A Guide To The Ways McCain Is The McSame As Bush
Today's Times comes through with a very user-friendly chart detailing all the ways that McCain is the McSame as Bush.
Job one for McCain is achieving separation from the man he would succeed in the White House. He's doing this in two ways. First, he's constantly emphasizing his POW past as a way of claiming that unlike Bush, he'll continue the same war policies but with an understanding of its costs -- something that's supposed to seduce us into seeing him as more trustworthy on such matters. And two, McCain is stressing his differences with Bush on environmental issues, as McCain did in a new ad released today.
As I've noted here before, the Obama campaign has developed a shrewd way to deal with this. Well aware that the national media has been telling voters that McCain is a "maverick" for at least 15 years now, the Obama camp is not pretending that voters don't see McCain as independent in some ways.
Rather, Obama is conceding a bit of ground on this question. As he put it recently, McCain can "legitimately tout moments of independence from his party." The goal is to lead voters through these already-formed perceptions of McCain to a real understanding of the ways in which a McCain presidency would represent a continuation of Bush on the key issues important to them.
So there it is: McCain will emphasize biography to achieve separation. Obama will emphasize the issues to prove McCain is indeed McSame. This is the terrain on which much of the general election will be fought, and the Times chart is a useful guide to it. Take a look.
Ooo, Greggy - I'm developing such a crush on you lately.
I'm loving me this post. Thanks!
June 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
now that's the kind of comment I can live with.
:)
June 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
I have a question that I'm hoping you'll ask the Obama campaign about. Why is it that they're not running ads right now while John McCain is?
June 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's a good question. let me see if I can get an answer. I'm guessing they won't wanna discuss internal strategy, though.
June 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I can see why they wouldn't discuss internal strategy, but it's something I've been wondering for a while.
June 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering if they're taking "advertising overload" into consideration. I think you get to a point where more advertising doesn't necessarily lead to more support - and quite possibly, the opposite could occur. I'd probably be a little pissed off if one candidate just barraged me with ads for five months. I suppose Obama figures, "Well, I'm in the news every day anyway, why bother with ads right now?" Plus he's been parrying every attack by McCain pretty effectively.
June 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg sure seems to get beat up a lot every time he mentions Hillary.
I, for one, am glad he shares with us the info he gets from his contacts among the Hillaristas. I don't remember having much of a problem with the substance of any of his reports. Other reporters can cover other areas where they have inside info.
I bet Greg is happy to do a sans-Hillary post and avoid the pummeling. But I've got a feeling that somebody is gonna find something to rag on him about!
June 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey what about ME? I've been flirting with Kleefeld for months? Got somethin against gay people?
June 17, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh John, I've decided the man-on-man flirting around here doesn't work. It almost makes one feel as if one is the only gay in the village... /snark ;-)
June 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just have to applaud you for your allusion to Little Britain. God, I love that show. =D
June 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D And I have to compliment you on your choice of avatar! Lucifer in full emo throttle... just a whole heaping pile of awesome, that is. ;)
June 17, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why thank you! It is a heaping pile of awesome, I must admit, haha!
June 18, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've not watched a Republican Convention since they boo'ed Nelson Rockefeller from the podium in 1964
I plan to watch George Bush's address this year.
Even if they put it at 3 am
June 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go, Greg! Love these type of posts which are very useful to us out there battling the GOP!
June 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS ALERT!!!!
The Obama camp is going to respond to McCain's "September-10th mindset" in a conference call at this afternoon.
Guess who's going to be in this conference call?
Richard Clarke!
June 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
w00t!! Can't wait to hear what he has to say about this! When all is said and done I think losing by 12 in Ohio would be an accomplishment for repubs...
June 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit?! ROFLMAO!!
The only downside to that is that personally, I think Clarke is a little wack on the subject. I think we could drop all the bullshit at the airport and we'd be fine and I don't think Clarke agrees.
He's the expert, but I do think he's way into it. I really believe what I read last year in Harper's - the chances of any American dying in a terrorist attack in this country are close to nil. All Americans are 19 times more likely to be struck by lightning and killed than they are to be killed in a terrorist attack in America.
That's what I would like hear from Obama and from Clarke - but I don't think I will. There is no Great War on Terror. There is almost No terrorist threat.
June 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they'll make the second assertion because then McCain would just go off on a Rudy-esque rant about 9/11 and Fox would have an electronic timer keeping track of the last time Obama went to Ground Zero. That just plays into the Repub's "oh my god he won't protect you from the boogey man but I will!" strategy.
As far as "There is no Great War on Terror," I think Obama will argue that the Bush administration has badly botched its efforts against terrorists by throwing all of our armed forces at a country that had no link to al-Qaeda.
June 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I agree. That's precisely I know I won't hear that from Clarke or Obama.
It's not that I expect it - it's a real razor's edge because there are people still in this country who see terrorists under their beds. It's just that I believe it completely.
The whole thing has been blown into a means of tearing up the constitution and it's also a front for stealing money from us, basically. It gave George his excuse for invading Iraq. It really isn't something that should concern people much at all. But I know it does.
June 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Atta boy, Greg. Spoken like a true democrat. Hope you keep this up and not go back to being a bad boy.
June 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this strategy has been handed to them by McCain himself, who especially on economic issues (as well as torture &c) has spent 8 years flip-flopping in Bush's direction (and away from the general electorate) in order to get the GOP nomination. thus McCain spent a decade both weakening his issue-appeal and undermining his whole maverick straight-talker man-of-integrity narrative.
June 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep it simple folks:
Here is all that needs to be said, and just keep repeating it over and over. Make placards and bumper stickers of it.
John McCain Has A George W. Bush Mindset.
June 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sayin' McSame wants to Dubya Down on Iraq?
June 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the NY Times comparison...
Looks like McCain's LEFTY is a lot longer than his RIGHTY... Is THAT why they call him "McSame"?
June 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain on Taxes
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/A/A/2/mccain-on-taxes.jpg
JOHN McCAIN HAS A GEORGE W. BUSH MINDSET.
June 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush has no mind.
June 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, only now McCain has flip-flopped back over to Bush on the few issues he was at one point different on.
June 17, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Times chart understates how much Bush and McCain resemble each other. For example, under "Where They Mostly Disagree," on energy and climate, McCain (like Bush) opposes Kyoto, supports offshore drilling, opposes a windfall profits tax, and supports nuclear power. He opposes ANWR drilling--that's the only difference one can find, under a heading that says "Mostly Disagree." Similarly on "Interrogation Techniques"-- the Times says they "mostly disagree" while citing McCain's vote against requiring the CIA to abide by the Army field manual.
Sounds like they mostly agree to me, even under the headings that the Times labels "mostly disagree," but maybe the Times needed to find something to put in the "Disagree" column to keep the story line going.
June 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
INQUIRY: Just do you all think Bush and McCain's missing hands are? AND where is puppet-master Cheney in this ultimate buddy pict?
June 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Avatar Yet
Time's rundown makes me want to bang my head against the wall! Nowhere do they deal with McCain's flip-flopping, sometimes from day to day.
Example: A few days ago, McCain vehemently denied he was for privatizing Social Security, even though the "private accounts" he was describing at that moment equal privatization.
Example: He doesn't understand that cap-and-trade targets are, by definition, mandatory. From Kate Sheppard at Grist via Ben Smith at Politico, June 16 - McCain's press conference:
QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]
MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/McCain_
muffs_description_capandtrade.html
How can Time claim to know McCain's stand on these and other topics? And how can they present his positions as consistent and reasoned, as if he decided such and such and has stuck with it, even for the last few months?
Aaaaauuuuugggggghhhhhhhh!!
June 18, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink