Forums | MacLife

What's going on is that there are a lot of people who do not agree with your assessment that McCane is a virtual duplicate of Bush.

Tallgeese wrote:

What's going on is that there are a lot of people who do not agree with your assessment that McCane is a virtual duplicate of Bush.

Or at least they choose not to listen with that part of their brain.

It's the same campaign team...its the same campaign.  It's more Karl Rove.

I think Geese is right and there are several things in McCain's past, the judges compromise for instance, for people to draw that conclusion.

Is that the Gang of 14?

And Alito?

Some observers have characterized the 14 as moderates. But that's not exactly accurate. On the Republican side, it would be fair to call Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins moderates. But Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is as close to a Republican liberal as you could find. And while Mike DeWine of Ohio is considered a moderate conservative, John McCain (AZ), John Warner (VA) and Lindsey Graham (SC) are reliable conservatives on most issues. Nearly all the Democrats in the group, however, are considered moderates: Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ken Salazar (CO). Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, though, is a liberal. And for the most part, Robert Byrd -- the senior member of the Senate -- is beyond ideological categorization.

One thing that most of the 14 senators may have in common is a maverick streak -- a willingness, at times, to put partisanship aside and work for a compromise. And that's what brought the "Gang of 14" together. Here is a snapshot look at the group:

REPUBLICANS (7):

It's only been a frickin' week since the GOP convention!

Democrats would be wringing their hands at this point no matter who was chosen.  The map still does not favor McCain, but democrats need to stop acting like all is lost because McCain is leading by a few points in national polling the week after the party's convention.  The press is picking up on it.

Tallgeese wrote:

What's going on is that there are a lot of people who do not agree with your assessment that McCane is a virtual duplicate of Bush.

Well, he is older, has a better gasp of the English language, and uses complete sentences in speeches. Other than that, I'm not seeing a whole lot of differences?

Tallgeese wrote:

I don't think McCane is a Bush clone. Yes, he has the same dirty campaign team. He agrees with most of Bush's policies. But all that means is that he fits to a great degree the "Generic Republican Politician" mold. Bush has his own little quirks and so does McCane. Obama and Hillary (and Bill) aren't clones even though they support 90% the same things.

Dude, obviously he's not literally a clone.  Is that what you thought people have been saying?  In fact I'm almost positive that he's more intelligent and reasonable.  But the president is just one part of a regime, and not always a very critical one.  It's still the same republican regime that enabled Bush.

Farmerkev wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I don't think McCane is a Bush clone. Yes, he has the same dirty campaign team. He agrees with most of Bush's policies. But all that means is that he fits to a great degree the "Generic Republican Politician" mold. Bush has his own little quirks and so does McCane. Obama and Hillary (and Bill) aren't clones even though they support 90% the same things.

Dude, obviously he's not literally a clone.  Is that what you thought people have been saying?  In fact I'm almost positive that he's more intelligent and reasonable.  But the president is just one part of a regime, and not always a very critical one.  It's still the same republican regime that enabled Bush.

Actually, it isn't.
Congress is controlled, and about to be even more controlled, by the D's.

I think he may have been referring to McSame's campaign advisors, not Congress -- at least that's what I read into it.

Personally I think there are two things at work. First, the Republicans have gone from divided and weak-assed to energized and full of gusto; second, and most importantly, the Palin nomination has caused a major stir. Whatever we may think of her, her nomination was incredibly daring. It attracted a ton of attention, especially among women voters; who now support McCan't in greater numbers than they support not-Hillary. And let's face it, whatever the state-by-state is saying, the major erosion of female support for the Dems is a very big deal. This whole thing caught the Democrats completely off-guard and unprepared.

Sad to say I think the dems are right to be smurfing bricks.

resedit wrote:

I think Biden was an OK second seat nomination, but he was a safe nomination - nothing daring, nothing exciting, nothing that is causing a stir and causing heads to turn, and I think the Democratic party is regretting that to some extent.

Yes, who ever heard of a "safe" pick for the VP spot.  The choice says more about the sad state that McCain's campaign was in beforehand than it does about anything else.  It was a terribly cynical pick.

And yes - I think Palin is drawing the right together. No one knows her well enough to hate her, but the effect she is having on the left is bringing music to their ears, so they love her.

Shouldn't matter too much.  McCain was polling fine with the right prior to his choice of Palin.  Perhaps now they'll be voting with enthusiasm instead of holding their nose, but the GOP is still looking at a large deficit in new voter registration.

resedit wrote:

The Palin nomination may mean the republicans will be the first to put a woman in the white house.
Sure - the Dems tried many moons ago. I think the Dems are afraid that they will fail to put Obama in - thus not being the first to put a non cracker in - and watch the repubs get the glory for being the first to put a non male in.

Furthermore, it's no secret that McCain is old. He probably has four years in him, but he may not have 8 - so we could conceivably end up with the republican party being the first to have a female at the top spot.

I really doubt Palin's going to last four years in the White House without seriously pissing someone off. That or, cynically, the Republicans actually intend to get rid of her shortly after the election. That's much easier to do with the veep.

resedit wrote:

The Palin nomination may mean the republicans will be the first to put a woman in the white house.
Sure - the Dems tried many moons ago. I think the Dems are afraid that they will fail to put Obama in - thus not being the first to put a non cracker in - and watch the repubs get the glory for being the first to put a non male in.

Furthermore, it's no secret that McCain is old. He probably has four years in him, but he may not have 8 - so we could conceivably end up with the republican party being the first to have a female at the top spot.

I think Biden was an OK second seat nomination, but he was a safe nomination - nothing daring, nothing exciting, nothing that is causing a stir and causing heads to turn, and I think the Democratic party is regretting that to some extent.

And yes - I think Palin is drawing the right together. No one knows her well enough to hate her, but the effect she is having on the left is bringing music to their ears, so they love her.

I think you raise a good point about the legacy issue. If it turns out the first woman to actually get into the office is a Republican, it will seriously shake the Dems. Certainly at this point she seems like much more of a contender than Geraldine "he had it easy 'cause he's black" Ferraro ever did.