.

Posted by: Nadeem Zakaria | June 18, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

McCain combines the warmongering of Goldwater and Cheney with the nastiness of Bob Dole, the inability to speak of George Bush, and the temper and vindictiveness of Dick Nixon.

Yeah, I'm down with that. NOT

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 18, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The commercial McCain has already been running: "Only a fool talks tough or romantically about war," sounds like a clear criticism of Bush to me.
-------------------------------
Does he mean like 'joking' Bomb Bomb Iran? While our brave women and men are being killed? Douche.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 18, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Many times in McSame's life he did not seem a Bush clone. When he ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, he was clearly more intelligent than Bush is, and ... what's that? You say Goldwater ran then? Sorry, my bad. They are virtually identical.

No matter. When McDumb got clobbered in 1996 by Bill Clinton, he clearly showed some respect for the opposite side of the aisle, even going so far as to - what? You're kidding, right? Bob Dole? Are you sure, it seemed just like John McCain.

Oh well. Maybe McSame is also McGoldwater and McDole. Since he wants to be like Bush so much, we should call him McChickenhawk.

Posted by: bondjedi | June 18, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.

John McCain, Meet the Press, 6/19/05

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Americans digest all kinds of bad things that don't make them completely ill. That we could internalize some bad information about McCain should not be shocking. The truth is, though, that, relative to Bush, the worst you can call McCain is McSimilar in some ways. McCain sides with conservatives relative to the war, but is socially progressive and fiscally independent. Democrats these days simply are not up to running a professional, nuanced campaign, or dealing head on with the truth that many of McCain's ideas also are in their play book, so they have to monger fear and call names instead. But dropping "McCainBushIraq" into every sentence like the satirist on Saturday Night Live murmering "hot sex" in every sentence as a so-called subliminal suggestion seems to be working for Obama. (Can you hear it? Obama: 'We can't (McCainBushIraq) drill our way (McCainBushIraq? out of our (McCainBushIraq) energy (McCainBushIraq) crisis.') But if people are going to buy Obama's both overt and "subliminal" message that McCain is Bush III, they might also be accepting of the notion that Obama is Carter II, and the change Obama is selling is not back to the future but actually forward to the past.

Posted by: paulinparadise | June 18, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The commercial McCain has already been running: "Only a fool talks tough or romantically about war," sounds like a clear criticism of Bush to me. McCain is much different than Bush, and we would have been better off had he won the 2000 primary. I'm not worried about McCain, it is the
"tens of thousands of Republican operatives in the Executive branch who have brought us this Bush disaster."

Obama can win this on his own merits; trying to make McCain out to be another Bush is counterproductive.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | June 18, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm just happy that the Post's true colors are flying high...What is the diffence between CNN and the Post?

Posted by: J Dubs | June 18, 2008 11:04 AM
------------------------------
CNN is a TV station, the Post is a Newspaper.

Here is what McNasty says about his wife.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo

Posted by: U Idiot | June 18, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

To "do something" at 10:39am on June 18th:

1. The term flip-flop does not do justice to what McCain is trying to pull. "Oh, I was against the Bush tax cuts but now I'm for it"; "Oh, I'm an environmentalist but I have no problems drilling for oil along the Florida coast". He's trying to pander to the ultra-conservative Republican base and at the same time, trying to woo independent voters. Anyone with an IQ over 80 should be able to see right through that.

2. Drilling for oil now along the coast is like trying to plug the Niagara falls with sandbags. The prudent way would be to invest now and invest heavily in R&D of alternate renewable energy sources (ARES). And I'm not talking in Millions but Billions (as in the profits that Exxon & BP have been raking in for the past few years). Force these companies to contribute to a National Fund for R&D of ARES and promise them the rights to the IP that comes out so they can continue to profit from these new energy sources.

Posted by: Fairview | June 18, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

mcbain is trying to channel Reagon.
Not George Bush.

So youll see the "Oh shucks"

Posted by: pvogel88 | June 18, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The reason Obama continues to invoke Bush's name when referencing McCain is because the comparison simply doesn't fit, no matter how often he repeats it. McCain has been Bush's chief rival on the national scene since 1999, opposing him on any number of issues including torture, our troop commitment in Iraq, global warming, spending restraint, even the confirmation of judges (The Gang of 14).

On the other hand, Obama's parallels with the failed policies of Jimmy Carter are painfully obvious.

Posted by: buckybacker97 | June 18, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama wants to go to where Bin Ladens strong hold is and that is not in Iraq. There is no surrender by telling Maliki that his free ride is over. Iraq is making billions off us and we are being played as suckers. Al-Maliki and Iran are laughing all the way to the bank, while we as Americans foot the bill with life,limb and $$$$$$. Neither Bush nor McBush can tell us when this occupation will end. One hundred years is McCains best estimate.

Posted by: concerned | June 18, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

quit whining, Repukes. This is certainly as fair as GOP "soft on terrorism" claims about Obama.

Posted by: Spectator2 | June 18, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I'm just happy that the Post's true colors are flying high...What is the diffence between CNN and the Post?

Posted by: J Dubs | June 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

McNasty is a nastier version of Bush. Bush was an experiment by the right that went disastrously wrong. Come on the Repubs knew he was not qualified to be president but they felt that a puppet regime would give them everything that they ever wanted. But they failed to recognized that the puppet-masters' egos and arrogance would be downfall of the entire plan.

McNasty on the other hand is just a spoiled brat that feels he is entitled to be president. After all, thanks to his good old dad he got everything else he wanted. He is corrupt and will do anything to win. Conservatives that care about the country have every right to be concerned.

So all in all, Bush at least had a heart but just no brian to go with it. McNasty has neither.


Posted by: james - Los Angeles | June 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Offshore Drilling, Mccain = Bush = Divert attention from the Hysteria the Bush/Cheney and the GOP help create with their aproval to ENRON request in 2001 to move the trading of commodities to ICE from NYMEX.
we have being robbed by Goldman Sachs JP Morgan and Mrogan Stanley, while , Bush =, Mccain and GOP are looking the other way. and blaming us for driving to work.

Posted by: Tony | June 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

To D.L.: I would definitely argue against the point that you make about one of the biggest problems with George Bush being his inexperience. I see the biggest problem with Bush as being his complete lack of dedication to making America a better country. The inexperience argument was sounded long and loud during the '92 campaign, with every Republican out there claiming that Bill Cllinton would be a foreign policy disaster because he had no real experience in the international arena. Bill Clinton, of course, had huge success on the international stage, mainly because he is a man who understands how best to accomplish a mission, and Bill Clinton's mission was to make America the strongest country it could be. Bush never had such a mission, and the average American is so far off Bush's radar screen that the man never stops to think for even one moment what he can do to ease the suffering of any American not rich enough to attend his $5,000-a-plate fundraisers. I know, I know. You're thinking to yourself: But what about the tax rebates? What a joke those tax rebates are! They have done nothing to help this country's economy, or ease the suffering of any American. What would actually help Americans is if Bush and his cronies stopped spending all of our money on their Halliburton friends (remember the no-bid contracts? remember the missing $9 billion that the Coalition Provisional Authority so conveniently lost?) and started acting responsibly so that future generations won't have to pay for all of Bush's failings.

As for Obama being inexperienced, I will admit that I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary because I felt that she brought to the party a vastly greater amount of experience. But I also felt that Senator Clinton would be a great president because she would safeguard the interests of the average American. Now that Obama is the candidate, I'm afraid that I will have to give McCain his due credit for having more political experience than Obama. But I do not concede that what McCain holds in terms of number of years in Congress will translate into any greater success on the domestic or international stage, or make my life any easier. What McCain has in terms of greater number of years in political office is not enough to outweigh the fact that the man is a spineless coward who only cares about his political future, and not about making America a better country. Every president needs wise advisors to assist him/her with important decisions. There are far too many aspects of being the leader of the greatest nation on the planet to expect any one human being to accomplish the task alone. The question that you must ask yourself is will our leader choose wisely in picking his/her advisors so that as many Americans as possible benefit from those choices? I know for a fact that Bush never chose wisely in picking his advisors. Cronies with a Big Oil/Corporate America agenda is what went wrong with the Bush presidency, and I believe that we will get the same from McCain. Obama, on the other hand, is a thoughtful, trustworthy individual who will effect changes to help the greatest number of Americans.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Bush and McCain "stylistically" different? C'mon Chris, this is just kidding. Of course two persons cannot be 100% identical about personality and atittudes. That applies to every human being and does NOT constitute a main substantial topic. It's just spinning.

Concerning the big issues they are two of a kind.

Oh yeah, there might be differences... Bush eats pizza - McCain prefers spaghetti. Bush is younger than Mccain, who has whiter hair and weights a few more pounds than the former Texas Gov. Bush shops in WallMart, McCain likes town minimarkets. Bush used to crash his car, McCain crashed planes.

Wait... election is rather about foreign policy, the economy, healthcare and... duh!

Posted by: Luke75 | June 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

McCain is not the same as Bush on Iraq...his campaign will highlight the fact that he championed the surge long before Bush, and he had major issues with the policy put forth by Rumsfeld. Iraq has continued to make strides towards being a truely independent nation, and McCain will highlight the fact this could have been accomplished more quickly had Rumsfeld and Bush not blundered. Likewise, why change the course now given the progress that has been made. Now, as for the economy...people want change. Whether that's a good thing is debatable...as change for the sake of change often makes things worse...but its likely what people want.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Remember, Carter asked for change in 1978.
-----------------------------
Carter ran in 1976 you schmuck

Posted by: U Idiot | June 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

They still need to choose good VP's, and the poll at http://www.votenic.com just posted their results for the 2008 Weekly VP poll for both Dems and Reps. See who America thinks should be the Presumptive Nominees' running mates.

Posted by: ron | June 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"...did you notice the excuse the media used, at least during the Democratic primaries, that because the candidates were so similar in terms of policy positions, that of course the coverage revolved more around personality? So what's the media's excuse now? McCain and Obama couldn't be further apart on the major issues facing this country (war, the economy, the Supreme Court), yet the press remains conveniently entrenched in its personality-and-tactics-only mode.

That's why we see The Washington Post's Dan Balz going on and on about McCain and Obama and the "content of their characters"; because for journalists, campaigns are all about character sketches. Whereas voters, I assume, tend to see the contests in more concrete terms, like which candidate can help turn the economy around and which one has a plan to head off $6-a-gallon gas.

For the chattering class though, elections are about anything but substance."

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200806170003

Posted by: fjschmitz | June 18, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Senator McCain has not challenged Mr. Bush enough. This article (above) says that there was an ad about McCain challenging Bush 5 years ago - but that does not show the courage we need these days. According to a recent Gallup-poll, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe we should withdraw from Iraq very soon. Here's the link to that:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

McCain, like Bush, thinks we're doing "just fine" in Iraq, and is saying we need to be there for like 100 years! We need a president who is courageous enough to stand up to the president and the Iraqis. That candidate is Senator Obama. During this campaign, Senator Obama has been holding Bush responsible for his miss-steps, while McCain has been fund-raising with Bush and being his best-buddy. At the beginning of June, Bush's favorability rating was down to 25% - and that doesn't bode well for McCain either.

Posted by: Allen | June 18, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

What we have now, is the SportsCenter Presidential campaign. Full of catch phrases and snippets with little soul, feel, or real attention to the issues.

Sen Obama is as cool as the other side of the pillow......booyah! Vote for Sen Obama.


Buy that, and sink the country folks.

Posted by: S Scott | June 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

This blog has good posting
but the comments are a joke
Its full of obamabots

Here are some quick facts. For anybody with an IQ above 80 maybe we could even have some debate.

Obamabot viewpoint number one McCain is partisan and Obama is bipartisan

Fact: McCain has one of the lowest Republican ratings of voting with party and Obama has one of the highest voting with the democrats. Obama is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT who has no intention of ANY BIPARTISANSHIP or GOING AGAINST THE PARTY. His policies are all STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TALKING POINTS with NO VARIATIONS

Obamabot viewpoint number 2. Obama wants a clean issues oriented campaign

McCain has offered the opportunity for over a dozen townhall campaigns. Obama has rejected them and has not come up with an alternative that has anywhere near the amount of interactions between them. McCain has repeatedly criticized certain groups for running overthe top ads against Obama. Much like during the primary camapign Obama has never criticized anyone for running over the top campaign ads. He is completely fine with letting independent groups do the dirty work for him while he claims he wants a positive issues oriented campaign. What B.S.

Finally to the poster about offshore drilling. Of course we should be drilling offshore. We need energy and any we can get from here is a net positive.

Posted by: do something | June 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, since McCain essentially sold his soul to the devil 8 years ago so that he could have the nomination in '08, I would say that McCain is even worse than Bush. Neither man is a principled, thoughtful leader. But to keep this election cycle interesting, America will have to continue to read items manufactured by the media about how independents may just go for McCain. I do not believe that for one single moment. This country is sick and tired of Bush and the way that he has degraded America's standing in the world, while at the same time abusing the trust of all Americans. This country is sick and tired of Bush allowing Big Oil and special corporate interests to matter more than the average American who is struggling every day to make ends meet. Come November, I don't see that John McCain stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting within 100 yards of the White House, since we all know that if McCain is the next POTUS, then nothing that is wrong in this country will improve one iota.

Posted by: Kay Decker | June 18, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Lee Adler - The Wall Street Examiner- | June 18, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA = CARTER

Remember, Carter asked for change in 1978. Thirty years later we get more of the same. I can see it now, Obama becomes prez and Iran takes more hostages while OCarter tries to sit down and talk with NO PRECONDITIONS.
His inexperience shows greatly and McCain will expose this in the debates. Why else would OCarter not want town hall mettings? Even Slick Willie Clit-on wanted that!

Posted by: bryan2369 | June 18, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign theme is apparent now (with apologies to Carville and Michael J. Stephanopoulos): "It's the Bush, stupid."

I would have guessed that McFlip would have distanced himself from Bush after wrapping up the GOP nom, but after yesterday I will reconsider.

Posted by: bondjedi | June 18, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

One of the biggest problems with George W. Bush is that he was ill-prepared to be president of the United States. During his first term, he relied largely on those around him to tell him what to do and things did not improve as he has completed his on-the-job-training. Is there anyone who would argue this? I know plenty of people (including myself) who said that George W. Bush would not make a good president due to his lack of experience, prior to his win in 2000.

Have the demsdecided that experience is not important? Considering Obama has less experience now than Bush did when he ran for president eight year ago, it appears to be so. Obama will be the "same" as Bush, considering he would have to rely on others to help him through the first few years of his presidency. No thank you - we've been there.

John McCain already has the ability to run the country without someone like Dick Cheney, or in Obama's case, Howard Dean, telling him what to do.

http://middlemusings08.blogspot.com/

Posted by: D.L. | June 18, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Will everyone stop pointing out how the McCain of 2000 was so different from Bush, or how he advocated a different, better strategy for Iraq? We Know. The issue is that the McCain of 2008 seems to be a totaly different person in the sense that he now embraces crappy policies in an effort to appeal to the Bush constintuencies (yea I cant spell) so he can get elected. I honestly hope he's lying and he'll go back to the old McCain if he gets elected, because otherwise we're f*cked if he wins.

Oh and for the Iraq strategy? Yea it was a great idea in 2003. But wtf is he gonna do now aside from "stay the course".

Posted by: JackAth | June 18, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Just yesterday, McCain gave a speech in which he talked about the need to repeal the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. And now, today, Bush is planning a news conference calling for the repeal of the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. Those two ideas sound alike. So how will McCain spin this lie that he and Bush don't have the same views on this aspect of the Bush energy policy?

McCain + Bush = McBush. This equation will be exploited over and over again by Obama. Go get 'em OBAMA!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | June 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

ATTENTION MEDICAL/INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS:

RUSSERT DEATH PUZZLE: What Enlarged His Heart, and When? If Onset was Recent, Could External Factors Have Been Involved?

-- An enlarged heart at autopsy, yet a recent successful stress test, and no earlier symptoms?

** Why aren't medical reporters more skeptical? **


Something still seems odd about Tim Russert's death.

There is no doubt that he died of a "sudden heart attack." But what induced the heart attack, and the autopsy finding of an enlarged heart?

What if this isn't simply a case of "natural causes"?

Could involuntary ingestion of a chemical or drug, or exposure to an external force such as microwave energy, have caused heart enlargement over a short period of time? Could such exposure have caused cholesterol that was present in arteries to pool and then coagulate?

Here are some other nagging questions:

What were Russert's CHL/LDL levels in recent examinations? Was there a "tox(in) screen? Were classic heart attack enzymes present in Russert's blood samples at autopsy, and at what levels?

Did the body reveal any unusual scarring, bruises, discoloration, or skin lesions?

Russert's heart was enlarged at autopsy. Did any earlier examinations reveal an enlarged heart? If not, what might have caused a rapid onset of heart enlargement?

Russert apparently did not suffer chest pains, tightening, or fatigue prior to the attack. If not, is this history consistent with the enlarged heart found at autopsy?

Yes, people drop dead every day. But given Russert's position, and the vitriol he and NBC News have drawn from certain quarters, it seems prudent to raise these questions now, when the pain of his death may motivate further inquiry.

His own physician's explanations did not reveal reasons for the enlarged heart, nor did he explain why that condition was not detected during past examinations.

This case calls for further journalistic examination. Please do it while memories are still fresh. And is anyone else at the NBC Washington bureau showing signs of ill health? If so, there might be something in the environment, some external force, that needs investigating.

Posted by: Forensic Inquirer | June 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

McSame is owned by the RNC, he can't raise his own money, so he has to toe the RNC line. No matter what he differed from Bush in the past, the RNC line is the RNC line.

His challenge will be to make the Bush toadies (the fools who elected Bush) scared enough of Obama that they can convince themselves they will be safer with four more years of Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: shrink2 | June 18, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

As another poster put it very well today:

Obama = Surrender to Osama bin Laden

McCain = Osama bin Laden Surrenders to McCain!

NOBAMA in 2008! Go Johnny Go!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | June 18, 2008 10:02 AM
==================
Do you idiots ever read your own posts?

No one in there right mind would believe that Obama, or anyone else of either party, would ever surrender to bin Laden. It's mind blowing that you retards try to pull off this crap.

As for bin Laden surrendering to anyone, I think after 8 years of W he would have done so if it was going to happen. Maybe McBadflier can crash another plane into him. That may do it.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 18, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

So, even the WP has internalized the Obama propaganda of "McSame". If Obama truly represented change, he would not be trying to associate every challenger with GW Bush. So, quit gushing over Obama! I hate what 8 years of the Bush Presidency has done to this country. But, giving Obama a pass and being complicit in his smearing everyone from HRC to McCain is not the way to given penance for swallowing GW's propaganda.

Who is Obama? That's the news media's job. What is his life story? - don't rehash his autobiography and sell it as news. Why did he join the Rev. Wright's church? Why did he stay? With such anti-American vitriol being preached from the pulpit to the obvious enjoyment of the flock - what message resonated with Obama that he allowed his wife and children to listen to this hateful message. (Barbershop talk? That's his explanation) Why would someone who loves his country so much, associate with anarchists and terrorists? And his stance on abortion? The way he characterized the issue scares me.

Obama's form of leadership seems eerily like GW Bush's. Obama's past seem eerily like GW Bush's - murky. The press has taken the easy way out and taken the candidate at his word. GW served in the National Guard during the Vietnam War, and was allowed time off to campaign for his daddy's friend? MSM: okay, next topic. Obama attended Rev. Wright's racist, sexist excuse for a church for 20 years but somehow was not in attendance for the Rev.'s anti-American rants? MSM: OK, next topic.

Do your job, WP! Leave the propaganda to the campaigns. During the Bush Presidency, the WP and NYT asked tough questions and demanded answers. WP and NYT broke stories that exposed GW. It was Sean Hannity and Rush and Fox News that seemed out of touch. Now with Barack as the candidate, the roles have been reversed.

Posted by: David | June 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I don't see how any Republican with any intelligence could question the veracity of Barack Obama given the continuous lies, deceits, half-truths, and political spin, that have spewed from the Bush Administration for the past seven and one-half years. Certainly, any rational person with a little knowledge of history knows that we've been, and are being, subjected to the most corrupt and criminal Administration that has ever occupied the White House. And, that Administration has brought our once great country to the brink of financial ruin and disaster in addition to destroying the favorable reputation built over the last 220 years. I'm white, and I can assure you that Sen. Obama has my vote for President. I say this because the evidence that surrounds us shows that our country is on the brink of becoming the largest third world country on this planet, and that Sen. Obama and a Democratic Congress provide us with our only hope of avoiding complete destruction. I'm also happy that McSame has been around for such a long time as his flip-flops on important issues, outright lies recorded by irrefutable sources, and his association with corruption (the "Keating Five") are available for all to see.

Posted by: caliguy55 | June 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

When the debates come, and Obama and McCain have to elucidate their positions side by side, it will beocme clear to listeners just how closely MCcain's policies mirror George Bush's particularly on the economy. McCain will also, like Bush, appear more inarticulate, especially in comparison to Obama. The real issue for this election is whether a good part of the electorate will allow themselves to be scared by Terrorism and raising taxes and "inexperience." God knows some portion are going to vote based on race ( and I dont mean black people voting for Obama either). Finally one has to ask whether conservatives are going to care about him being close to Bush, when they seem to have written him off as the resident Liberal.

Posted by: nclwtk | June 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

When the debates come, and Obama and McCain have to elucidate their positions side by side, it will beocme clear to listeners just how closely MCcain's policies mirror George Bush's particularly on the economy. McCain will also, like Bush, appear more inarticulate, especially in comparison to Obama. The real issue for this election is whether a good part of the electorate will allow themselves to be scared by Terrorism and raising taxes and "inexperience." God knows some portion are going to vote based on race ( and I dont mean black people voting for Obama either). Finally one has to ask whether conservatives are going to care about him being close to Bush, when they seem to have written him off as the resident Liberal.

Posted by: nclwtk | June 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

When the debates come, and Obama and McCain have to elucidate their positions side by side, it will beocme clear to listeners just how closely MCcain's policies mirror George Bush's particularly on the economy. McCain will also, like Bush, appear more inarticulate, especially in comparison to Obama. The real issue for this election is whether a good part of the electorate will allow themselves to be scared by Terrorism and raising taxes and "inexperience." God knows some portion are going to vote based on race ( and I dont mean black people voting for Obama either). Finally one has to ask whether conservatives are going to care about him being close to Bush, when they seem to have written him off as the resident Liberal.

Posted by: nclwtk | June 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

So let's see, Mccain and the MSM trying to portrait Mccain as different than Bush:
1- Iraq he's the same.
2- Iran Bomb Bomb Bomb
3- Energy Drilling off shore ANWA = Bush
4- Social Security = private Account.
5- Helathcare = HSA = BUSH

What is left ? What is Different ?

Posted by: Tony | June 18, 2008 9:53 AM
------------------------
As much as I hate Bush, he'd never call his wife the 'c' word.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

As another poster put it very well today:

Obama = Surrender to Osama bin Laden

McCain = Osama bin Laden Surrenders to McCain!

NOBAMA in 2008! Go Johnny Go!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | June 18, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I read the Bumiller piece. What I gathered was yet another mainstream media analyst trying desperately to stay in the good graces of both camps. Bumiller's point that McCain is "stylisticallt" different from Bush completely escapes me. Everytime McCain appears in a public political event it is--both stylistically and substantively--the same as Bush political events of the past. He usually surrounds himself with friendly GOP groups, well organized in advance and by invitation. Those groups always maintain the same GOP-friendly constituencies: military organizations such as the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars, Blue Chip business organizations, and political events oriented around prominent conservative political action groups and conservative evangelical organizations.

McCain, like Bush, tends to avoid public gatherings that are not scripted, screened in advance and subject to the spontaneous outbursts of citizens with a different point of view than his own. He, like Bush, is most comfortable with questions from a sympathetic audience member like: "How do we beat the b#*ch?", which allow him to answer in a way that seems moderate and thoughtful.

Bumiller and others do this sort of tame analysis because they are fearful of blowback. So they end up writing a piece of fluff analysis that inevitably answers the question in a way that both sides can accept and keep them in the good graces of both camps, thus protecting their all consuming need for continued access to the candidates.

Posted by: Jaxas | June 18, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

chlind,

"Senator McCain is no maverick. He has voted with the administration 95 percent of the time".

Obaman has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

So, we have two candidates left to ruin America for our kids generations.

McSame = John McCain

BushLite = Barack Obama

Vote your choice to ruin your nation.

Posted by: Pat | June 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Any difference between McCain and Bush is trivial. Yes, there were real differences in 2000, but McCain learned from that loss - he's caved to GOP extremists on every matter of substance. His "green" component is limited to that godawful backdrop and a few platitudes; other differences haven't actually caused him to take action in support of his generalized statements of position (e.g., torture or climate change).

If anything, McCain would be worse than Bush. He's marginally better at credibly deceptive packaging of bad policies, and his many policy reversals give voters false hope that he might occasionally do the right thing.

Overall, the Bumiller piece is akin to proving there are differences between tuberculosis and hepatitis - we're still a lot better off without either of them.

Posted by: FlownOver | June 18, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I read the Bumiller piece. What I gathered was yet another mainstream media analyst trying desperately to stay in the good graces of both camps. Bumiller's point that McCain is "stylisticallt" different from Bush completely escapes me. Everytime McCain appears in a public political event it is--both stylistically and substantively--the same as Bush political events of the past. He usually surrounds himself with friendly GOP groups, well organized in advance and by invitation. Those groups always maintain the same GOP-friendly constituencies: military organizations such as the American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars, Blue Chip business organizations, and political events oriented around prominent conservative political action groups and conservative evangelical organizations.

McCain, like Bush, tends to avoid public gatherings that are not scripted, screened in advance and subject to the spontaneous outbursts of citizens with a different point of view than his own. He, like Bush, is most comfortable with questions from a sympathetic audience member like: "How do we beat the b#*ch?", which allow him to answer in a way that seems moderate and thoughtful.

Bumiller and others do this sort of tame analysis because they are fearful of blowback. So they end up writing a piece of fluff analysis that inevitably answers the question in a way that both sides can accept and keep them in the good graces of both camps, thus protecting their all consuming need for continued access to the candidates.

Posted by: Jaxas | June 18, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

So let's see, Mccain and the MSM trying to portrait Mccain as different than Bush:
1- Iraq he's the same.
2- Iran Bomb Bomb Bomb
3- Energy Drilling off shore ANWA = Bush
4- Social Security = private Account.
5- Helathcare = HSA = BUSH

What is left ? What is Different ?

Posted by: Tony | June 18, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

McCain and Bush have been fighting like cats and dogs for EIGHT YEARS.


Where has Obama been for those EIGHT YEARS?


WELL IF OBAMA WAS DOING HIS JOB IN THE US SENATE SINCE 2005 HE MIGHT BE AWARE OF THE INFIGHTING BETWEEN MCCAIN AND BUSH.


Instead of doing his job, or learning his job, Obama arrived in Washington and then immediately left for a book tour.


Obama DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON - THE SIMPLE THINGS LIKE WHICH PLAYERS ARE FIGHTING WITH WHO. The key element here is that Obama has never been a player in Washington, he doesn't know what is going on. This DECEPTION is out there however it really shows that OBAMA HAS NOT BEEN DOING HIS JOB SINCE ELECTED TO THE US SENATE.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

The Bush factor has a bigger effect by forcing McCain to flip-flop on issue after issue as he tries to hold onto the GOP base. The real Kool-Aid drinkers (many of whom can be heard on this blog) still love Bush and McCain needs them in order to get anywhere. But he also knows that these people account for less than a third of voters. So he's got to flip and flop (mostly the latter I think).

Posted by: Henry I | June 18, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

OK THIS IS ANOTHER OBAMA DECEPTION


John McCain and George Bush have been fighting with each other since the South Carolina primary 2000.

Anyone who doesn't know that should.


Apparently the Obama people are relying on the American people being completely unaware of the rocky nature of the relationship between McCain and Bush. If this is how the Obama people intend to run an adminsistration, it is another example of their inexperience.


I am beginning to believe that the Obama people are a bunch of liars.


This is what they do: if they have nothing on on a person, they lie about that person. So when you see them lying, it is a great indication that they have NOTHING on that person. THEY HAVE NOTHING ON MCCAIN. If this is what the Obama people are attempting to say now, the fall campaign is not going to go well for Obama.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Senator McCain is no maverick. He has voted with the administration 95 percent of the time.
He also indicated that we would have an easy victory in Iraq. Why would someone with all of his "experience" think that? This is 5 years, many lives and billions of dollars later, and he still does not offer a solution to this quagmire. He only says we are winning. What are we winning and by what measure does he know this? To me this is just a continuation of the failed policy of the Bush administration, who also had a lot of "experience" to back up their ill-advised adventure.

Posted by: chlind | June 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"Bumiller's conclusion? Yes and no.

Yes on many major issues including the future of American involvement in Iraq, the economy and health care."

Well that pretty much sums it up! I had already figured that much, and it's not quite a sell. I'll a Dem on those issues, as well as the environmental, etc.

No thanks McCain

Posted by: Obama2008 | June 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Although McCain has been pro-environment in his speaches, he now supports the administration on every major environmental issue out there. First off he didn't support off-shore drilling as early as five years ago but now he is for it. And today he is going to have a conference call about it with President Bush. If his goal is to run away from the President then this is definitly not helping out his situation.

And by the way John Kerry's approval ratings are probably 20 points higher then GW's so
(Obama=Kerry) + (McCain=Bush)= President Obama.

Posted by: Andy R | June 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Face it:

Obama = Surrender to Osama bin Laden!

No Way Obama in 2008!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | June 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Ok..well if McCain isn't exactly Bush then he's Bush "lite". Espescially when you factor in his waffling on issues he was so "in principle" against. When you add in the right wing nut jobs he's going to have to please if he's president that's enough to scare me away.

Posted by: cmsatown | June 18, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I think it amusing that the Post has become so one sided.. So much for the days of yellow journalism...

Posted by: J Dubs | June 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed how "Anonymous," "37TH&OStreet," and others all post in the exact same style:

Lots of paragraph breaks.

LOTS OF CAPS?

Is the Republican smear campaign really down to just one poor volunteer, clacking away in some basement?

McLame (no offense to the Irish on this board) should enjoy the campaign. It's his swan song. Then he and Dole can sit on a balcony at the Watergate Hotel, drinking margaritas and swapping war stories.

Posted by: Doug in NYC | June 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"But, she also notes -- and this is an important point -- that McCain and Bush are stylistically opposite..."

That's "important" only for Journalists based in the capital of The Empire.

For those of us who toil in the nooks and crannies in the unfashionable provinces, policy trumps style almost every time.

Unfortunately for us peons, Chris and his cohorts run the show, so the upcoming campaign will be (yet again) all-style/no-substance or he-siad/he-said.

Posted by: fjschmitz | June 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The question isn't how close McCain policies would be to President Bush's, but how close Obama's policies would be to Gore and Kerry. Would he allow the U.S. to tap its vast energy reserves in shale oil, coal and nuclear power and free us from dependence on terrorist-supporting states? President Bush proposed these policies in 2001, only to see them block by obstructionist Democrats more concerned about the process by which these policies were developed than in developing a viable energy policy.
-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | June 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

I don't think you read your papers cover to cover. Note the positions on the Supreme Court. He is McSame. Note the positions on energy, he promotes off shore drilling and Nuclear energy but has an ad that shows Solar, Wind and Geothermal. That is like GWB continuing a lie!

Yes, no doubt he is McSame and we can't afford to continue down the same path!!!!!

Posted by: jerry rubin | June 18, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

How awesome would it be if there was some way to automatically filter out all the comments written by idiots (e.g., Claudine 1000)? Extremely awesome, that's how awesome.

Posted by: Marc | June 18, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama = Kerry

Obama may be the only guy in the senate who can make Kerry look like a manly man.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

As a Democrat who has watched W and the neo cons throw this country down the toilet, it is a pleasure to see the die hard GOP rally around someone who they dislike more than we do. The best you can come up with Obama is he's a radical Muslim?

Man is this going to be a fun summer.

As for the town hall meetings. The only reason they worked for McShame was that he got to hand pick, as he learned from W, the people who attended and got to throw him softballs. He'll have his chance to face Obama, but not on his terms only. McCain just wants the media to pay for his free press.

Come fall the American people will learn that just because you got into the Naval Academy, because of his family, to finsh 5th from the bottom of his class, then gets shot down, after crashing several planes, does not make you a hero.

Welcome to your worse nightmare GOP. Here comes McSame, McNasty, McAnger, McFlip- McFlop, McOld, McWarmonger, McKeating, McLoser, and many more McNames to follow.

Don't forget he called his wife a McC#*nt.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | June 18, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Bumiller is as in love with St. John as so many of your colleagues. here's a guy whose economic and foreign policy advisors are essentially the folks who either advised Bush or gave us signature Bush era legislation (think Phil Gramm). Economics and foreign policy are, arguably, the biggest issues in the campaign--certainly the most visible. Same people, same policies, McCain himself may dance around some of the details, but it would be essentially a continuation of the same tax aneconomic policies and the same war in Iraq. We should be thankful that Chris even acknowledges the obvious about McCain might have merit, but it's taken months and he abandons his usual snark for seriousness, but only to attempt a rescue of his nitwit colleague (a great stenographer of Bush/Cheney, as well as ken Starr) and the seriousness with which we're supposed to regard McCain.

Posted by: Rich | June 18, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I see you brought the bozos crawling out of the woodwork on this one. Keep up the good work! Expose their lunacies as much as possible.

Posted by: tomt | June 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I'll ignore the anonymous anti-Obama hate and rumor mongers. They'll be with us as the current incarnation of the vicious Swift-boaters of the past. To the point, given the recent habeas corpus decision of the Supreme Court, we should recall that McCain promised the religious right to appoint more judges like Scalia and Thomas. On this critical point, he is McBush.

Posted by: casandra1 | June 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

But please remember that while Sen. McCain was in support of the Iraq War, he advocated a different strategy that the administration ignored for several years.

One problem from the war, is that we took all the lessons learned from VietNam and corrected in the first Gulf War, and threw them out the window in 2003. The war was run in Washington by non-military people, and with a minimum of resources. Which created the problem today.

Posted by: Spitting in the wind created by idiots | June 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

The devil is in the details. McCain's Policies are aligned with those of Bush and the neocons who created a disaster in Iraq. A vote for McClone equals a third term for Bush.
Not only does Obama need to keep up that mantra, he needs to tie in the $12 billion a month to our bad economy and how those billions would be better spent here at home.

Posted by: crenza | June 18, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Since 2000, when McCain campaigned for Bush after being slimed by him in the primaries, GOP operatives have been grooming McCain for the time it becomes "his turn" to be the face of the Republican party. That was the deal in exchange for McCain supporting Bush. Part of the grooming process included casting McCain as a maverick or moderate, when in fact he has the second most conservative voting record in the Senate. Although he speaks out against some Bush policies, he votes along party lines. His support for offshore drilling (in the same breath that he calls himself an environmentalist) is just one example of how McCain kowtows to the neocon agenda.

Posted by: Barbara Campbell | June 18, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Since 2000, when McCain campaigned for Bush after being slimed by him in the primaries, GOP operatives have been grooming McCain for the time it becomes "his turn" to be the face of the Republican party. That was the deal in exchange for McCain supporting Bush. Part of the grooming process included casting McCain as a maverick or moderate, when in fact he has the second most conservative voting record in the Senate. Although he speaks out against some Bush policies, he votes along party lines. His support for offshore drilling (in the same breath that he calls himself an environmentalist) is just one example of how McCain kowtows to the neocon agenda.

Posted by: Barbara Campbell | June 18, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

Would you please do a piece on what apparently is a distinction which the Obama smear pages have drawn: the Obama smear people say that Obama did not attend a radical Muslim school, however OBAMA DID ATTEND A REGULAR MUSLIM SCHOOL.


Is that the distinction?

First people should be aware that such a distinction is the position of the Obama campaign.

Obama thinks there are 57 states - there are 57 Islamic states.


That is why he got confused - his MUSLIM TRAINING. I would like to see some facts here by the media - a great deal has been over the internet and I suspect the media is AFRAID to talk about the facts - I really would like to know if the OBAMA SMEAR PEOPLE ARE PRACTICING A DECEPTION ABOUT OBAMA'S MUSLIM SCHOOLING.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

It's more than McCain.

There are tens of thousands of Republican operatives in the Executive branch who have brought us this Bush disaster.

They will substantially remain if McCain is elected. This must not be allowed to happen.

Posted by: Steve G | June 18, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

McCain and Bush have been fighting like cats and dogs for EIGHT YEARS.


Where has Obama been for those EIGHT YEARS?


WELL IF OBAMA WAS DOING HIS JOB IN THE US SENATE SINCE 2005 HE MIGHT BE AWARE OF THE INFIGHTING BETWEEN MCCAIN AND BUSH.


Instead of doing his job, or learning his job, Obama arrived in Washington and then immediately left for a book tour.

Obama DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON - THE SIMPLE THINGS LIKE WHICH PLAYERS ARE FIGHTING WITH WHO. The key element here is that Obama has never been a player in Washington, he doesn't know what is going on. This DECEPTION is out there however it really shows that OBAMA HAS NOT BEEN DOING HIS JOB SINCE ELECTED TO THE US SENATE.

Posted by: 37TH&OStreet | June 18, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

OK THIS IS ANOTHER OBAMA DECEPTION


John McCain and George Bush have been fighting with each other since the South Carolina primary 2000.

Anyone who doesn't know that should.


Apparently the Obama people are relying on the American people being completely unaware of the rocky nature of the relationship between McCain and Bush. If this is how the Obama people intend to run an adminsistration, it is another example of their inexperience.


I am beginning to believe that the Obama people are a bunch of liars.


This is what they do: if they have nothing on on a person, they lie about that person. So when you see them lying, it is a great indication that they have NOTHING on that person. THEY HAVE NOTHING ON MCCAIN. If this is what the Obama people are attempting to say now, the fall campaign is not going to go well for Obama.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Oh come on you WAPO Obama Shill Chris the
phizzzzle face it as Barack Hussein Obama
is a muslim extremist,pretending to be
a Christian who goes to Black Racist Churches and is such a coward Obama is so
afraid to debate or hold a town meeting with Sen John McCain since Obama knows
McCain will kick Obama's sorry arse butt.

Obama=Osama bin Laden Pal Zero!
McCain= Real Hero

Vote for the Hero McCain Not Zero Obama!
NOBAMA!

Posted by: Claudine 1000 | June 18, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

McCain definitely has a problem with Obama's attempts to tie him to Bush. Whether the analogy of a Bush third term is true or not isn't the problem for McCain. The problem is that if it's said often enough people will start to believe it.

McCain is no more like Bush then a spider is like a fly. Because of party affiliation only, McCain is tied to Bush. It is a real quandry for him and I have no idea of how he is going to fix the problem without flat out taking Bush to task for the mess Bush has gotten us into.

One thing about McCain, he is his own man. I believe he has under estimated management and organizational skills, as did Ronald Reagan. His military background helps him in forming a good cabinet and tight chain of command. He s also a realist (something most politicians aren't), and he is as close to being an independent as we're ever going to get.

The far right and the far left on this blog site need to chill out a little. Step back, take a deep breath, and start taking an impartial look at the two candidates. Both Obama and McCain are much different from what was put before us the last two election cycles. I'm hoping they will both adopt the town hall meeting format for their debates so we can see the real differences up close and unfiltered.

Posted by: Capt. Howard | June 18, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

I'm voting for Obama.

But I'm also waiting for this new type of politics- distorting his opponents record and labeling with catch phrase names (see Clinton, H. R)is actually "old politics". I'm tired of this "Obama Nation" calling him old, just as it was tiring to hear them calling Hillary "part of the old politics" or "lacking judgement" without noting their identical senate records.

If we win this way- we have won nothing- the nation doesn't understand the fundamental differences between the parties, they have only learned some new slogans and insults. I was excited when Barak entered the race, but have been nothing but disappointed by the way he played his hand- basically doing anything to win- including doublespeaking about trade policy and campaign finance and running on a general lack of substance, having advocates play the race card and then accuse the Clintons of doing so, and a lot of creating negative narratives around his opponents.

The party as it is has decided and since we have only 2 real choices- Barak has got my vote- but it is with sadness

Leon

Posted by: NYC Leon | June 18, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, dt. As a first generation Irishwoman, I resent the barely veiled anti-Irish perjorative myself.

Posted by: ethixrulz | June 18, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

There is no way we are going to get eight more years of the same as we have had under W. John McCain is his a very different candidate who should have won his party's confidence in 2000, then we would not have W to blame for everything under the sun since he was elected.

Two facts are certain: #1- No matter who wins in November there will be change. #2- The change will be a new man sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office

Posted by: ethixrulz | June 18, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

McCain's advisors are in shock. Obama is throwing haymakers and they can't seem to touch him with the typical "soft on terrorism" crap. Look for McCain to get more and more desperate (see yesterday's offshore drilling comedy) and for Obama to pull away.

Posted by: nerdoff | June 18, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Make no mistake, McCain is no maverick, ready to actually break with his party on climate change. He talks a good game, but there is a clear record in the Senate of backing away from the rhetoric and voting against climate change, alternative energy, and environmental bills whenever there is even a whisper of a problem expressed by any special interest group.

McSame? That's exactly right.

Posted by: Corbett | June 18, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

It's worth pointing out that in his first campaign for president and ever since George Bush has argued that he is, in fact, a great steward of the environment. Indeed, Bush has even accepted that global warming is not a myth. The question is really what are you going to do about environmental problems and are you willing to use the power of the federal government to make sure that United States has a real environmental policy. And on that question I suspect McCain is very similar to Bush. Even if he's slightly better, I can't imagine he'll undo much of the damage Bush has caused to environmental protection over the last 7 years.

Posted by: Justin | June 18, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

I am so disappointed in a percentage of the American voters that are still considering McCain, or a republican at that. I can see the small percentage of rich idiots that love Bush to side with McSame, but the other percentage, what is wrong with them? Brain damage, brain dead, or brain washed... I live in a part of MD that is dominately GOP... I argue with them constantly. They refuse to listen to facts or reason. They got good at twisting facts (lots of practice from Fox and Hannity). They call anything on the Internet propaganda, unless it is in their favor. They honestly are convinced that losing our constitutional rights for their stoopid and balnoey terror fight is a good thing! I won't be around this world much longer, but honestly pity the future for our kids and grand kids! I am weeping a zillion tears for them. We will never take back this country until people get off their butts and do something, turn off your reality TV and Oprah junk!

Posted by: Ed | June 18, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

So, "style differences" from Bush are what we should base our vote on?

McCain is trying to position himself as an "environmental" candidate by trying to overturn the ban on offshore oil drilling along U.S. coasts. Bush and Florida's governor are also pushing for this reverse in policy. How will this benefit the environment, OR wean us from oil dependency, OR lessen global warming?

Posted by: Marilyn Delson | June 18, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

McCain needs to run from Bush. Traumatized voters will just see Dubya as they scrutinize McCain's record and positions. The drilling fiasco and harsh attacks of Obama over terrorism do not help.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 18, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Um... dt... the Mc is because his name STARTS with Mc!

What are you smoking man?

Posted by: Boutan | June 18, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

You're right, Chris.

McSame is definitely far less coherent in his "policies" than Bush.

He's an impressive flip-flopper like Kerry, but older and makes less sense. Not quite as contradictory or nonsensical as Mitt Romney, but then there's still time to add Mitt to the ticket.


Besides, who cares about McCain's "environmental" policies. . . he is 9000 years old, looks scary as hell on tv and no one wants to be a Republican. The GOP is so completely screwed it's not even funny.

Couldn't happen to a nice regional minority party!


Posted by: Christian in NYC | June 18, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

1. dt, the Mc is so that it has an assonant rhyme: McCain with McSame.

2. Generally: McCain *did* used to be something of a maverick, standing up to Bush on issues like the environment and torture, but in the past 8 years, and especially in the past 4, he's slid to the right, much more into the comfortable Republican niche. His record says one thing, but I don't want to know what a president did 7 years ago-- I want to know what he'll do in two years, when he starts to seek election.

It seems that every day McCain is issuing another statement to line him up right along with the administration.

Posted by: doubtful | June 18, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

McSame is tired. A more accurate description is Colonel Jessup, the deranged, code-Red ordering freak from A Few Good Men.

Posted by: steve boyington | June 18, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Anti-Irish dt? Really?

As an second generation Irish-American I think you should put down the glass and have some coffee. The spin is on the name, not on his race. While my post is on a stereo type of our race.

Posted by: patrick nyc | June 18, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

McCain is still trying to live off his "maverick" "straight-talking" image of the past. That is now changing as his new image emerges -- a semi-senile doddering old confused fool who has caved to Bush and the GOP.

Posted by: HonestAbe | June 18, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

What about the veiled anti-Irish sentiment in attaching "Mc" to a pejorative? That's been infuriating me.

Posted by: dt | June 18, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

I agree with you, VC Smith. A couple of limited claims of different direction to Bush on environmentalist issues (from a guy who wants off-coast drilling and limited taxation of oil companies), the big picture is that he's the same - on Iraq, Iran, the economy, many social issues, and taxes.

G-d help us if he's voted in by people thinking that there's any substantive difference between him and Bush.

Posted by: Remus Morin | June 18, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

If we elect McCain, what do you think the GOP's first moves will be? We will reward them for ALL of the destruction they have brought to America the last 8 years [economy; military; Constitution; environment; diplomacy; etc.], and encourage further pillaging. Remember '04 and Bush's "political capital" that he spent on bankrupting the country and defunding education and the elderly?

We must demonstrate that America is a country of laws; a constitutional democracy, by and for the people. Whatever we think that means, it DOES NOT include rewarding those who would pi$s down our legs and tell us it's raining.

Posted by: mobedda | June 18, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

The republicans can run all the ads they want, in the end it will be all about Iraq. This is black and white, there is no gray area or spin to this issue.
The economy and taxes will also be a huge issue and again McCain seems to have no new solutions and maybe not even an understanding of the depth of the problems.
So, he will be falling back on his years of experience that unfortunately is part of how we got to this point. A present, he is a rudderless ship.

Posted by: vcsmith | June 18, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company