As a progressive Republican, I completely understand the vitriol over GWB. Yes, most of it is over the top (e.g. the famous photo of his holding a book upside down was photoshopped) but the truth is that we are wandering around Iraq like outpatients without any clear definition of success and no exit strategy. The economy is a shambles and like his father, GW’s plan is to ignore the problems until they go away.
Invariably, discussion about McCain’s run for the presidency runs into an anti-Bush rant. McCain is not Bush! For example, McCain is a federalist while George “NCLB” Bush clearly is not. For those anti-McCains, tell me why without making ad hominum attacks on the President. Of course, McCain’s votes/comment on Iraqi War Redux are fair game as well as his economic plan. If possible, contrast it with Obama’s votes/views/plans/etc.
McCain is pro Iraq war. He further indicates he can see going after Iran.
That is a non starter. The war is the biggest mistake we have made in a long time. it must be stopped as soon as possible.
What economic plan? There is no such plan. There are grand promises, there is no plan. If you want to debate the plan, you will have to provide us with information that McCain has not provided. The gas tax “holiday”? Puh-leeeeze!
And so far as McCain policies are an extension of Bush policies, the derision and calumny is wholly justified. Where do you see a radical departure? Maybe if I left, but I’m not…
You mean pre-GWB’s election? Goldwater conservative, integrity wrt politics pretty darn good, personal life not so much but that’s his business. Willing to buck Republicans when convinced it’s right. I would never have voted for him unless the opponent in question was absolutely terrible, but at least I would have respected him. Heck, I still respect him more than Bush!
The problem is, he deliberately set out to paint himself with the Bush brush. He’s been courting the far right since 2004. And now that he’s got the nomination, he’s trying to distance himself from Bush. Unfortunately, these are contradictory positions, so it’s really not working all that well.
Of course, Obama is in a somewhat analagous situation. He didn’t try to present himself as far to the left, but I think he allowed himself to be presented as further to the left than he actually is prior to winning the nomination. Now he’s setting things straight because it’s to his advantage to do so, and the left is upset.
But let’s face it. Neither the right nor the left really have anywhere else to go. McCain’s big problem is going to be getting the big Christian right turnout that Bush and Reagan got. I suspect Obama will still get a big turnout because of his oratorical skills and because there is a lot of anger toward Bush and the Republicans, and on most of the policies for which there is anger, McCain is in agreement with them.
McCain is willing to continue in Iraq and has saber-rattled towards Iran.
McCain has promised to nominate more Scalia/Roberts/Alitos to the SCotUS and believes its the federal government’s duty to assist private groups in banning abortion on the state level.
McCain opposes universal health care.
McCain has backed off of his own once admirable stance on immigration.
I could go on but those four are enough for me not to vote for the man.
Relatedly, even if McCain were clearly and strongly distancing himself from Bush in all ways, I feel that it’s important that the Republican party, which was complicit with the disaster that was the Bush administration, pay a price. They, as a group, should not be able to spend 8 years backing their Great Leader and smearing anyone who disagreed with them, and then immediately turn around and say “ok, well, that’s done. He kinda sucked. Our bad. Now, who’s going to vote for our new candidate for president?”.
In the future, I want people of either party to be very aware that when you run a nimrod for president and viciously and angrily back him at all costs and swiftboat his opponents, the American people will finally wake up and see what you have done… and then you will be out of power for a long time.
Granted, it’s pretty hard for me (a liberal) to be objective about this issue.
And when you watch the above-linked video, note how downright rude he was to the gentleman – the veteran – who asked him that question and called him on his lie. Is that how you want our President conducting business and international relations with other heads of state?
Then of course there’s his opinion on whether or not we support the claimed goals of our presence in Iraq, or whether it’s ever advisable to, as he calls it, to “cut and run,” when those same goals are being carried out by a Democratic President, or being advocated by his opponent in the Presidential race.
Listen to it right from the horse’s mouth, as spoken on the Senate floor, at this News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com
Of course, when he isn’t changing his positions, sometimes he doesn’t even know what his position even is.
Actually, for me, it’s not about McCain or Bush as individuals. It’s about party; it’s about patronage in executive & judicial appointments, it’s about the party’s track record.
IMO, Mac is better than much of his party on, say, immigration. (I would say the same about Bush, perhaps without the, “say,” interpolated.) He offers hope of a GOP that gets away from the bad antics of DeLay & co. But do I want 12 consecutive years of GOP judicial appointments? Nah, I’ll vote for a Democrat in the name of balance.
So first we have him not knowing whether he even has a position on contraceptives, then, the other day, when he was joking about killing Iranians with cigarettes (har har har) :rolleyes:, he tells the reporter he’s going to have to look into the export exception including medical and agricultural products because it’s the first time he’s ever heard of that, in spite of the fact that he’s the one who says we should be sanctioning exports to them as a means of exerting our badass power over them.
Now he doesn’t remember how he voted, doesn’t know what his position is, and isn’t “informed” enough to answer a simple question about health insurance companies covering viagra and not birth control.
OT a bit, but what is this bs with the U.S. not talking directly with Iran at all, everything going through the Europeans? What kind of chest-thumping power-game is that - we’re too far above them to talk to them? I’m not suggesting that we don’t include the Europeans in our talks. I just suggest that we join the Europeans in “our” talks.
Social: He does not consider women’s issues, health issues (stem cells), or scientific issues to be a priority. When questioned directly, it’s clear he isn’t literate on the subjects. Big red flag for me.
Budget: As a republican he simply has no credibility. Fool me fourthce (Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2) shame on me.
Foreign policy: More cowboy sabre rattling, mixed with protectionism. Instead, I’d like to see the world start to smile at the work “American” again instead of roll their eyes.
Age: Bluntly, it appears that age is already slowing him down. I expect that he will be a figurehead administration with unpredictable underlings running the show.
The rolleyes was at your “freaking scary.” I’m already planning to vote for your guy, but that doesn’t mean I won’t call you on overstatements & misrepresentation.
I would prefer a good grounding in geography as well as economics for the President. But we already know that the American people don’t vote for economists & political geographers, preferring war heroes & other jocks. So if it’s freaking scary, then let’s apply that to the system of how we choose candidates.
Your candidate doesn’t admit that he’s not an economist. Mac does. Big giant point to Mac.
