Obama: McCain better than Bush

There goes the message

By Soren Dayton Posted in | | | Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

You've heard the Democrat's message. John McCain is John McSame. Third Bush term. Blah, blah, blah. It is dishonest, but Barack Obama and the DNC don't have a problem with that.

But today, Barack broke the talking point. What did he say? According to AP's Liz Sidoti:

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

Ooops. The Politico's Ben Smith describes this as a "break with the core of the Democratic Party's strategy." But you know, it's tough when the "core Democratic Party strategy" is to convince the public of something that even Democratic candidates don't believe.

Back to the drawing board. And try to be honest this time...

If you know how.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Still More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' Statements and 'Outright Lying' From ObamaComments (2) »
Obama: McCain better than Bush 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

It sounds more like a poke at Bush's unpopularity than anything else, given the setup/punch line format of the remark - I would be interested in seeing a video of the delivery and the crowds reaction.

It's not an incredibly high bar.

But the Democrats don't care about freedom anyway, so Bush has no value for them. He kills too many terrorists; hurts their feelings.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Democrats don't care about freedom anyway - because Bush kills too many terrorists?

I don't follow your thought train here.

Are you saying "Freedom = killing terrorists?"

Because I would think "Freedom = not killing people at all." So, even in defending Freedom, isn't it fair to say that we shouldn't kill too many people, terrorists or otherwise?

And what does that have to do with the Democrats? They didn't come up with "Thou shalt not kill." I thought Jesus was the one that said we should turn the other cheek? So, wouldn't Jesus say killing one terrorist is killing one too many?

So, wait, did Jesus hate Freedom?!

No, no, no, no, no.

You lost me.

And what does that have to do with the Democrats? They didn't come up with "Thou shalt not kill." I thought Jesus was the one that said we should turn the other cheek? So, wouldn't Jesus say killing one terrorist is killing one too many?

It's always amusing when Leftists attempt to quote scripture at people who actually believe in it.

Because I would think "Freedom = not killing people at all."

No ... I would think killing a lot of Nazis did a lot for freedom in Europe.

So, even in defending Freedom, isn't it fair to say that we shouldn't kill too many people, terrorists or otherwise?

No. That depends on how you define "too many." See Nazis ... and terrorists.

Romney/Pace 2008

"Kill" was a misinterpretation.

So, the question becomes does killing terrorists constitute murder?

I'll let the theologists handle the turn the other cheek line, I do not believe Jesus meant stand there and get punched in the face without defending yourself.

Also, when a murder robs a human of their freedom, in our society they are robbed of their freedom, too. You're the one losing me.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

I believe the common interpretation is that nonviolent cheek-turning is the proper response to a grave insult (being slapped with a man's left hand), rather than a bodily threat.

I've been encouraged by that thought this whole cycle.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Guiliani, Romney, anyone of them would be better than the incumbent.

Most gaffes are truths a person would rather not be publicized. No way Hillary or Obama would be better than McCain. And its doubtful McCain would be better than Bush given McCain's current positions on gitmo and torture, and his past positions on taxes.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Actually, I agree with Obama that McCain will probably be a better President than Bush. And I say this as someone who supported Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire Primary over McCain. (And started a fight with my wife because she voted for McCain.)

Let's see. As far as Gitmo and "torture" are concerned, while I disagree with McCain, he (and even the liberals, too, for that matter) can legitimately argue that the United States has historically considered things like waterboarding as torture and unacceptable means of interrogation. I disagree strongly but I cannot honestly say that the counterargument is entirely without merit.

Besides, on the issue of torture, John McCain has more street cred than you, me, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton combined. And because of that street cred, I trust him to do what is necessary to keep this country safe.

And look at some of the other issues.

McCain/Feingold was obviously pushed by McCain but then Bush signed it after campaigning against it and even saying that it was unconstitutional even while he was signing it. It's a close call but I'll give the nod to McCain as coming out better on this one. Seriously, Bush swears his oath of office to defend the Constitution; if he really believes the a bill is unconstitutional then he shouldn't sign it regardless of the politcal ramifications.

As for the Gang of 14, I differ from most conservatives in that I think it was (originally) a very good move for conservatives. We seem to forget that it got a good number of conservative judges out to a floor vote when most were tied up in committee and there was no assurance that there were enough votes to break the filibuster rule in the first place. If you don't believe me, read some of the liberal blogs and mainstream media editorials at the time; they were furious because they thought the Democrats had sold the farm. The "big problem" is that Frist didn't have the guts to push anything for a vote afterwards.

But the "little problem" was that the Bush White House would not fight for any of its judicial nominees. I well remember at the time that the Bush response -- or rather, non-response -- to his judicial nominees not getting a floor vote was to say it was an internal issue with the Senate and then refust to twist any arms.

And quite frankly, John McCain was absolutly right when he said on This Week this morning that the current Federal deficit was caused by the greatest increase in government spending since FDR's New Deal: the increase in government spending under George W. Bush.

Oh yeah, and John McCain was right to be critical about Iraq where Bush has been wrong.

Quite frankly, the only areas where Bush has been "conservative" has been on taxes -- not the economy in general, but taxes in specific -- and judges. But considering how he has not been willing to twist arms and play hardball to get his lower court nominees confirmed and that he tried to get Harriett Miers (whom I affectionately called "stupid") confirmed to the High Court, I cannot even give him full credit for the latter.

Truth be known, George W. Bush has neither been a great President nor a great conservative.

And yes, I think John McCain will be better.

Really hurt Bush he tried to not fight in party (except for some bizarre examples) and it killed him. He should have killed bills in congress letting them get to him (if he was against it) boxed him in. President Bush's actions in 9-01 and after in regard to terrorists are enough for me to hold him in TR like reverence. Do I even come close to likening his fiscal or social actions? No.

If Mc is 1/3 the pres of W I will be stunned but he will still be 10 times better than bill and hill and 10 ^ 10 better than Barry.

Yeah nothing good about a president that has kept us safe since 9/11 despite treasonous actions by the press and the opposing party.

But to address you asinine and misguided comment, Bush has been good regarding terrorism but, germaine to this conversation, in what way do you think McCain would not be as good or better?

Yes, they differ on Gitmo and "torture" but as I mentioned in my original post, although I disagree with him, McCain has a good legal and historical argument that cannot be legitimately dismissed. Moreover, because of McCain's personal experience with torture and the personal sacrifice he made for this country, I trust him to do what is necessary to protect us.

Having said that, I also must say that the argument that Bush "has kept us safe since 9/11" is an argument that -- while true -- is an argument that Republicans can easily be overplayed. It can be sort of like me saying that by snapping my fingers twice a day I keep wildebeast from stampeding my front lawn. While factually accurate, the issue is how or what has Bush done that is so much better than what others, particularly John McCain, might have done.

Look, I voted for Bush but I am not going to sit here and defend the many things I believe he did wrong. Truthfully, he has not been a great President nor has he been a great conservative.

Keeping us safe since 9/11 is great. But how much credit can Bush actually claim for this?

Keeping us safe on 9/11 would have been better.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Ashcroft did something NO DEMOCRAT AND MANY REPUBS WOULD NOT HAVE DONE, PROBABLY INCL MCCAIN, AS IT REQUIRED NOT GIVING A DAMN ABOUT PC FEARS OF BEING BRANDED A RACIST, i.e.

Ashcroft rounded up over 900 Muslim country overstays and deported them.

That act alone made follow up attacks that were planned impossible.

Bush got congress's approval behind the scenes for things that he would have done anyway and which all presidents have done since Washington on gathering intel.

Third, Bush has broke up 5 major cells in the US in 2002-3 and more later, incl last year that would have killed thousands.

Osama admitted in a letter to Zarqawi that al Qaeda had diverted funds from operations in the US to apply them in Iraq.

need more?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

There is no evidence that McCain's reaction to the WTC would have been substantially different from Al Gore or Bill Clinton. My bet is that we would have bombed the bejeezus out of Afghanistan and gone on our way.

If you think the war we've been carrying out against terrorism on six continents and the using of SOF troops in this fight isn't significant, then I really don't care to change your mind. But to say that there is nothing unique about the US not being hit by a terrorist attack in nearly seven years is ludicrous.

BTW, you don't have the cred here to characterize anyone's comment as "asinine." You may not like what he had to say but the comment was no more "asinine" than your original comment or the response. If you can't address the issue, then don't. And don't screw with me on a Monday morning, I'm really not in the mood for it.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

First of all, what evidence to you have that McCain's reaction to the WTC bombing would not have been substantially different from Al Gore or Bill Clinton?

Please, do you have any supporting evidence to back up your claim that McCain's reaction would not have been substantially different?

Yes, it is good, indeed, great that we have not been attacked since then. That is not the question. The question is, how would McCain have been worse?

You make the baseless charge that he would not have been substantially different from Al Gore or Bill Clinton. Prove it!

Furthermore, it is logically impossible to disprove a negative. Or more precisely, correlation does not prove causality. Yes, George Bush has been President for the last seven years and we have not been attacked again in those seven years but that does not prove that it was because of George Bush that we have not been attacked for those seven years.

And I say this as I do give Bush credits here. I just don't think he did anything substantially different from what McCain would have done. Indeed, I do think McCain would have conducted the war in Iraq better. And as proof of my last comment, I point to McCain's very accurate and prescient criticisms of Rumfeld's war strategy.

Some isometric exercises, or something. Take five minutes and center your chi. Whatever it takes to get you off of the ledge.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

in the habit of "proving" things that didn't happen. However your assertion that McCain would have reacted the same way as Bush is similarly lacking in "proof".

I told you how I think McCain would have been worse. I think the Taliban would still be the de facto government of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would still have overt training camps there. And Gitmo would be empty, not because we shut it down but because the people there would be at large. There is nothing in McCain's history to suggest his reaction would have been different than that of the foreign policy establishment.

True, the past seven years does not prove anything. But if you look at the WTC bombing (1993), the shootings outside the CIA (1993), then the picture becomes less clear.

I'm letting you slide on your title. One warning only. Another gratuitous shot like that and you'll have to find another place to play.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

My basic argument holds. On everything but judges and taxes, Bush has been neither a successful nor a conservative President. Indeed, with an approval rating of less than 30%, there must be a fair amount of conservatives who are dissatisfied with his Presidency.

Signing no child left behind. Signing McCain/Feingold after campaigning against CFR and even calling it "unconstitutional" even while signing it. Presiding over the largest increase in domestic spending (even excluding the Department of Homeland Security; which, if you remember correctly, was initially Senator Joe Lieberman's idea any way) and the size of the Federal government since FDR's "New Deal." Even on illegal immigration and amnesty, Bush is just as bad (or good, depending on your point of view) as McCain. I'm sorry but where is either the conservatism or the success in any of that?

And you are right, my assertion that McCain would have reacted the same way as Bush is similarly lacking in "proof". That is precisely my point, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. And because there is no way to prove it one way or the other, I think the argument in Bush's favor is at best tenuous.

So yes, considering things like at least John McCain had the guts to stand up to travesties like Bush's Medicare Prescriptions Drug plan, I do agree with Obama on this one. I sincerely think John McCain will be a better President than George Bush (or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama).

McCain did not....and the President was proven right when suddenly adult stem cells were found to do a better job at some of the diseases when none had been proven to do anything from fetuses except create cancer....and If you don't believe this President has went out on a legal ledge to protect the citizens of the US and is thus the Commander in Chief that has kept us safe for 7 years than you really ought to go and converse over at Kos....they love your brand of BDS....a Republican who does not respect the President.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Psychologically, Hillary is furious that a rank amateur like Obama is upstaging professionals like her and her husband.

Every week now, in little ways, Obama is telegraphing that he's just not ready for prime time. He just broke a cardinal rule of campaigning: STAY ON MESSAGE! Hillary just upbraided him for making that remark about McCain, reminding him that the whole point is to beat McCain.

Obama is not used to that. He just keeps wandering off saying whatever comes into his head. As a speaker, he's terrific at putting across a rehearsed, prepared speech. But when it comes to speaking off-the-cuff, he keeps blurting out things that end up embarrassing him.

In fairness to Obama, I actually think he has potential (for a liberal). But he needs a lot more seasoning before he can play in the World Series, if you know what I mean.

Just a typical, small town, white girl...

"If Mc is 1/3 the pres of W I will be stunned but he will still be 10 times better than bill and hill and 10 ^ 10 better than Barry."

That sentence just doesn't make any sense. It has no connection to reality whatsoever. Bush is the absolute worst thing to happen to America within my lifetime, and I was alive for Coke II, ok? And how could anyone like McCain, who wants to be George Bush when he grows up, be 10 times better than anything? Multiply 0 by any number and what do you get...?

And how is Obama having an opinion of his own worth bashing here? He didn't toe the party line - so? Is it just me or do conservatives think that everyone has to toe the line and be the same? If you're not just like us you're evil or stupid?

In what way does McCain "want to be George Bush when he grows up"?

Seriously!

It seems that you're the one who seems to think everyone has to "toe the line and be the same" if you think George W. Bush and John McCain are alike. Just this week on This Week McCain quite correctly called out the Bush Administration for the biggest increase in government spending since FDR.

And by the way, please learn to use the "Reply To This" button.

The Huffington Post?

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

I think Senator Obama is being a bit more gracious than Senator Clinton. I'm amazed at anyone who'll go on the attack over a somewhat positive remark. Viewed through the lens of the Left, his remark is more honest than helpful.

Heaven forfend!

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service