[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Maybe McCain is just doing what he thinks is right based on his analysis of the issue(s). Why not offer up that possibility?

That is another legitimate possibility, but then it is disingenuous for McCain to try to say he is about change and contrast from Bush when in recent years, he has voted alongside him on the vast majority of issues, as many would claim.

However, to be honest, I would respect his honesty and sincerity either way providing that he doesn't succumb to the temptation of trying to be everything to everybody, especially given that it is very clear that people overwhelmingly are ready to part ways with Bush policy and political approach.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

it is disingenuous for McCain to try to say he is about change and contrast from Bush when in recent years, he has voted alongside him on the vast majority of issues,

He has not once voted against Bush this year. He is not about change. McCain is four more years for Bush.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Generally, I'd agree. When you're dealing with money and politics, people who are less than honest squeak through occasionally. We aren't talking about MONEY or THE PAST though, we are talking about IDEOLOGY and the THE PRESENT up until the last couple of months ago. And Wright is just the tip of the left-wing iceberg

And I could just as easily say that Renzi is the tip of the right-wing iceberg.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why would anyone live in America who hates it? Same basic question.

Not really. No one's forced to run for office - you have to be really committed to our political system to do so. But a lot of people who live here who may hate it may not have the means to just leave. But I don't really take many people seriously who claim to hate this country. If they claim to hate it but continue to live here without trying to make enough money to move to another country, I don't put much stock in it.

And now I can't remember what we were talking about.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What I do know is that one of Obama's long-time advisors had gone on record as wanting God to damn America to hell. Personally, I think it makes him look like an idiot as well.

No kidding. Yeah, I think he went overboard on several occasions. But it's easy to make someone look bad by taking quotes out of context. I think what Wright said is more like a poorly worded, fire-and-brimstone version of when John Kerry quoted Lincoln when he said we should "pray humbly that we are on God's side" rather than claiming that God is on our side.

I'm not defending Wright, because his comments and ridiculous claims (AIDS was created by the government?) make him seem like a real tinfoil hat enthusiast to me, but I can see some of what he said in the context of a backlash against the religious right's use of religion as a divisive political tool.

EDIT: When you say it made "him" look like an idiot, do you mean it made Wright look like one, or Obama? I don't think it made Obama look like an idiot, really. It certainly wasn't good for him, but the real idiot was Rev. Wright.

Conservatives get mixed up with weird evangelical preachers all the time, though. Look at John Hagee. McCain sought his endorsement, but not long after he got it, we learned he was a giant bigot who hates Catholics and Jews.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

He has not once voted against Bush this year. He is not about change. McCain is four more years for Bush.

And apparently 95% the year prior. I have no idea whether to take this at face value, would anybody here like to rebuke these claims?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And apparently 95% the year prior. I have no idea whether to take this at face value, would anybody here like to rebuke these claims?

I, too, would like to see a credible defense of this - just thinking though how it looks though, if McCain is claiming to be different, you'd think he'd vote different at least a little bit?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

... if McCain is claiming to be different, you'd think he'd vote different at least a little bit?

Most people who deal with numbers would say that 5% is "at least a little bit".

Of the legislation that has come to a vote, much of it (due to the Democratic control of Congress) is filled/littered with liberal items and add-ons. Just because Bush says "no friggin way" to these, and similarly, McCain (looking at the same legislation) says "no friggin way"... it doesn't means that these guys are the same.

Perhaps go back to a time when the Republicans were in the majority and able to compose legislation, and look at their stances on those. Obviously, they are both Republicans, so there will be a decent amount of similarity in views.

And who says that their similar stance on a given issue is wrong in the first place? They both supported the surge, Obama didn't. Who was right on that one?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Most people who deal with numbers would say that 5% is "at least a little bit".

Well, it's within the typical statistical margin of error. Most people who deal with numbers would say it's pretty much the same as no difference, but that's not the point. Even if we concede that he's 5% different from Bush in his views, that sort of proves the point, doesn't it? That's not a lot of change. "Four years of 95% the same as Bush" is less of a snappy slogan, but sure, why not.

[spacefreak]

If you're going to go by that logic, why not say that Barack Obama is the same as Ted Kennedy or Dennis Kucinich or John Kerry?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is another legitimate possibility, but then it is disingenuous for McCain to try to say he is about change and contrast from Bush when in recent years, he has voted alongside him on the vast majority of issues, as many would claim.... it is very clear that people overwhelmingly are ready to part ways with Bush policy and political approach.

You're only using votes here, and that in itself is disingenuous, and only from the most recent (Democrat-controlled) portion of their tenures together.

You mention political approach. Any objective analysis of those who have worked with both men surely indicates that their "political approaches" are quite different.

Some say that this is exactly why the Democrat-controlled Congress has tossed bills forward that have no chance of passing... so that they can get both guys on the same side and not waste all those years of negative Bush branding.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I, too, would like to see a credible defense of this - just thinking though how it looks though, if McCain is claiming to be different, you'd think he'd vote different at least a little bit?

He's certainly different enough that many conservatives don't much like his voting record.

Mark R. Levin on John McCain & 2008 on National Review Online

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*SIgh* are you aware of the context in which this was said? Is there *any* context in your mind in which somebody can God damn America, or has America always been the archetype of flawless morality?

A. I know the context. I heard the entire sermon/speech
B. There's no context I can see to ask God to damn America to hell. None.

The fact is that Obama's associates have spent the past 20 years or so engaging in radical hate-speech against the United States. It's not just a single sermon or slipped tongue. That's why it's going to be hard for Obama, who has a long history with these folks, to simply chastise them NOW when it's clear he never had harsh words for them in the past. This isn't a matter where someone started singing a different tune, and Obama didn't like the new lyrics. He's had years to repudiate the kind of garbage these haters have dealt and refused.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Some say that this is exactly why the Democrat-controlled Congress has tossed bills forward that have no chance of passing... so that they can get both guys on the same side and not waste all those years of negative Bush branding.

And the Vampire Congress that preceded this one passed their bills at night so nobody knew how they were fooking us. The point? Both sides are crooked.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

And I could just as easily say that Renzi is the tip of the right-wing iceberg.

What ideology does Renzi share with McCain, and for how long has he shared it with him?

You see, "guilt by associate" in regards to finances seldom work. Otherwise, BIll and HIllary Clinton would have never saw a day in office. On the other hand, ideology and ideas are much harder to shake when you have a long time friend or advisor who is clearly full of hatred. Obama has lots of friends in low places too as far as finances goes, so it wouldn't be wise to start a pissing contest there, IMO.

But it's easy to make someone look bad by taking quotes out of context. I think what Wright said is more like a poorly worded, fire-and-brimstone version of when John Kerry quoted Lincoln when he said we should "pray humbly that we are on God's side" rather than claiming that God is on our side.

Nope. I've heard it in context. He has a hatred for America that is based on the notion that America at it's core is evil because it's controlled by the white devil. There's no "context" that anyone is missing.

EDIT: When you say it made "him" look like an idiot, do you mean it made Wright look like one, or Obama? I don't think it made Obama look like an idiot, really. It certainly wasn't good for him, but the real idiot was Rev. Wright.

Both. Wright for saying it, Obama for pretending he didn't know that his good friend and advisor was such a confused hater.

Conservatives get mixed up with weird evangelical preachers all the time, though. Look at John Hagee. McCain sought his endorsement, but not long after he got it, we learned he was a giant bigot who hates Catholics and Jews.

True. He sought his endorsement. He was told he was powerful among some Christian conservative and as such figured he'd be good as an endorsee. When he found out the vile he spewed, he spoke out against it. Not ANYTHING like Obama's years of sitting in front of a man where he said the types of things he's said, and Obama considered him an inspiration and advisor. Sorry, that dog don't hunt as far as comparison goes....

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I, too, would like to see a credible defense of this

Honestly, once I got over my anger about it, it stopped striking me as odd. Bush is the president, McCain's not. They're both in the same party. We're in a war. Chain of command.

Look at it this way. Let's say you think someone is really ****ed up. How you deal with that is going to be different if that person is your (nominal) pal. You're not necessarily going to castigate that person in public, it's perfectly understandable to present a united front and try and make the changes you feel need to be made behind the scenes.

It took almost 5 years for any Republican to break ranks.

Likewise, he's gone on the record about issues (such as torture) that should make it pretty clear he's approaching things from a very different standpoint.

Now, that being said, one of the other things he had (somewhat ambiguously) gone on the record about is wiretapping without judicial review. I find it extremely disheartening he chose to clear up that ambiguity by staking out a position exactly in line with Bush.

He's pretty much permanently lost me on this one.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by art_director 

And the Vampire Congress that preceded this one passed their bills at night so nobody knew how they were fooking us. The point? Both sides are crooked.

Perhaps, but the similarity in stances on legislation between GWB and McCain is based on the last 1+ year. That's the qualifier always mentioned by the left in this brand transference attempt, ie. "Over the last year...".

Maybe we should go to another thread to debate productivity levels and crookedness of Congresses past, and just stick with McCain-centric posts here??? I may be game for that.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honestly, once I got over my anger about it, it stopped striking me as odd. Bush is the president, McCain's not. They're both in the same party. We're in a war. Chain of command.

Holy ****. He's a Senator, not a general. His aliegence should be to the people who elected him. If he's not willing to vote his conscience, he's not worth of his office.

Originally Posted by subego 

Look at it this way. Let's say you think someone is really ****ed up. How you deal with that is going to be different if that person is your (nominal) pal. You're not necessarily going to castigate that person in public, it's perfectly understandable to present a united front and try and make the changes you feel need to be made behind the scenes.

This is not a bar-room disagreement - this is national level policy - you don't vote for something you don't agree with because the president is your 'pal'. Again, if this is what he is doing, he is not worthy of even his current office.

Originally Posted by subego 

It took almost 5 years for any Republican to break ranks.

Yes, that's shameful, and is another reason not to elect one.

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise, he's gone on the record about issues (such as torture) that should make it pretty clear he's approaching things from a very different standpoint.

If his 'approach' doesn't mean voting against torture, then that's no good, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, that being said, one of the other things he had (somewhat ambiguously) gone on the record about is wiretapping without judicial review. I find it extremely disheartening he chose to clear up that ambiguity by staking out a position exactly in line with Bush.

Yeah, me too.

Originally Posted by subego 

He's pretty much permanently lost me on this one.

Yeah, me too. Glad to find an area we agree on .

[art_director]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Perhaps, but the similarity in stances on legislation between GWB and McCain is based on the last 1+ year. That's the qualifier always mentioned by the left in this brand transference attempt, ie. "Over the last year...".

Maybe we should go to another thread to debate productivity levels and crookedness of Congresses past, and just stick with McCain-centric posts here??? I may be game for that.

Funny ... in response to your non_McCain centric post and you say this ... haha ...

[peeb]

So you want to stop talking about McCain, and divert attention elsewhere? Sounds like the Republican strategy!

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Funny ... in response to your non_McCain centric post and you say this ... haha ...

No way, champ. My post was definitely McCain-centric. I was writing about the McCain=Bush portrayal in response to peeb's post about similar.