PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues So Would Any Republican That Got the Nomination Be Labeled As A Bush 3rd Term?


BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 12:03 PM
It seems to me that would have been the strategy no matter what Republican won the nomination.

HolmeZz
09-19-2008, 12:06 PM
Ron Paul.

There aren't many if any differences McCain has gone about laying out where he differs from what Bush has done, at least on the economy and foreign policy. McCain tried to lay out two policies this week and had to flip on both of them not even a day later; his initial opposition to the AIG bailout, then saying it had to be done; his proposal of a commision for the economy, only to suggest a whole new government agency(pretty sure that's what he said) the next day.

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 12:09 PM
Ron Paul.


Good one. He would be the one they would have the most trouble hanging that label one. I still think they would have tried however.

HolmeZz
09-19-2008, 12:16 PM
Good one. He would be the one they would have the most trouble hanging that label one.

And the Republicans could've nominated him if they had abandoned the economic and foreign policies of Bush. But instead of abandoning them, the candidates during the primary basically ran towards them in order to placate the base that had voted for those policies twice. That's why McCain is the candidate he is right now and one that has had a difficult time distancing himself from the President.

Direckshun
09-19-2008, 12:20 PM
And the Republicans could've nominated him if they had abandoned the economic and foreign policies of Bush. But instead of abandoning them, the candidates during the primary basically ran towards them in order to placate the base that had voted for those policies twice. That's why McCain is the candidate he is right now and one that has had a difficult time distancing himself from the President.

+1

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 12:24 PM
And the Republicans could've nominated him if they had abandoned the economic and foreign policies of Bush. But instead of abandoning them, the candidates during the primary basically ran towards them in order to placate the base that had voted for those policies twice. That's why McCain is the candidate he is right now and one that has had a difficult time distancing himself from the President.

What they ran towards was Conservatism. I'm not sure Bush's policy's have been Conservative, especially in a fiscal sense.

I also read about the whole McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, although he has voted with him as low as 76% of the time I believe. What exactly does that mean? Can we get a list of the things that McCain voted for and against the president with? I would just like some more details then the general McCain votes with Bush, Bush is the debil, so McCain is the debil.

alanm
09-19-2008, 12:28 PM
That seems to be the dems strategy. That and point and blame and offer no alternatives. Same old same ole.

penchief
09-19-2008, 12:29 PM
It seems to me that would have been the strategy no matter what Republican won the nomination.

Probably just those who have the same policies for the economy and for the Middle East.

Direckshun
09-19-2008, 12:31 PM
I also read about the whole McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, although he has voted with him as low as 76% of the time I believe. What exactly does that mean? Can we get a list of the things that McCain voted for and against the president with? I would just like some more details then the general McCain votes with Bush, Bush is the debil, so McCain is the debil.

Weren't you one of the guys shouting "Kerry and Edwards were the 1st and 4th most liberal Senators" guys back in 2004?

patteeu
09-19-2008, 12:38 PM
Just about any pro-life hawk, yes. Ron Paul, no. Tancredo, maybe, but he'd be talking about immigration all the time so it would be hard to make people think of him as Bush 44.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 12:39 PM
Weren't you one of the guys shouting "Kerry and Edwards were the 1st and 4th most liberal Senators" guys back in 2004?

Neither of you were even here in 2004, were you?

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 12:40 PM
Yes.

tiptap
09-19-2008, 12:42 PM
The question is does that claim stick. If it does there must be some truth in the perception for the public.

Frankie
09-19-2008, 12:48 PM
So Would Any Republican That Got the Nomination Be Labeled As A Bush 3rd Term?

Any one that voted with Bush 90 some percent of the time would. And deservedly so.

penchief
09-19-2008, 12:51 PM
If it had been Thompson, Rudy, or Romney, yes because it would have been true. If it had been Paul or Huckabee, probably not. McCain got labeled more of Bush because that's what it eventually came down to regarding policy. Amazingly, he went even further in that direction after winning the nomination. So I think it's reasonable to suggest that McCain has earned the albatross of being linked to Bush.

Mr. Kotter
09-19-2008, 12:58 PM
Any one that voted with Bush 90 some percent of the time would. And deservedly so.

For the last two years, during a do-nothing term of Congress....in an election year, sure.

Is that indicative of his career? And his likely path in the future? Probably not.

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 12:59 PM
Any one that voted with Bush 90 some percent of the time would. And deservedly so.

That goes back to my original question. What has he agreed with Bush on? Maybe I agree with that also? It could have been to provide relief to Katrina victims or something. I was just looking into what that statement actually means.

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 01:00 PM
Neither of you were even here in 2004, were you?

I was not.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 01:00 PM
That seems to be the dems strategy. That and point and blame and offer no alternatives. Same old same ole.

That is retarded.

You are retarded.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

HolmeZz
09-19-2008, 01:15 PM
What they ran towards was Conservatism. I'm not sure Bush's policy's have been Conservative, especially in a fiscal sense.

You people voted for Bush and his policies twice. To pretend otherwise is retarded, dishonest, and sums up the lack of accountability you want to take for those votes. The same base of the party that trumpeted up Bush as a fiscal conservative and painted his Democratic opponents as elite tax and spenders is using the same stale language this election, acting as if the last two never happened.

Responsibility is an important part of this democracy and if you can't take responsibility for voting twice for a President who *****ed up royally, you are in no position to level criticism this time around.

BigCatDaddy
09-19-2008, 01:16 PM
You people voted for Bush and his policies twice. To pretend otherwise is retarded, dishonest, and sums up the lack of accountability you want to take for those votes. The same base of the party that trumpeted up Bush as a fiscal conservative and painted his Democratic opponents as elite tax and spenders is using the same stale language this election, acting as if the last two never happened.

Responsibility is an important part of this democracy and if you can't take responsibility for voting twice for a President who *****ed up royally, you are in no position to level criticism.

I considered the alternative.

HolmeZz
09-19-2008, 01:21 PM
I considered the alternative.

That can be your excuse from now until the end of time if you want to continue picking lousy Presidents. At some point you have to hold yourself and your party accountable. Otherwise this is what happens. Are you familiar with the concept of learning from your mistakes, particularly if you don't want history to keep repeating itself?