While some are figuring out which ditty is going to be the big summer song, Republicans are gearing up to hear months of a Democratic refrain on endless repeat. The tune? John McCain is George W. Bush in older sheep's clothing.
To find out whether they're twinsies more like Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap or Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito in Twins, consider where they differ:
- Arms Control: McCain wants a new arms control accord with Russia, nuclear talks with China, and a complete disarmament of North Korea's nuclear program.
- Interrogation Tactics: He considers waterboarding illegal and impermissible.
- Federal Spending: McCain's a stronger opponent of wasteful spending.
- Energy and Oil: He's called for a "great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence," saying th next president must be willing to "break completely" with the previous energy policies.
- Climate Change: He supports cap and trade and wants a global accord that includes China and India.
The two agree on issues like education, immigration, Iraq, and health care. Check out the whole list to see how.
Not content just to compare McCain to Bush? To see how McCain and Obama's voting records stack up, read more.
Obama's camp has made much of McCain's voting allegiance with Bush. According to records, in 2007 McCain did vote in conjunction with the president's position 95 percent of the time – up from 77 percent in 2005 and 67 percent in 2001. He voted with his party 90 percent of the time.
By contrast, Obama's votes were in line with the president's position a not-too-slim 40 percent of the time in 2007. In 2006 he voted alongside the George W Bush in almost 50 percent of votes cast.
Obama also appears more partisan than McCain according to these numbers: Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006.
Do you think McCain is an extension of Bush? Or should the endless refrain be that he marches to his own drummer?
Ben Sherman
Nike
Hatbox
No surprises but I would say to the Obama campaign that it is a bit misleading to suggest that Sen. McCain agreed with the President 95% when Sen. Obama agreed with the President 40% of the time which would bring their point on McCain’s agreement with the President down to 55%. Ahh the power of suggestion what a trip.
1Hypno, who is that in your avatar? That is not you. He is delicious.
2That's my honey Michael isn't he a dish. Well enjoy while he lasts I can only use his photo for one day and he said no fighting. I guess he doesn't want to get chased down the street for my views, LOL!
3it looks like he could hold his own during a street fight
but who would ever want
to fight you anyway hypno? 
4Nice try, but no cigar. McCain looks more like Bush than I thought. If you click through to the times list, you've got them mostly agreeing on 14 issues, mostly disagreeing on 8 - and its 8 only when you count different facets of energy and oil separately.
All talk on the environment, not much really offered on energy,
Your description of the percentages is a little shaky - Obama is MORE partisan, because he voted with his party 97% of the time compared to McCain's 90%? The difference is pretty slim.
McCain's joining with the president moving from 77% to 95% in two years is worth a raised eyebrow - did he initially plan on running as Bush III?
Obama's votes were in line with the president's position a NOT-TOO-SLIM 40 percent of the time in 2007? That's less than half the time.
5as much as I didnt want McCain, i am voting for him anyway, i dont like obama more.
6I thought McCain and Bush look different, different people, different stances - I could be wrong. B/c Bush is no rifle man.
7Yeah girl I've had to settle him down a couple of times before he put a hurtin on somebody, LOL!
8Stephley, if you just count numbers of things they agree or disagree on, you're right. However, McCain's strategy in Iraq would have been completely different from Bush's, which he voiced from the start. A $1,500 tax credit for insurance is a lot smaller than a $5,000 tax credit, as well. McCain has also readily admitted that No Child Left Behind needs a lot of work. Some of the things they claim Bush and McCain agree on are not clear agreements.
Also, I highly doubt McCain started shifting his voting patterns to try to run for a third Bush term, seeing as Bush's popularity has been much lower during his later terms in office.
9Hypno, you are a lucky man!
10And Hurray we have another vote on the McCain side. Welcome Caterpillar! McCain was not my first choice either, but he is growing on me, and I can't stand Obama, so that eases the pain a bit
11Hillary? Where are you? *SOB*
12Hey HF last time I saw Hillary she was at a bar in Philly tossing back a shot. Haha! Just kidding.
13Really wish he did not support the cap and trade.
14HF, Hillary is on the cover of New York Magazine. She looks quite lovely.
15http://nymag.com/news/politics/47837/
16That's what I like to hear hypno! I would do a shot with her anyday.
Really lil? I'll have to check it out. Thanks.
17there's my Cine! I missed you terribly!
18"McCain wants a new arms control accord with Russia, nuclear talks with China, and a complete disarmament of North Korea's nuclear program."
And yet he also wants to kick Russia out of the G8, and wants to keep China out. Does he really think that he can insult them and pursuade them at the same time?
Ultimately, McCain is more like Bush than he is different from him....which isn't really surprising because they are both Republicans. The little details might be different for McCain, but the big picture is clearly similar.
19"McCain's strategy in Iraq would have been completely different from Bush's, which he voiced from the start."
McCain either matched or went beyond President Bush's rhetoric in making a case for war.
In October 2002, McCain railed against Saddam Hussein shortly before the Senate passed a resolution to use force in Iraq. "He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times," McCain argued on the Senate floor. "He's placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved military authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons, with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage."
Doesn't sound that different from Bush to me...
20im happy that i get to vote for someone i truly like, rather than just voting for someone i kind of like because i hate the other guy more.
21I DO NOT THINK HE CAN BE ANOTHER BUSH HE HAS MORE SENCE THAN THAT HE IS A SMART MAN I THINK THE WAR WAS ON HIS MIND BUT WHY I WOULD NOT FOR ANY BUSH FOR DOG CATCHER
22Lil, it's the unclear part that would concern me - but I wouldn't vote for him anyway so...
23It's been a long time between those votes, hasn't it YY?
24YY, I think it's awesome that you get to vote for someone you really and truly like. how rare is that?
25Jillness, you should re-read what I said. I said McCain's strategy would have been different from Bush's. McCain would have sent more troops over and pushed for a surge well before Bush. I did not say that McCain's view on going to war was different.
26Steph, I'm saying that the arguments the linked article is making are unclear. They are making stronger connections than actually exist.
27the irony that is SmartBoy.
28I'm glad for you, too, yy, but I don't think voting for someone who would not have been your first choice necessarily means you are voting for someone you don't like. It is also no less honorable than voting for someone you really like. In either case, you are voting for the viable candidate who you believe will best lead the country.
29No I do not like McCain because I hate Obama more. It just makes it easier for me vote for someone who was not my first choice. Just making a little joke, because a lot of us on this site McCain was not our first choice. Does not mean I don't like him, he is just not as Conservative as I am.
Tiff I am with you. Cap and Trade is one thing I very much so do not agree with McCain on.
30"Does not mean I don't like him, he is just not as Conservative as I am."
Is anyone as conservative as you are?
Tee hee!
31Lil, I think the reference to voting for someone you like is more of an issue we've had as liberals (I think this is what YY meant). Kerry wasn't my first or second choice and is a bit of an a$$ so I was voting for someone I didn't like.
32I liked Edwards coming in to this, so Obama is my second choice, but I still like him. People felt passionate about Hillary Clinton and Obama... That's a luxury liberals haven't had in some time.
I wish would could get McCain to trade in Cap and Trade for some Cap'n Crunch (with Crunch Berries, of course..)
33I see what you're saying, Stephley. I didn't mean to really direct the second part of that comment at yy. It's just that I have heard many, many times (and a lot of them were on this site) comments to the effect of, "I'm so sad for you that you just have to vote for someone you don't like." or "I'm glad Democrats have a candidate they can actually get behind, unlike Republicans." And I know that these comments are often said in an insulting manner. (Not always, but at times.)
34Anyway, if I leave in the next few minutes, I can get out of work early! I have a small window! Yay!
35Jill, there are very very few who are
36"I'm so sad for you that you just have to vote for someone you don't like." or "I'm glad Democrats have a candidate they can actually get behind, unlike Republicans."
I hear and read that ALL the time.
37Liberals anyway are used to holding their noses and punching the chad.
38steph, I will never understand how the Dems got Kerry as a candidate. I mean did they want to lose?
39So this is way off topic, but my whole office was just watching the LSU basesball game, and we were down by three in the last inning and we just WON!
THAT MEANS WERE STILL IN THE COLLEGE WORLD SERIES :an egyptian: Geaux Tigers! 
Oh my gosh, what a great game.
ok, back on topic...
40Ask the leadership - IMO they always go with the candidate that seems most middle of the road, pleasing no one. I'm frankly surprised that Obama is the nominee, I thought in the end they'd find a way to make it Clinton
To you guys our candidates seem liberal or worse; as someone who's liberal or worse, they seem like quaint Democrats from 1964.
41Off Topic
But doesnt that picture above look like those old Obsession commercials?
42I don't put a ton of stock in this because it ignores the "nuances"... Jill tells me all about nuances and dagnabit, I beleive her!
43I think if McCain would have been president in 2001 then we'd be in a very different situation now.
That alone tells me he's different enough from Bush to make significant changes for the better.
44I agree, it's more important what they agree on than what the percentages are.
Also, am I reading this right, we're seeing voting with your party as a bad thing? When did partisan become a bad word? I get so nettled by people who go on about not voting for someone based on their party or not supporting something just because it's proposed by a certain party. I'm not a democrat because my favorite color is blue; I'm a democrat because of the values of the party, so it makes sense that most of the time I'd support the party's propositions and its candidates.
Does that mean if all the democrats jumped off a bridge I'd do it, too? Of course not, but party is a significant and relevant factor.
45One nuance that I am a bit confused about...(I would sincerely like to hear another opinion on this).
I read that in 2005 McCain sponsored an amendment to limit interrogation techniques to what was listed in the Army Field Manual (excludes tourture). Cheney at this time opposed those rules applying to groups like the CIA and contractors, and vocalized it.
However, earlier this year McCain voted against another effort to make the CIA and other groups follow the Army Field Manual. Does anyone know what his reasoning was for the change of heart?
And are you really "against torture" if you allow these techniques to be used by CIA and contractors?
46" would say to the Obama campaign that it is a bit misleading to suggest that Sen. McCain agreed with the President 95%"
I believe the 95% came from the Congressional Quarterly which only tracks votes when the President has had an explicit, stated opinion on a bill, and it does not include votes that legislators miss (and McCain supposedly was the most absent Senator in 2008, but I cut him slack because of the campaign).
47Jillybean (Jill, I dunno just came to me right now
) - Here's what I found from the
Washington Post:
Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top national security adviser, said McCain was concerned about the Senate legislation's requirement that the CIA abide by Army rules. "It's not a vote for torture," Scheunemann said. "This wasn't a vote on waterboarding. This was a vote on applying the standards of the field manual to CIA personnel."
A McCain Senate aide said that his vote does not mean the senator endorses any of these tactics. Instead, the aide said, there are noncoercive interrogation techniques not used by the Army that could be useful to the CIA. The aide declined to provide an example, but said it made sense for the CIA to use tactics that are not widely known through the field manual, which is a public document.
Honestly thats the first thing that jumped out at me so thats what I assumed he voted against it for.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR200802...
48Thank you, that does add a bit more perspective.
I was surprised when I learned that
contracted employees (like Blackwater) were doing interogation at Abu Ghraib, and I wonder how they fit in to all of this.
Thanks for the link!
(And other people randomly call me Jillybean, I am used to it!)
49lil...I read that article. It was wonderful. Thank you for telling me about it. Here is the link if anyone is interested.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/47837/
It's her last official campaign interview
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.