He's got Rove telling him what to do.
He's explicitly decided to follow the pro-war, anti-choice, pro-death, pro-regressive policies of Bush. He picked a running mate that is strongly anti-choice for anyone outside her family, but says that her daughter's decision to have a baby is her choice, who bans books, takes money from people known to bribe politicians (in Alaska, as part of her run for LG), who was proud to have gotten the 'bridge to nowhere' money -- until it got uncoupled from the bridge, then decided she was against it. The very person who helped fund her earlier run for state-wide office ended up being right at the center of the scandal that took down the previous governor, which is why she's governor of Alaska. He dumped his hospitalized and injured wife of many years for a younger, prettier, millionaire hieress, demonstrating his character. He's been involved in dirty political money scandals. He's currently reciting the talking points of the religious right in exchange for their political support, in direct contradiction to what he was saying a mere 2 years ago, and hasn't (to my knowledge) explaind his change of heart. And if elected, he's the oldest individual _ever_ to be elected President -- older even than Reagan.
And he's running on a platform of change -- sure, they have had more control over the executive and legislative branches than the Democrats for the last 8 years (examine how many votes a Republican backed bill needs to poach from the Democrats, vs the other way around -- the Presidential veto power means that the Republicans have more power in the congress/house to pass laws than the Democrats do), they claim that voting for them again will bring a breath of fresh air to Washington.
In the last 2 years, what major policy issues did McCain oppose Bush on?
Quote:
What does this mean? I posted that his background and temperament and pretty much everything about him is different from Bush, which means a different decisionmaking process and a different approach. He's about as different from Bush as can be, as a person. We don't elect a slate, we elect a person.
As for the 95% thing, you'd need to show me which issues you're talking about and how you got that number, because "the Bush Admin" does not have a vote in the Senate. Obviously the man is a Republican, so yes, he'll vote on the "right" side of issues more often than not. And as you know, this game can be played both ways. You can show that Obama voted some high percentage of time with some loony demagogue's positions, too, if you pick the right data to feed into the comparison.
|
The Bush Administration has 2 votes in the Senate. First, Cheney gets to break ties (which rarely happen, due to the rules of the Senate). Second, the Bush Administration gets to decide if the bill is vetoed or not.
As it takes 60/100 to get a Bill out of the Senate with Bush's approval, and 66 or 67 (not certain)/100 to get it out without Bush's approval, that places Bush's
personal power in the Senate at 6 to 7 Senators.
Bush votes for a proposed bill whenever Bush signs it without sending it back. Bush votes against a proposed bill whenever he sends it back. It is generally known if Bush is in favor, or against, a given bill before it makes it through the Senate/House.
And if the decision making process is different, but the results on major issues are the same... then it really don't matter that much.
...
Pallin is explicitly a sop to the right-wing base of the Republican party. She is evidence that McCain is going to depend on, and give influence to the same power sources that Bush did. Or, possibly, lie about it until he's elected, and hope that he doesn't die while he's president.