"I'm Not President Bush": Uh, Senator, Sorry, But Your Voting Record Says You Are
After the third presidential debate was finished, the pundits immediately swarmed to the moment that John McCain told Barack Obama, "I'm not President Bush." Many said it was the best line of the night. But, sadly for McCain, he was pleading to change his history, not stating a fact. And as he lost yet another debate (I'll discuss the post-debate polls later) mainly because of his anger and tone, I couldn't help thinking that what made McCain so bitter was his knowledge that he was, in fact, President Bush, at least in his policies and voting record. And that the American people know it.
Stating fiction as fact has been standard operating procedure for McCain during this campaign. So McCain's lies about the dirty campaign he has run (to say he has defended Obama is both laughable and offensive), or his mischaracterization of the ACORN and Ayers issues, were just par for the course.
But when McCain said, "I'm not President Bush," I couldn't help but think that he was wrestling with the inescapable fact that his Faustian bargain -- moving to the right and backing Bush for most of the last eight years so he could win the GOP nomination for the presidency -- was now exacting its toll, making him unpalatable to too many voters in the general election.
McCain can't change history now. It's too late. The numbers are there, mocking his claim of separation from Bush. In 2007, McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time, and since Bush took office, McCain voted with him 89 percent of the time (according to a Congressional Quarterly voting study). McCain has been even more loyal to his fellow Republicans in the Senate, voting with them 98 percent of the time in 2007 (43 of 44 times).
When McCain said "I'm not President Bush," it was like he was realizing that he had miscalculated, that siding with Bush for eight years might have gotten him in the race, but it also left him unable to win it. Now, in the last three weeks of the campaign, he wants to make the argument that he is the person to change the policies of the failed Bush administration. But with McCain's history, these assertions of change ring false. And deep down, he must know it. That's why he seemed so anxious and like he was begging the American people to believe that he was a reformer.
In the first two debates, the pundits directly afterwords gave mixed judgments on who had won, but when the people weighed in, they gave the decision to Obama. Why? Mostly because of McCain's demeanor and tone. He was angry and mean in the first debate, and then he wandered the stage like an agitated grandfather looking for the TV remote in the second one. And McCain's anger cost him again last night.
Obama certainly wasn't going to do anything to actively win this debate. He acted like the quarterback of a football team up three touchdowns in the fourth quarter. There were going to be no passes into the end zone. Hell, there were going to be few passes, period. Obama did the equivalent of handing off to his running back again and again. That is, he had no interest in affirmatively scoring points. Rather, he wanted to avoid any costly, game-changing mistakes, sticking to the safest plays. He parried McCain's charges, but he hardly ever punched back.
Considering that Obama's strategy of appearing cool, calm and presidential worked brilliantly in the first two debates, it seems silly to criticize him for being so laid back in the third one. I have to admit, though, I would like to have seen him fight back at least a little. It would have been nice if he had responded to McCain's Ayers charges by pointing out McCain's far more direct associations, including: i) his service on the board of the ultra-conservative U.S. Council for World Freedom, which was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League for its ties to anti-Semitic and racists organization and included a well-known anti-Semite as a fellow board member; ii) saying he was proud of convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy and his values; and his hiring of someone who lobbied for Saddam Hussein to run his transition team. I was hoping Obama would explain how absurd the whole ACORN accusations are in light of the myriad problems with Republican-perpetuated voter fraud.
And, most of all, I would have loved for Obama to cite McCain's voting record with Bush to combat McCain's active fleeing from his record supporting the president (rather than just blandly stating that McCain's policies on key issues were the same as Bush's).
But, as I wrote after the vice-presidential debate, I want people better than me to serve as president, and clearly the Obama campaign knew better. By staying positive, keeping the focus on the economy, and remaining, again, calm, cool and presidential, Obama was able to win over voters. A CBS poll released minutes after the debate showed that the debate was a rout win for Obama, with 53 percent of the uncommitted voters giving him the victory, and only 22 percent thinking McCain was the winner (24 percent had it as a draw). CNN's focus group panel had it as a 15-10 victory for Obama, the network's snap poll of independents was 58 percent to 31 percent in favor of the Democrat, and even Fox's panel gave the advantage to Obama.
So if it was McCain's anger that tipped yet another debate to Obama, it begs the question, Why is McCain so angry? Maybe he's uncomfortable with the race-baiting and smears he agreed to undertake in this campaign, and maybe it's because he wishes he was winning in the polls. Maybe he was jealous of Obama's flawlessly-run campaign (compared to his own chaotic organization), or the adulation Obama has enjoyed, with people flooding his events and sending money to him in unprecedented amounts.
But, in the end, I think nothing made McCain madder than the realization that his support of Bush for eight years will ultimately cost him his chance to win the general election. McCain might have been angry at Obama, but, really, at least to some extent, he has to be angry at himself.
"I'm not President Bush." Arguably, there was some truth to that statement in 2000. But after eight years of supporting a disastrous administration, and after adopting a Rovian campaign approach (like the one that smeared him in 2000), in 2008, Senator McCain is, for all intents and purposes, President Bush. And McCain knows it. No wonder he's so angry.
Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Hofstra Presidential Debate from HuffPost bloggers
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What bill has Senator Obama sponsored that became law and was opposed by the President? Not One.
John McCain Sponsored the "Detainee Treatment Act". It became law over the vigorous objections of the Bush administration.
McCain has done a better job limiting the Bush abuses than Obama.
Unfortunately, minorities STILL have to behave differently in order to nullify the ammunition that racists look for almost as a matter of course.
If Obama reacted angrily ....he would be tagged the "angry, uppity black man"
Characteristics common with all humans are dissected differently dependent on race.
If a white man is lazy it is attributed to him personally. "oh my that John is lazy"
If a black man is lazy it is attributed to the color of his skin. "there goes another lazy (n.word)"
Arthur Ashe was a most talented, well educated professional tennis player who eventually died of HIV that he contracted from a tainted blood transfusion following open heart surgery.
Even while dying, he stated that the most difficult challenge of his life including impending death, was the constant racism he encountered despite all his achievements and dignity. He was humble, kind, played by the rules, and was still regarded with hatred and animosity a good portion of his life.
I was naive until I read his autobiography. I assumed because of his success and integrity he would be treated differently ..........I was very wrong.
I greatly admire Arthur Ashe. He was a fine gentleman and human being. He died 15 years ago at way to young an age. His autobiography was written from a diary he kept from 1973 to 1974 and covers the difficulties faced by a black athlete in the 1960's and early 1970's. He faced obstacles then that allowed athletes today the chance to excel. That diary was written 8 years after the civil rights act and the repercussions were still being worked out.
Now 35 years later we live in a different America. Arthur Ashe wrote in a time when many were struggling just to be allowed to vote. Today we have Obama nominated for President by the Democrat party. We have Condi Rice as Secretary of State. We have Tiger, Oprah, and Jordan. No one calls them lazy or uppity. They have earned great things by hard work. That would not have happened in the 1950's and 1960's that Ashe wrote about.
Let us continue to work to achieve the greatness of Arthur Ashe in all chosen fields, however, let us not use racism as an excuse for our lack of success.
bannorhill
Of course, the constant struggle of overt racism that occurred early in Ashe's life has subsided, but I disagree with the premise that its all just fine now because we have "Condie and Oprah". Condie- appointed, and Jordan, Oprah, Tiger- money making machines. We live in St Louis Mo. and Bryant Gumbel was not allowed on one of our elitist country club grounds about 7 years prior from this date.
Arthur died in the early 90's and he said that racism had left him a "marked man" and was the struggle of his life. Now, if all was just dandy at the later stages of his life (his last 20 years) don't you think that "the marked man" statement would have been over the top. Like most horrendous experiences, if the abuse vanishes those experiences seem to fade in memory. I don't believe they did...... at least not in the covert manner that seems fashionable today.
Barack Obama has been called elitist(another word for uppity), muslim, the anti-christ and a terrorist. Rush L. stated the Powell endorsement was only because of race, and Pat Buchannan referred to the endorsement as "tribal"
I would like to see the reaction of the good ole' boys and gals if Barack had paraded an unwed 17 year old daughter across the convention stage and how tolerant the old US would be if Michelle had been addicted to pain Rx's. He wouldn't have had a chance.
Hey Mitchell,
Great facts but you have seemed to have left out the fact that over 90% of the Dems voted for Bushs plans as well. It is also a fact that Obama is by far the most liberal democrate in senate that has never passed one piece of legislation for the state of Illinois.
And its really great that your supporting links takes you directly to a democratic union page. Like that can't be refuted for its accuracy.
I guess I didn't see the anger in McCain's eyes as you stated. I didn't hear McCain raise his voice. He was soft spoken and delivered a clear message all the while Obama was smiling real big as if to hide his anger and several times I saw him drop his head and start looking down. Even if both candidants where angry so what. They should be angry expecially since this economy has turned the way it has. Look at how these CEO's have bilked Americans with their golden parachutes. I am angry as should my representative of this country. So pointing out the anger (if there was any) is not a compelling enough reason to sway my vote towards who won the debate.
McCain won the debate by a slight edge. Both parties made good points to their perspective plans and Obama looked as if he wanted to say more than he said. Seems to me he was more worried about winning the election than the people of this country.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
The Democrats in the Senate did NOT vote with Bush 90 percent of the time. If you can make a claim like that, it really shows how biased you are. You also cannot disparage all of my links based on one.
And you are perfectly within your rights to think McCain won the debate. It's just that every major news agency's polls show that independent voters disagree with you.
Here is a link to support the voting records of the Dems. and Reps. from the Washington Post. It is very hard to determine weather or not these bills are in support of President Bush or not. So you are correct that I shouldn't have stated "Democrates in senate voted 90% of the time with George Bush." You can see the individual results or voting records of each senator but can't determine without exhaustive research what percenage each party as a whole voted. By the way Obama & McCain say they want to change Washington when in fact both of these candidants voted along with their respective parties lines over a large percentage of the time in 2007.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
And I do thank you for allowing me my personel opinion regarding who won the debate without some of the disparaging rhetoric we are hearing from both sides.
Well, Mr. McCain, your policies are pretty much the same as Bush's. I really don't see how they differ except you may be worse.
Everyone seems to think this was a zinger, for me, he might as well have put on a Bush Halloween mask.
Bush's solution to the economic crisis driven by the greed of the ultra-rich, made so by Bush?
Make them even richer! Now, that's rich.
Senator Obama, your mother taught you right.
I had some of the same exact concerns this morning...why didn't Obama hit back with Council for World Freedom, Palin's connections with AIP, voter suppression, and outright election thefts, or a host of other shady associations.
Still, as you point out, Obama's approach seems to be resonating with the voting public. McCain was going for the sympathy vote and was shameless in stating how hurtful Lewis' comments were. Simply incredible after all of the outrageous and slanderous comments that were made about Obama.
Obama is unflappable, and coupled with knowing how to surround himself with the best of the best advisers, it is a definite positive attribute when dealing with the gargantuan problems that are facing this country today.
This is a bit off topic, but I don't see where it has been addressed:
McCain accused Obama of lying by agreeing to use public campaign funds and then going back on that pledge. Obama did not respond to this.
However the bigger question is, Whatever happened to the issue earlier this year when McCain gave himself a loan, which is illegal once a candidate has opted to go the public route?
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Excellent point, ez14livin. Thanks for adding it to the conversation!
Mitch, I honestly think Obama should've calmly replied, "Maybe I'm delusional here but from where I'm standing I am running against George Bush, if you can show me where there's a difference then I'll concede that I should've run four years ago." That, to me, would've been PERFECT!
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Thanks for the comment, likeabite. I think the thing to remember is, although you and I agree on what we would like to have seen, in the real world, the Obama campaign has been pitch-perfect on strategy, winning all three debates in the eyes of the votes because of Obama's tone, disposition and choice to stay on the issues. Put another way, although I agree with you, I'm glad we're not running the campaign!
Mitchell Bard is again making unfounded statements
The statements you refer to come from facts, if you notice the letters in blue mean they are facts cited from reputable publications, which Mitchell Bard was so nice to include so you don't have to do the research yourself. Really you should thank him. go ahead click on them...
and to back up Mitchell Bard even further, yes please name some... I'm curious myself!
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Really? Name one. And then back it up.
McCain's got a lot of skeletons in his closet and I'm sure everyone would have loved to see Obama really attack him last night. But that's not who Obama is. That's not what he's about. That's not what his campaign is about. He doesn't care about any of it. He's above it. He cares only about us. That's why he's winning.
The debate was like an old episode of Adam West's Batman where Batman was forced to debate the Penguin. The Penguin would sling mud and make Batman out to be a mysterious dangerous character who associated with criminals, while Batman was cool and collected.
Watch the Episode Here
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/mccain-the-penguin-vs-obama-as-batman/
You make a critical point in your article.
While the liberal/Dem base would love to live vicariously by watching Obama knock out McCain, it won't win the election for him.
McCain wasn't as smart as Obama. He obliged the anger of the RW base and lost because of it.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Excellent point, caterpol. Thanks for commenting.
I also wished Obama had seized the opportunity to hammer McCain when he said he is not Bush.
he should have said, "but Sen McCain you said you voted with Bush 90% of the time, you were an avid proponent and supporter of the Iraq War, you staunchly supported the Bush polices on deregulation of the Banking system, you support privatizing Social Security, you support the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%of the corporate elite,,,should I go on or stop here?"
When McAngry challenged Obama with his remark, saying: " I'm not George Bush, if you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run for President 4 years ago," I wish Obama's response had been, "John, If you wanted to run away from George Bush, you should have started
8 years ago."
But, that aside, Obama was the master, John was the bumbling old man.....as usual.
Bye-Bye Sarah.
RSaillant1....McCain ran against Bush 8 years ago in 2000. He did start 8 years ago!
Sen Oboma does not need to expose Sne McCain's association with right wing organizations when there are numerous supporters doing it for him. Sen Obama is doing a great job of demonstrating how the political process should be executed - disagree respectfully on issues but don't denigrate the opponent. If all politicians would do this there would be many fewer hate mongers at all political rallies.
I believe this is the secret of his campaign, inspiring others to champion him. I'm 62, retired, never really been involved in poltics to speak of but Sen Obama has inspired me to provide financial support and to believe that the USA will return as the model for other countries to strive to.
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in