I do not see how McCain could have grabbed the “Change Issue” no matter who his opponent was because there is very little of “change” present in any of his policies.
Once upon a time he was (back in the 90’s) and his rep as a maverick republican is carrying him still but in fact a look at his policies look for all the world like a Bush third term (which is being discussed in this thread ).
Change seems about the last thing McCain could try to apply to his candidacy.
I get it-- you don’t like McCain. Go back and read what I was responding to. I’m not talking about whether you or I agree with any of his positions, but that there is much more to McCain than the posted claimed. One easy example is the health care plans of the two candidates. There are legitimate reasons to prefer McCain’s plan to Obama’s. The idea that McCain = Bush is simply a Democratic talking point. They’re both Republicans, so of course they’re going to agree on lots of things. But I’d say McCain is more different than Bush on the issues than Obama is from Hillary.
So, if you’re going to say that a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush, then you’ll have to accept that a vote for Obama is a vote for Hillary. But McCain and Obama both differ in style considerably from Bush and Hillary, respectively. I’d actually Say Hillary’s style is scarily reminiscent of Bush’s. And that’s important. People are fed up with the secrecy and lack of respect for the law that Bush exhibits. I don’t see that in either Obama or McCain, but I do in Hillary.
See my link in Post #21 above where this is being discussed.
McCain once upon a time was very different and often opposed to Bush’s policies. Now he seems to have switched direction over the last several years and largely seems to be toeing the Bush line at every turn. I am hard pressed to think of a place Bush and McCain are opposed on major issues.
But John, Voyager does have a legitimate point too. Which policies do we look at? The older policies, which I think most of us suspect were the “real” John McCain, or the more recent Bush-ish policies?
I agree, btw, that policy-wise, Obama and HRC are very close, quite likely closer that McCain and Bush. Nonetheless, McCain has pushed too much of Bush’s agenda recently for me to be comfortable with him in the White House, because he really does seem to have been doing it for expediency. I think Whack-a-Mole et al. are right, and McCain has painted himself into a corner.
I think the platforms could be lumped under AHunter3’s bullet point of “party loyalty”. Presumably, most people who are loyal to the Republican party are so because they agree with most aspects of the Republican platform (or the most important aspects), and likewise for the people who are loyal to the Democratic party. So when a person says “I’m voting for McCain because he’s the Republican candidate”, what they presumably mean is “I’m voting for McCain because he supports the platform supported by the Republican party, which I also support”.
The problem being that the Republicans seem to be going through a bit of a divide right now between the religious/social conservatives and the (mostly) solely fiscal conservatives. So what is the party platform right now?
The candidates are going to emphasize different aspects of their policies at different times during the election cycle. McCain campaigned heavily for Bush in 2004, so it should be of no surprise that his policies are going to be similar. But he differs from Bush on climate change, healthcare, campaign finance reform to name a few. More importantly, though, does anyone expect McCain to appoint incompetent cronies to run agencies like FEMA or to inquire into the religious beliefs of federal employees? That’s the kind of difference (change?) that we can expect from either McCain or Obama.
Besides, you can ask the same question about Obama, as some people already are. Bob Herbert (no right wing apologist) said today in his NYT opinion piece:
This from someone who I think we can very safely assume is an Obama supporter.
I’m not talking about agreement or disagreement with his positions, only the change in his positions. I disagree with his position on Iraq, but I admit that his has been very steadfast in it.
Hillary and Obama were always very close together in most things. I actually do agree with her health care position a bit more than his. But neither of them changed positions over time to gain the support of the other, that is where they started. I’m no fan of Hillary’s either, and liked her less and less as the campaign continued. That’s immaterial.
The real question is whether McCain’s change is from the heart, to keep support from Bush and his fundraisers (raising money is one thing the guy is good at) or to hold onto the right. I actually have no clue.
What are the key differences between his 2000 and his 2008 platforms? And I’m talking about substantive differences, not differences in emphasis.
He sucked up a bunch to the religious right in 2008, but he knew he had to do that to get the nomination. He’s changed his position on offshore oil drilling, but it’s quite a different world wrt oil in 2008 than it was in 2000. Maybe he switched on that for political reasons, but I don’t think that’s a slam dunk. And remember, he’s just saying he wants to late the states choose. As a federalist, I commend him for doing that, and think that should have been his position all along.
McCain’s 180 degree turn on tax cuts is not a matter of emphasizing different policies.
Of course Obama is moving to the center, and quickly, and of course those to his left object. I’d just as soon him not be another McGovern, thanks. I’d expect that McCain would do it also if his right were as secure as Obama’s left. McCain’s only chance is to appeal to lots of independents, while not pissing off the right. It looks like he is trying to do this with a patchwork platform: accept climate change for the center while keeping a very right wing tax policy. The McCain = Bush slogan is to focus on the positions which appeal to the right and not the center.
I think he is far more likely to get right wing votes than centrist votes with this strategy, but I suspect the pressure to move right is stronger than the pressure on Obama to stay left.
Yeah, the tax cut thing could be pandering to the right. But I see his position on climate change as being principled. He’s been one of the few Republicans talking about it for quite some time-- this isn’t something he just stumbled onto in 2008.
The tax cut thing doesn’t bug me at all. It was a minor tweak to the code, and I’d rather we didn’t fiddle with it every time some new president gets elected. I doubt, however, that he’ll veto any tax increase Congress offers up as legislation. He’ll have to compromise on that.
Which brings us to one other thing McCain has in his favor-- do we want one party rule again? I didn’t like it when the Dems had it in the 70s, and I didn’t like it when the Republicans had it in the '00s. I don’t know if that resonates with many people, but it resonates with me. It’s one big reason I’m not more of an Obama supporter than I am. Right now, though, getting out of Iraq is a bigger priority for me. However, if it looks like we’re going to be able to get out no matter who is president, then I might very well vote for McCain.
It’s not just 2000, as I said. Hell, Bush 2008 is wildly different from Bush 2000. It’s economic policy, it is torture policy, it is wiretapping policy. While I doubt McCain will require political tests for technical jobs, has he had the guts to state this clearly?
Really? Look what happened to Bush the elder. Unless he decides to be a one term president, I doubt highly he’d let a “tax increase” go through - even if it had a decrease for the middle class.
Ah, for the good old days. In the early days of Clinton’s presidency honest negotiating between the two parties was very helpful. Today, I still don’t see a lot of compromise in the Senate. Only when Republicans elect a leadership not committed to the enduring majority of DeLay and Rove can we expect to see some compromise.
if McCain were truly the old McCain, willing to work with the other side even against the right of his party, we might be in good shape. I don’t believe it without some real evidence.
As for Iraq, it will be interesting to see his response to Maliki. I don’t give him all that much credit for supporting the surge - that was just a belated application of the Powell doctrine, and should have been the strategy from the beginning for any competent administration.
Uh, the Dems only had the Presidency for four years during the 70s. Do you mean the 90s, or are you referring strictly to Congress (which frankly, I simply don’t remember well enough to say)?