[QUOTE=mallamalla;2728691]truly remarkable. I love how the Times endorsed McCain in the primaries and commended his ability to work with both parties, but as soon as he was nominated, he was McSame.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bitonti;2728699]your position is they are drastically different? how? the burden should be on YOU to prove your reach point not on me to prove that GOP candidates are similar if not same as GOP president.
if you have a theory as for why Palin and Mccain are so very different from the last bums - let's hear it please[/QUOTE]
"The Burden should be on you".
Really? Why is that? I think I've been very clear, I am not voting for John McCain nor do I support his candidacy.
I just wanted to be sure you were, in actually, echoing the same exact Democrat Party talking point as all the other Democrats.
You were. Which is fine, of course.
But be assured, there is no burdens on me my friend.
And if you're actually interested, my "theory" on their differences are as follows:
--McCain is far more of a panderer to liberals, and the media. He craves being liked.
--McCain is even more pro-amnesty for illegals.
--McCain is far more trustworthy on issues of War than Bush. He may favor the War in a similar way, but would be a better leader of it. I also think he'd be far less likely to launch a similar attack elsewhere than Bush, despite his bluster.
--McCain is far more of a compromiser to get things done (so-called working across the aisle) than Bush.
--McCain is not going to be a "permananet election cycle" President as Bush was.
--McCain would not press for the same kind of Religious-based Social Conservativism as Bush does, McCain is not a religious Zealot (Palin seems to be in her own life, don't know enough to say she would be as VP).
McCain would be a far better President than Bush. With that said, he still wouldn't be nearly good enough.
[QUOTE=bitonti;2728769]the reason why it's on you is because to say the 2 term GOP president is drastically different than the latest GOP nominee is a reach. It goes against common convention.
That being said you gave a well thought out post... but end of the day they both campaigned under advisement of Karl Rove... and a thousand other similarities. The differences are trivial.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, to a point.
My belief is that McCain is "playing conservative" i.e. pandering to ensure the loyalty of his base in the election, because much of his base feels as I do, that he is a moderate-to-liberal-leaning RINO with few true deeply held ideals, and clearly not a Conservative of any note. I simply don't think he is as extreme, as single-minded or as bullheaded on compromise as Bush has been, nor would he be as ineffective or in some cases counterproductive.
I think the differences are very real, but clearly those differences will not be a wide as those between Bush and Obama. In one case they are both Republicans, in the other they are absolute polar opposites on policy.
Again, it must be noted that while I think McCain would be better than Bush, that isn't saying much and is not an indicator of personal support.
[QUOTE=Warfish;2728781] In one case they are both Republicans, in the other they are absolute polar opposites on policy.[/quote]
both are: pro war, pro-conservative judges (originalists), pro off-shore drilling (after he was against it!), pro life, pro tax cut, pro guns, pro-gitmo (McCain was POW!) and anti-infrastructure spending, anti-universal healthcare, anti gay marriage, etc.
their differences are basically immigration (no one really likes McCain's immegration proposal) and climate change. that's not alot of difference, maybe 10% as they say ;)
Again, it must be noted that while I think McCain would be better than Bush, that isn't saying much and is not an indicator of personal support.[/QUOTE]
I would agree - McCain would be better than Bush - I can't think of anyone who would be worse than Bush. Maybe Palin.
[QUOTE=bitonti;2728848]both are: pro war, pro-conservative judges (originalists), pro off-shore drilling (after he was against it!), pro life, pro tax cut, pro guns, pro-gitmo (McCain was POW!) and anti-infrastructure spending, anti-universal healthcare, anti gay marriage, etc. [/QUOTE]
I'm going off of memory here, so forgive me.....
....but I do not recall McCain being honestly Pro-Conservative Judges. I think that is a great example of his pandering to a talking point of his party's opinion-makers. He's far more likely to nominate a "moderate" IMO, and may have to with a strongly Democratic Congress.
....as for Offshore-drilling, we've debated the point endlessly. But again, when it comes to honesty of opinion, I doubt his sincerity. He has also spoken at length on alternate fuels and environmentalism and more libeal position points on this issue. He may give lip-service to offshore drilling if elected, but I can see him abandoning that rather quickly in the face of a Democrat Congress as well.
....as for GITMO, I believe his position is to close it down. He's not for abandoning taking prisoners, jsut closing GITMO and bringing them here. Again, going from memory here, which we both know is a bit flawed in my case.
....I also do not recall McCain being stridently pro-gun or pro-NRA. He is, from what I've seen, just a party-line issuer on this issue. I cannot recall him being particulerly strident in his defense of the 2nd amendment. But then again, 2nd Amendment Gun Rights is something of a Core Republican Policy position, even for a RINO.
....He is pro-life, thats true. I just wonder how strongly or meaningfully he is. As with much of McCain, i doubt his sincerity on this issue (and doubt any Republican would truly try to overturn RvW for obvious political reasons of lost support from this core-issue).
....he is indeed anti-gay marriage. Not much to cover here, as this is another core Republican voter-retaining issue. Given the results of the last election, seems the American people thus far (stress thus far) agree.
....he is indeed Pro-tax Cut. Again Bit, he IS running as a Republican remember. Economic conditions and the reality of a Democrat Congress will be far more relevant to this issue than McCains claimed position.
I guess till now I just havn't seen what you meant when you were claiming "He's Bush III". I though you meant the ineptness, inabillity to get anything done, and when he does get stuff done it's bad-ness of Bush.
But that doesn;t seem to be it. You seem to be claiming he's "Bush" simply becase he is a Republican and gives lip-service to the core Republican election-winning talking points. I'm a bit taken aback that your analysis would that shallow, honestly. Did you expect him to run on Alternative Energy, Gay Rights, Liberal Justices, Tax Increases and a Turtle Foregin Policy? Really?
I guess we can agree to disagree my friend. I think he's different enough to be treated as his own man this election, and not lumped in with Bush as a propaganda tool to play off Bush's miserable two terms. But thats Politics for ya, and as I've said, I don't support him and don;t trust or believe him even on issues he claims to agree with me on. So eh.
[quote=mallamalla;2728691]truly remarkable. I love how the Times endorsed McCain in the primaries and commended his ability to work with both parties, but as soon as he was nominated, he was McSame.[/quote]
Kinda Like Romney bashing McCain in the primaries & now fawning over him?
[QUOTE=bitonti;2726941]GOP has had 8 years, look at where we are right now.
this isn't an election about Barack Obama, it's about George Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of those bums.
have fun at the convention but end of the day the GOP doesn't deserve another chance.[/QUOTE]
Bush, Cheney, Rove don't deserve another chance. Agree 100%. But McCain and Palin deserve a first chance. You don't punish Bush by ignoring a guy in McCain who will change things for the better simply because they are of the same party. That is short-sighted and ignorant.
Chad Pennington had his chance. You don't curse Brett Favre and the NY Jets' QB position for Pennington's interceptions.
But that doesn;t seem to be it. You seem to be claiming he's "Bush" simply becase he is a Republican and gives lip-service to the core Republican election-winning talking points. I'm a bit taken aback that your analysis would that shallow, honestly. Did you expect him to run on Alternative Energy, Gay Rights, Liberal Justices, Tax Increases and a Turtle Foregin Policy? Really?[/QUOTE]
that's fine, just don't run on a platform of change when you aren't really bringing any.
[QUOTE=bitonti;2729008]that's fine, just don't run on a platform of change when you aren't really bringing any.[/QUOTE]
With respect, McCains "platform" is hardly centered on change, as much as it is on his being a self-described "Maverck".
And really, it all depends on your definition and opinion of what that "change" is, and if it is realistic to think that this "change" can be reasonably accomplished.
For example, changing to a sole-source Govt. Run healthcare system is change. I cannot support that change. Making Welfare benefts 100% greater and longer is change, change I cannot support. Making gasoline illegal, raising us to a 95% tax rate for all who make over 45K, etc, etc, etc would all be "change". And all would find no support.
Let me be clear, I am not syaing these are Obama's positions. I am obviously exaggerating to make a point. That point is "change" isn't in and of itself something to vote for someone for. It is WHAT that change is, and HOW it can be accomplished, that should count.