McCain's Basic Problem

Maybe you should have spent a little more time looking for quotes to indict McCain on this. I'm sure they're out there but what you have here is pretty much McCain saying he agrees with Bush on some issues and doesn't on others.

It's tough for you to see, I guess, but some candidates don't define their own stances wholly according to someone else's.

[...] Basic Problem fooser wrote an interesting post today onHere's a quick excerptHowever, here's McCain's [...]

Rev,
I think you can find contradictory quotes by not only McCain, but most politicians. They all attempt to project a persona. McCain's is that of the independent minded Republican willing to buck the establishment. McCain's basic problem is that he is a fraud, and a not very smart one at that. If people were to examine his voting record, they would find a conventional Republican whose principals have long since given way to the demands of politics. His embrace of Bush even after the Bush campaign smeared his wife and daughter during the 2000 primary should sicken anyone who once had a favorable of the man.

[...] Savrola wrote an interesting post today onHere's a quick excerptHowever, here's McCain's real problem. His attempts to have it both ways are starting to mount up. A solid case can be made right now that McCain holds both sides of many policy issues. That juggling act won't be a credible one for very … [...]

People seem to be missing Rev's point: McCain is contradicting himself – like many politicians do. His problem is that he's contradicting himself with the MOST toxic politician in recent memory, which is George W. Bush.

It's not his fault, per se. But he's quoted on record as saying he usually sides with Bush, which is not a good thing in a change election. He needs to significantly distance himself from Bush if he wants a chance to win…which isn't out of the question.

His other major problem is his lack of oratory skills relative to Obama's. Regardless of what you think of the each candidate's politics, Obama is a much better orator, and it could destroy McCain. Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy, Bush I (and even W. was better at speaking to people than Gore…at the time). McCain is not a dumb guy by any stretch, but its going to difficult to overcome this obstacle.

In reality, conservatives like Bay Buchanan are right – this is Obama's election to lose, and McCain doesn't matter all that much. It's going to be very much a referendum on Obama and his politics, not McCain. Which is why I guess you see the other blog focusing on Obama incessantly.

What McCain says is accurate. He does agree with Bush on many issues, just like most members of the house and senate agree with Bush on many issues. He also disagrees on issues, some of them big. If Obama were honest, he'd say the same thing.

What David is talking about is the 'politics as usual' Obama rails against yet practices. His whole platform is based on the negative, in that he's campaigning on the fact that he's not George Bush. That's why he's got to label his opponent as George Bush. Outside of that, he doesn't have much honest to say.

What we have this year is one candidate betting that everyone will vote against George Bush (even though he isn't running) and a second candidate hoping everyone will vote against the other guy out of distaste for his hypocrisy.

It's a depressing ratcheting up of the 'lesser of two evils' dynamic.

larry: Around and around, where larry stops, nobody knows.

On the two most important issues of the upcoming election: the economy and Iraq….McCain is 100 percent Bush. To hear McCain on these two stay the course issues is to hear Bush.

Obama did not, and does not now, defend Bush's Iraq crime, as Johnny Mac does.

Obama wants to allow Bush's tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest. McCain doesn't.

But according to larry, Obama's platform is based on the "negative".

larry…..flip-flopping was big in 2004 when nuanced voting by Kerry resulted in a blitz of mischaracterizations and accusations.

Now the flip-flops are on the GOP feet…..and you are now defending them.

How was I defending the GOP flip flops, Reverend?

And how does Obama's stance on Iraq or Bush's tax cuts not fit the formula of negativity I theorized?

Look…you typed this…

"What McCain says is accurate."

Now you can dismantle words and twist them up until they don't mean what they are intended to mean….I can too.

If you can't acknowledge the obvious, glaring and pitiful flip-flopping of McCain, then you are only denying what's in front of your face.

When Kerry said "he voted for it before he voted against it", I thought he effed up….sounding silly and flip-floppy. McCain's flip-flops are becoming now a daily habit….and you say that what McCain said is accurate.

I suppose that "hope" is a negative theory….at least in some peoples' minds.

The Bush tax cuts and the Iraq quagmire were mistakes, the latter being an international crime. Now I guess being against an ongoing crime qualifies for "negativity", however, two thirds of Americans also want us out of Iraq. So that would be positive campaigning, not negative.

The same is true of the Bush tax cuts. Ending the party for the wealthiest is not "negativity", unless you are part of the wealthiest. To the two thirds who now reject Bush/Cheney…ending those tax cuts for the wealthiest is a positive.

See….Obama's campaign operates on the theory of positivity.

Ending the party of the wealthiest is most certainly thinking in the negative.

How about helping the poorest?

They have been partying too long and too hard…they need a break. Think of it as self-absorption rehab…..a positive thing.

Obama's going to, at the very least, try to help the poorest.