McCain is not Bush.

Hobbes

I keep hearing from those supporting McCain that "He is not Bush". I've even seen comments of it being a myth orchestrated by the liberal Obama supporters. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

If he is not Bush then please explain to me in what way?

From doing research I have found that.
- 89% of the time McCain voted for policies that Bush wanted.
- Agrees with staying in Iraq.
- Agrees with attacking Iran.
- Same tax cut plan for the rich.
- Tax cuts permanent.
- Agrees with privatizing/outsourcing the US government agencies.
- Social welfare privatization.

From what I can see he is pretty much the same as Bush. Even Bush himself has said he supports him because he believes his policies are correct.

So seriously, if you honestly believe that McCain is not Bush please explain how.

LolaLuv

Hobbes wrote: »

I keep hearing from those supporting McCain that "He is not Bush". I've even seen comments of it being a myth orchestrated by the liberal Obama supporters. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

If he is not Bush then please explain to me in what way?

From doing research I have found that.
- 89% of the time McCain voted for policies that Bush wanted.
- Agrees with staying in Iraq.
- Agrees with attacking Iran.
- Same tax cut plan for the rich.
- Tax cuts permanent.
- Agrees with privatizing/outsourcing the US government agencies.
- Social welfare privatization.

From what I can see he is pretty much the same as Bush. Even Bush himself has said he supports him because he believes his policies are correct.

So seriously, if you honestly believe that McCain is not Bush please explain how.

After reading the thread title I was prepared to come in here and ask just how deluded you are, but I see you're fighting the good fight!

I haven't heard anyone really say McCain isn't Bush. The problem is lots of people still like Bush. Go figure.

brianthebard

If you are conservative enough, then electing a president that is "like bush" and therefore not new and scary, would be attractive enough to a lot of people. You see it here every election where people who bitched about FF for the past five years go and vote for them again.

Pocono Joe

No elected US president has ever been a continuation of the former president and never will. The point of McCain voting 89% of the time for policies that Bush wanted… Good! I agree with most of the votes. And at least he VOTED! Obama has a history of often voting "PRESENT" to AVOID YES-or-NO stands... Surely not the character of the person I want running our country!

I could use the same type of arguments to compare Obama to Carter who was the worse president our country has seen in recent years, and who was thrown out of office after only one term due to a completely failed presidency.

* Thirty two years ago a Democrat politician with very little experience "transcended" politics as usual and was lifted on waves of good will to the White House.
* Carter promised change and hope. He told us that the mean and cynical government that we had come to expect from Washington was a thing of the past.
* He was an idealist who was not wedded to failed ideals of the past.
* He pursed domestic policies which called for privation instead of growth.
* Neither Carter or Obama speak much about political philosophy.
* It certainly seems as if Obama feels that the problems of America have been her moral shortcomings, which is very much what Jimmy Carter thought. It also seems as if Obama feels himself morally superior to those in politics today, much like Carter did thirty years ago.
* Obama, like Carter, invites Americans to trust him with the most beguiling claims of spiritual elevation.

Bottom line… Each candidate is their own man. And comparing them to perceived failed presidencies it a disingenuous, although effective, purely political tactic.

- - - - - -
Off topic but did anybody see the tribute the Dems did for Ted Kennedy (to take some of the spotlight away from the Clintons). Historically, he will be known as the Kennedy brother who gave and did the most for his country. But I swore the Dems already him dead and buried, and expected him to be rolled out in a pine box. It was surpassing to see the vigor of his speech, given the medical issues he is dealing with. It is probably one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives, but I wish him well, and look forward to the old coot pissing me off for several more years.

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No elected US president has ever been a continuation of the former president and never will.

Sorry, but as I pointed out McCains policies on those topics I found are exactly the same as Bush. Are you saying that they are wrong? If so I would like to know how you know this (which is the point of my question).

The point of McCain voting 89% of the time for policies that Bush wanted…

OK, so all that tells me if that you support Bushes policies and that McCain is like Bush.

I could use the same type of arguments to compare Obama to Carter

You could but it has no bearing on what I am asking.

I see comments on other sites of "McSame" and others of the right claiming McCain is not like Bush at all. The point isn't if you vote for McCain or not, it is for those who claim McCain is not Bush to point out where.

The reason being because where I am looking from they pretty much the same agenda. If that is what you agree with (as it appears it does with you) then your not adding any value to the thread.

Hobbes

brianthebard wrote: »

If you are conservative enough, then electing a president that is "like bush" and therefore not new and scary, would be attractive enough to a lot of people.

Yes I agree somewhat, but the point is that a lot of right leaning sites/people claim that McCain is not like Bush. I am wondering where that meme sprung up from.

LolaLuv

Hobbes wrote: »

Yes I agree somewhat, but the point is that a lot of right leaning sites/people claim that McCain is not like Bush. I am wondering where that meme sprung up from.

Probably because he was a war hero. That is honestly the only difference I can come up with.

Frankie Lee

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No elected US president has ever been a continuation of the former president and never will.

George Bush Snr after Reagan was just as bad.

Pocono Joe

I thought my response was on point… sorry… my bad.

How about this… McCain believes in a smaller, more accountable government, which Bush did not demonstrate during his term.

And the majority of the responses did not address the question of "if you honestly believe that McCain is not Bush please explain how" … Hmmmmm why no complaints about any of them?

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No elected US president has ever been a continuation of the former president and never will. The point of McCain voting 89% of the time for policies that Bush wanted… Good! I agree with most of the votes. And at least he VOTED! Obama has a history of often voting "PRESENT" to AVOID YES-or-NO stands... Surely not the character of the person I want running our country!

I could use the same type of arguments to compare Obama to Carter who was the worse president our country has seen in recent years, and who was thrown out of office after only one term due to a completely failed presidency.

Worse than Bush?
And you realise there's a difference between not being voted back into office and being thrown out right?

Pocono Joe

Yes Carter was voted out of office. Most here in the US consider not being reelected for a second term is comparable to being thrown out.

And yes, I consider Bush Sr being thrown out also. The "read my lips, no new taxes" quote sunk him after he thought he was doing something good for the country, by compromising with the Democrats to get things done and move the country forward.

Sand

Out of curiousity - which Bush term is McCain the same as? His first or second term?

If you look at his record youll see a marked difference in his approach and methods with dealing with issues. Rumsfeld getting dropped on Iraq with a new strategy, Rice taking point on policy, neo-cons getting shifted out, successful negotiations with North Korea having dismissed them in his first term, sending diplomats to negotiations with Iran [ which was a fairly major policy change] and so on.

So, which term of Bush are you saying McCain is the same as?

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

If you look at his record youll see a marked difference in his approach and methods with dealing with issues.

Actually I don't see it at all, as I said I did a search and the majority of what McCain does is the same as Bush.

successful negotiations with North Korea

Really? When did that happen?????? <--- Note excessive use of ?.

I did a google and could find absolutely no mention of successful negotiations. Can you point me to it?

I was aware that North Korea actually are planning to suspend dismantling their reactor because "United States had violated a six-party disarmament deal."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/08/116_30048.html

So, which term of Bush are you saying McCain is the same as?

Well based on what I have found so far McCain has voted the same as Bush 100% of the time in 2008, 89% previous year. So lets go with this one?

Or if you believe me to be incorrect please post something with substance. Like actual facts.

irish_bob

Pocono Joe wrote: »

No elected US president has ever been a continuation of the former president and never will. The point of McCain voting 89% of the time for policies that Bush wanted… Good! I agree with most of the votes. And at least he VOTED! Obama has a history of often voting "PRESENT" to AVOID YES-or-NO stands... Surely not the character of the person I want running our country!

I could use the same type of arguments to compare Obama to Carter who was the worse president our country has seen in recent years, and who was thrown out of office after only one term due to a completely failed presidency.

* Thirty two years ago a Democrat politician with very little experience "transcended" politics as usual and was lifted on waves of good will to the White House.
* Carter promised change and hope. He told us that the mean and cynical government that we had come to expect from Washington was a thing of the past.
* He was an idealist who was not wedded to failed ideals of the past.
* He pursed domestic policies which called for privation instead of growth.
* Neither Carter or Obama speak much about political philosophy.
* It certainly seems as if Obama feels that the problems of America have been her moral shortcomings, which is very much what Jimmy Carter thought. It also seems as if Obama feels himself morally superior to those in politics today, much like Carter did thirty years ago.
* Obama, like Carter, invites Americans to trust him with the most beguiling claims of spiritual elevation.

Bottom line… Each candidate is their own man. And comparing them to perceived failed presidencies it a disingenuous, although effective, purely political tactic.

- - - - - -
Off topic but did anybody see the tribute the Dems did for Ted Kennedy (to take some of the spotlight away from the Clintons). Historically, he will be known as the Kennedy brother who gave and did the most for his country. But I swore the Dems already him dead and buried, and expected him to be rolled out in a pine box. It was surpassing to see the vigor of his speech, given the medical issues he is dealing with. It is probably one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives, but I wish him well, and look forward to the old coot pissing me off for several more years.

republican contempt for all things jimmy carter is a mystery to many , i think its mainly down to the fact that jimmy carter wasnt gung ho and quintesentially american enough , carter didnt leave the kind of budget deficit when he left that bush is going to , carter didnt send 4000 american soldiers to there death in a war of choice while neglecting to deal with another war ( afghanistan ) , carter managed to negotiate a deal between egypt and israel , while the economy didnt perform under carter , neither did it under bush senior so the worst president ever line is a little hard to swallow if your anyone but a true regan republican

Sand

Really? When did that happen?????? <--- Note excessive use of ?.

February 2006, North Korea agreed to end its nuclear programme in return for aid and diplomatic concessions.

As recently as July, Condaleeza Rice went out to meet with North Korean leadership and regional foreign ministers.

I take its these dangerous Bush policies youre warning us McCain will continue? Talks with North Korea must be halted, and Obama is the man to halt them?

Actually I don't see it at all, as I said I did a search and the majority of what McCain does is the same as Bush.

I was referring to Bush actually. For example, in his first term he described Iran and North Korea as members of an axis of evil. Widely derided. In his second term, he oversaw successful negotiations with North Korea and more recently sent the first senior US diplomatic contact to Iran for decades.

So again, I ask which Bush are you saying McCain is just the same as? First term "axis of evil" Bush or second term "lets deal" Bush?

Well based on what I have found so far McCain has voted the same as Bush 100% of the time in 2008, 89% previous year. So lets go with this one?

Or if you believe me to be incorrect please post something with substance. Like actual facts.

Oh, I'm sure youre right on the stats - and I couldnt be honestly bothered to look it up even if I doubted you. But perhaps you could highlight why its terrible for McCain to be in favour of Bush policies like negotiation with North Korea and extending diplomatic contacts with Iran? Or immigration reform that offers a path to legalisation for illegal immigrants?

The sad thing for Bush is that nobody even pays attention to what he does anymore.

CPT. SURF

Bush has done some fairly decent stuff in the last two years but it pales in comparison to the cock-ups of the first six. Too little too late

Hobbes

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Bush has done some fairly decent stuff in the last two years

o_O Like what exactly?

Manic Moran

Well, if you like fish, he's declared the largest Marine Conservation Area in the world in 2006 off Hawaii, and is looking at another one in the Marianas area as per a report last week.

http://rosettastone.wordpress.com/2006/06/15/northwestern-hawaiian-islands-marine-national-monument-declared/

- 89% of the time McCain voted for policies that Bush wanted.
- Agrees with staying in Iraq.
- Agrees with attacking Iran.
- Same tax cut plan for the rich.
- Tax cuts permanent.
- Agrees with privatizing/outsourcing the US government agencies.
- Social welfare privatization.

At least he votes against his leadership more often than Obama does with his 97% track rate. I think the number's in his favour.

As for the rest of it...
- So do I.
- So do I, if appropriate.
- I'm sortof ambivalent on that one. I can see the arguments for both sides of that issue.
- I like permanent tax cuts. Saves Congress from having to go back every two years and re-authorise them like they've been doing for donkeys' years.
- As a government agency outsourcee, I rather agree with it as well. And if it's cheaper for the government to do it that way than to add to the morass of bureaucracy (which it generally is), where's the problem?
- If the contract is correctly drawn up and supervised, it probably is a better solution. If not, then there's going to be a problem.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, if you like fish, he's declared the largest Marine Conservation Area in the world in 2006 off Hawaii, and is looking at another one in the Marianas area as per a report last week.

Actually he didn't decide, it was going to happen anyway. All he did was bump it up a year.