Not one week ago, John W. McSame got a bit defensive when addressing charges that he is running for Bush’s third term:
“You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term,” McCain said. “You will hear every policy of the president described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false.”
False, eh?
Care to explain just how that is false, and in what particular area or issue or topic or vote or policy that would be, Senator? Because frankly, I’ve been doing quite a bit of writing and reading about what you stand for and what your positions are and how you vote and who you associate yourself with and what you believe in and I’ll be damned if I can see any real difference.
Anywhere.
It wouldn’t be your voting record, which was 100% with Bush in 2008, and 95% in 2007 (not to mention an average of over 90% in just about every year since 2001 with one exception.). And it wouldn’t be your role in the notorious “Gang of 14” to ensure that Bush’s odious judicial appointments got through (not to mention the fact that SCOTUS judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia would be precisely who you would appoint).
It wouldn’t be in the area of leveling with the American public, as evidenced by Bush-like double talk on Hurricane Katrina (and just remember what you were doing and who you were with the day that Katrina hit) or on health care (more on that below).
It wouldn’t be on the domestic front either – since the very same tax cuts that you said you were against are the very tax cuts you voted to extend and have proposed yourself. And it wouldn’t be on social security privatization where your positions are pretty consistent with each other. Nor would it be in the area of health care, where experts in the industry say it falls far short of covering people who need it and need it now. Couple this with your support of Bush’s SCHIP veto or your rating as the worst Senator for children’s issues.
Or more-of-the-same foreign policy, where your top foreign policy advisor is a major neoconservative and your agreement with Bush on Iran (whether it be echoing talking points, threatening to bomb bomb bomb them or falsely linking Iran to al Qaeda). Iraq is no different as there is no plan to do anything – not just not do anything different, but not do anything. Anything, that is, except for wishing that things will be all rosy and just plain not knowing what the hell is going on there (or willfully ignoring what is going on there).
And on the economy, where other republicans proudly crow about how the economic policies will be a third Bush term and how “that’s a good thing”, or how bailing out Bear Stearns is more important than helping taxpayers.
Of course, we can ask what Bush thinks of this? It is a good thing that he is on record here:
Mark Halperin: The President behind the scenes has told people for months that he thought McCain would be the nominee. Even during some of those dark periods he still thought he could win. And also that McCain would be the best to carry forth his agenda. I’ve got news for you before the president starts, Karl Rove, a friend of Fox, Fox Contributor, yesterday delivered a check for $2,300 to John McCain.”
Maybe you are right – just by saying something over and over, doesn’t make it more true. And by saying something over and over because it is very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know to be false.
Like you not being as close to a third Bush term as anyone could possibly get.
When Mac Supporter Sen. Lindsay Graham fesses up that McCain will continue (if not expand) Bush’s policies, I think we can take him at his word.
With the deep laziness of the Mainstream Media, McSame and Graham can put out conflicting statements and the public either notices or not, but the MSM certainly won’t point out the inconsistencies.
St. John of the McSame will continue the insane thrust of US military presence in the Middle East, and certainly will push for the bombing of Iran. To what end, I always ask myself, to what end do these military monsters think their policies will achieve?
We can’t put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The oil is not worth the cost of war.
and he, like Blunt, are proud to say it too.
No, gentle Sen. Magoo, it’s not false. It’s no canard offered in desperation by an Obama campaign screaming “Up is down, dammit!”. That is the literal GOP elephant in the room — and it’s one smelly elephant, too.
A popular narrative goes something like this:
Any Republican nominee in 2008 is obligated to try on the dreaded Bush’s third term underwear and see if it fits. McCain is chasing after the Republican base with both hands because as the nominee of his party, it’s both expected and politically necessary. The fact that it makes McCain look like a pandering, hypocritical putz is the pre-destined tragedy in this for him. McCain is conflicted about who he has to become in this election. He sees himself as a principled iconoclast — a maverick if you like, yet, he’s traded that vision of himself for the typical, reactionary, dumb-as-a-stump Bush Republican. In his mind, he’s Theodore Roosevelt, but he’s obligated to come out of makeup and wardrobe looking like William Howard Taft.
Lucky for us, most of that stuff seems to be a bunch of crap. In practice, McCain isn’t the maverick moderate. He isn’t simply playing a Bush Republican on TV — he is a Bush Republican. His votes say it, his positions say it.
…a hit dog will holler.
BTW, I read the story in the Daily Mail about McCain leaving his first wife. What. An. Asshole.
If he would leave his first wife in her time of need to find a younger model and suck up to a rich family to give him the requisite political connections to run for office at the same time, what do you think he’d do to the rest of the country? Remind me again how he’d not be shrub’s third term in substance, style and lack of character?
And that loud minority ranting about how they’ll support McCain? Made up sexism versus the real thing.
Jeeze…you just can’t make this up.
I thought it was strange that Nancy Reagan took the 1st Mrs. McCain under her wing, so must have been aware of McCain’s treatment of her and yet has endorsed McCain all these years later. That party loyalty thing with Repub’s never ceases to amaze me.
And wasn’t it interesting that Ross Perot paid for her medical bills?
At this point, I’d say that Mrs. Reagan is too old to deal with a bunch of bullshit and doesn’t want to be bothered with the ensuing BS, esp. since it looks like the first Mrs. McCain still holds a candle for him.
[Beyond the political aspect of this, all I can say is Damn. After all these years and all he put her through? I can understand her not wanting to put their personal business out there, but I wouldn’t be spit-shining his bullshit, either.]
I think if McSame’s first wife did not support his candidacy, Mrs. Reagan would probably not have kind words to say about him and would not support him, though do so quietly. But since she does, Mrs. Reagan probably feels that it’s best not to roil the waters, esp. if Mrs. McCain is not doing so.
Ross Perot is quite the character, isn’t he? Even he has more honor than McCain. Sheesh…you just don’t treat people that way.
Remind anyone of Newt Gingrich, who’s done the leave-the-sick-wife-in-her-hour-of-need thing twice now?
Shouldn’t DOMA protect us from Republicans?