Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

4carol — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:33:40 GMT

Sorry, I totally disagree!!

Almost everything about MCWAR is what is at stake!

He's OUT!

THE ONLY WAY TO GO, OBAMA '08!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Zombiehero — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:44:01 GMT

Obamabots are going to call stumper biased and blah blah blah. They'll just cherry pick anything that printed for anything that is negative about McCain or positive about Obama.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

steve02001 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:51:10 GMT

I have to disagree with you Romano. The fact it that this what McCain said in 2005 to Tim Russert:

"RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I–the fact is that I’m different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

And his views on the role of our THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT the judiciary?:

"[It] is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people."

On the most "transcendent issues" the war in Iraq, taxes, the economy, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who are totally differential to the Executive, he is right there with the Bush Administration. Yes he will more likely be dealing with a stronger Democratic Congress. And on some issues, like immigration he will bend (even Bush was in favor of that). But I have no doubt, that a McCain administration will continue most of Bush' s policies, especially internationally, where a President has more power, and probably will try to get us into a war with Iran.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

lauren123456 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:03:15 GMT

Just another example of the corporate media rushing to protect the pro-corporate candidate--McCain. McCain's Iraq policy is the same as Bush's. McCain's tax policy is the same as Bush's. McCain's health care plan (a tax cut for the young and healthy) is the same as Bush's. McCain's party affiliation is the same as Bush's. McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists, and Bush's gvmt was run by corporations. McCain's gitmo policy is the same as Bush's. McCain's Cuba policy is the same as Bush's. McCain's Israel/Palestine policy is the same as Bush's. McCain's pro-media-tax-cuts policy is the same as Bush's. McCain's inclination to appoint right-wing US Supreme Court Justices is the same as Bush's inclination. McCain's stance on "deficit creation" is the same as Bush's. McCain's stance on "enhanced interogation techniques" is the same as Bush's. McCain's stance on the geneva convention is the same as Bush's. McCain's stance on the recent Supreme Court decision on Habeus Corpus is the same as Bush's. McCain's stance on abortion will result in the same kinds of Supreme Court Justices as Bush's. McCain's stance on privatized Social Security is the same as Bush's. McCain's stance on Katrina-aide was conveniently subdued at the time BUsh was missing in action. Voting Republican will amount to playing RUssian Roulette with your family's health and financial security because the GOP has a long-term plan to do away with quality employer-based health-care plans and convert everyone to privatized health care plans which will cost you $10,000s in annual premiums after you get older or sicker. 500,000 US famiies go bankrupt each year due to health issues, and over half have normal health insurance plans whose lifetime maximum benefit limits are too low to save them. Guess what? $1,000,000 in lifetime plan benefit is too low to save 100,000s of families from bankruptcy.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Dollared — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:11:31 GMT

Andrew - this is misleading and wrong. Are you that naive? Try working with the facts - isn't that what journalists are supposed to do?

1. War - McCain is like Bush, only more so. No difference at all from Bush.

2. Money - McCain wants to give even more tax breaks to rich people, with no way to pay for it ohter than deficit spending. Have the grandkids pay for it - just like Bush.

3. Social security. - Privatize it! Just like Bush.

These are the three biggest issues of our time, and McCain is diametrically opposed to the Democrats, to the wishes of the majority of Americans, and to the best interests of the American people on all three.

And consistent with Bush on all three.

So he once worked with Democrats on a few issues, and he's willing to acknowledge global warming? That's nice. He is still committed to the Bush agenda.

Stick to the facts, Andrew. It will make your job easier.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Sillmyril — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:14:42 GMT

You just gave away any remaining sense of your not being in the tank for McCain. Off my blog reading list. You and Fineman both. Hope you got a good payoff from the right at Newsweek.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

louis66 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:19:43 GMT

This article is spot on!

McCain has always shown a willingness to work across the aisle on issues of great importance to the nation. Also, the fact that he will have a Democratic Congress to deal with will prevent the kind of "one party" abuses that have bedeviled Congress for the last 8 years..

On the other hand, if Obama is elected, he and his handlers will attempt to implement a radical left wing agenda that will turn off the vast majority of moderate Americans and cause them to return to the pattern of the last 28 years of voting Republican (with the exception of the Clinton presidency).

This is exactly why I and many other believe that Hillary would have been a much better choice as a Democratic nominee. The Democratic Party has been lost in the wilderness since JFK. After 8 years of Bush, this was the perfect moment to show America a moderate, centris platform and build a grand coalition that would have alienated the extreme right; instead, Democratic apparatchiks convince the Democratic electorate to nominate an extreme liberal with no experience.

Republicans vote with their brains, while Democrats continue to vote with their heart.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Core Democrat in Texas — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:21:37 GMT

Sorry Obama? Sorry Obama??? Newsweek apologizes (in the article title) if they publish something less than their typical glowing endorsement of Obama? And this is the media? The source of information for the public?

Feels like we've morphed into an alternate universe, or into the novel "1984".

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

louis66 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:22:36 GMT

Typical comments from the Obamaniacs!

If you don't agree 100% with their man.. then you're a racist or being paid by the corporations or by the right wing or you're just an idiot.

So.. let me get this right.... We're either with you or against you? hmm.. sounds familiar.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Core Democrat in Texas — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:26:26 GMT

Andrew, how far is your desk from Jonathan Alter's? If it's close, you'd better hire a food taster.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

lauren123456 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:26:27 GMT

And let's not forget "Bomb, Bomb Iran".

On the IMPORTANT issues of the day (Economy, Iraq, healthcare), McCain is the same as Bush, or will be after he takes office and is pressured by the lobbyists.

I wonder why the author didn't write an article about the inaccurate statements made by McCain about Obama. For example, McCain keeps telling everyone that Obama will raiise their taxes. yet Obama has clearly said he will ont raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 year.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Trafik — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:26:32 GMT

It is amusing to read the indignant sputterings of the die-hard Obama supporters as they react to this thoughtful piece. McCain is certainly no Bush.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

popmanifesto — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:28:09 GMT

The "nya, nya, sorry, Barack" tone of the headline nearly removes all credibility. The actual article removes the rest. There's no fact here. It's merely speculation about how McCain would govern as president and it's not based on what he SAYS he'll do as president. There's a lot of "he's likely to do (x)" or "he's unlikely to do (y)" and all of it seems made up off the top of Andrew Romano's head. There's a huge amount or spin in this article that doesn't pass the smell test and there's a desperation to it - a desperation to distance McCain from Bush by any means necessary. It's ridiculous to assume the McCain who went from the 46th to the 2nd most conservative member of the Senate, who voted with Bush 99% of the time in this Congress, who vows to stay the course in Iraq and nominate more Scalias and Thomases to the Supreme Court, and who promises to push for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and destructive economic policies will govern as a moderate. On the other hand, Romano must realize by now that you have to be consistently wrongheaded and ill-informed to keep your job as a corporate media pundit these days. It's job security.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

lauren123456 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:31:40 GMT

Is it idiotic to vote for a party that has increased terrorism, that has attacked the wrong country, that has caused over 4000 US soldiers to die, that acted ineptly after Katrina, that has added almost 4 trillion of new debt, that has outed a CIA agent for political purposes, that lied to us about who attacked us on 911, that railroaded a popular Democratic governor in Alabama and sent him to prison on baseless charges even as they pardon the main witness (libby) in the Plame case because they were afraid he might spill the beans on Cheny, and which has solen 100s billions dollars from Western states during the fake energy crisis right after Bush took office and appointed oil men to run our nation's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? Hmmm,tough question.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

lauren123456 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:36:31 GMT

Once in every lifetime, there comes a time to change parties. This is the time Republicans need to punish their party for perhaps the most incompetent and ideologically driven 8 years in US history..

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

mcleodmn — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:45:17 GMT

As an Obama supporter, I actually partially agree with the seldom on point Romano. I don't think McCain will be George Bush III, I think he will be worse. His complacency in regards to the Bush policies would be even more devastating.

If he were elected, would he be willing to break the current cycle of frivilous republican spending before he breaks his hip? Definitely not.

Would he be able to put an end to losing our troops before he loses his vision? No.

Could he put the breaks on the looming recession faster than he gets up to pee during the night? Not likely.

Sorry, Romano, There is no little blue pill for Gas prices.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

mercedez34 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:46:12 GMT

Sorry I'm not buying that one he is another Potiental Bush and if anyones falls for the crap you guys are trying to sell tell them to get ready for World War 3, not to menation the continuous down fall of our country !

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:48:00 GMT

McCain 2008!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RENEA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:50:11 GMT

MCCAIN cherry picks parts of the to suit his him.The same as BUSH. .MCCAIN like the part of constitution when he can use it against Obama but does not like it when it comes to the Bill of Rights!The same as BUSH

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

hopesprings — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:50:14 GMT

The three key issues of this upcoming election are the Economy, our Energy dependance, and the Security of the United States. On these three issues, and a surprisingly extended list of others, they are all but identical. For you to try and say that he would not go into office with the exact same policies and agendaas George Bush is a complete mischarecterization.

It is also interesting that you point out an apology to Barrack Obama. Was that just preemptive? You should also apologize to your readers!

On the Constitution:

Gitmo is full of prisoners. Some are very guilty, and very dangerous. Some are just people that were turned in by Iraqi and Afghan tribal leaders for cash. A reward system that payed one sect to turn in another. Many, if not most of the prisoners held there are guilty of no mre than being of a cartain ethnic sect. I wonder if a relative of yours, say an uncle, had been falsely accused by some nazi crackpot as being a Mussalini loyalist. Your Uncle gets thrown into a Gitmo cell for 7 years with no way to appeal or to even hear the formal charges against you.

Tell us Mr. Romano,........Is there a difference between the two. Would it matter to you then?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

szaggy — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:51:02 GMT

"Prior to his current assignment, Romano was a junior reporter in Newsweek's New York headquarters contributing to the magazine's National Affairs coverage. Since April 2006, he has campaigned with Al Franken, interviewed Paul McCartney, profiled the Howard Dean alums in charge of John Edwards' and Barack Obama's Internet campaigns"...yeah that Romano a real right-winger

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ploughman — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:56:13 GMT

Obama himself has said before that McCain would be an improvement over Bush (though in the same sentence he said either he or Hillary would do much better than McCain). But McCain's willingness to make the tax cuts permanent and pile on more WITHOUT SAYING HOW HE'LL PAY FOR THEM is a pretty dramatic turn toward Bush. McCain's credentials as a fiscal conservative are hereby revoked. He's also doubling down on Iraq, and he's at least consistent in being likely to name the fifth vote against Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court.

I think McCain would do a better job than Bush on bipartisan things simply because it's hard to do worse, but he'd also stand in the way of meaningful health-care reform and likely hamper development of alternative energy, suddenly becoming frugal there. By the end of a McCain term we'd have much more debt, the dollar would fall further (exacerbating gas prices) and we'd have 4 more years of health care rising at 3X the rate of inflation while more uninsured and underinsured get added.

So it's probably more like a second term for Bush's father than a third term for GWB. But the first Bush got boxed in ideologically and wasn't able to do enough when the times demanded change, and I think that's what we'd get with McCain.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

C. MacLean — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:56:55 GMT

It is safe to say that McCain won't govern like Bush, because Bush couldn't govern. Anyone - Donald Duck or any of his nephews Hewey, Douey or Louie - would do a better job than Bush.

However, it seems pretty clear that McCain will continue many of the most objectionable Bush policies, such as appointing neocon judges, continuing to push military objectives at the expense of domestic policies, and rewarding the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. McCain doesn't deny this, and this is what Obama means when he says a vote for McCain is a vote to continue Bush's policies.

So no, McCain isn't Bush; he's smarter, more articulate, and a better consensus builder. And none of that will matter a damn bit, because McCain will keep the worse excesses of the Bush administration intact, and for the average American, it will be as if Bush is still in office.

Sorry, Stumper, McCain may not be Bush, but a McCain presidency WILL be the same as a Bush presidency. Or a Hewey, Douie or Louie presidency.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

szaggy — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:57:50 GMT

Amazing bit of marketing from the Obama campaign. I remember hearing it the first night a month or two ago on a few of the major networks ("McCain is a 3rd term Bush") and since then it is gained great momentum for the Obama-ites. Maybe you should try selling your candidate instead of tearing down another...and please don't use buzzwords like CHANGE, HOPE, PROMISE. Instead tell me one thing this guy would do that wouldn't bring us closer socialism becuase that is all I have heard so far.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

joetraderny — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:13:03 GMT

He ain't Mahatma Ghandi or Mohammed Yunis either, for you neocons these aren't members of al-qaeda either!!!! He IS anti-environment, pro-rich, and a return to Cold War ideology; if obama is pre 9/10 thought, McCain is pre modern Soviet Union and EU...and he IS a cranky, bitter, angry old man.......

McCain would continue bush tax cuts for rich, would continue the downward spiral of the middle class...if mcbush walks like bush, talks like bush, he is pretty D A M N near close to the evil dictator himself.....deng xiaoping isn't mao tse-tung either but chinese are still communist.....let's call a horse a horse for once......

BTW: mcbush, it is 113 in phoenix and there is NO global warming....keep talking about the Hanoi Hilton while ironically neocons try to swiftboat common sense in this country....keep passing anti-immigrant laws and insulting women, and then turning around and pandering to them, Americans are mostly stupid and gullible, according to you, and have very short memories....what is iraq???

"I don't know anything about the economy, but it is fine, anyway" mcbush on meet the press

McCain originally opposed Bush's first-term tax cuts but now supporting their continuation, so he is a flip-flopper like bush...McBush would REDUCE taxes on wind/solar, while saying a reduction in gas tax is a good idea, leading to job losses and further dilapidated infrastructure....if morons still think there is ANYchoice let mcbush take over and continue turning us into a fiefdom, while complaining about "socialists".....neocon morons....

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Emanuel — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:22:53 GMT

You're right. We shouldn't consider John McCain to be a third term of George Bush. That would be an insult... to George Bush.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

popmanifesto — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:25:41 GMT

Posted By: szaggy (June 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM)

"...and please don't use buzzwords like CHANGE, HOPE, PROMISE. Instead tell me one thing this guy would do that wouldn't bring us closer socialism becuase that is all I have heard so far."

___________________________________________________

Hilarious! Thanks for the comic relief you conservatives are so good at providing. Please don't use buzzwords? You mean like that old dittohead standby, "socialism?" Yeah, God forbid all of the fatcats who got filthy rich under the corrupt Bush/Cheney administration should have to give up a few of their tax breaks, sweetheart government deals, and raping of our treasury so little guys like you could have a little more of the pie! Wouldn't that be terrible? Let's hope McCain gets elected so he can keep the elite gravy train going and we can be run further into debt and the rest of us can suffer some more. Yee-haw! McBush '08!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

paulte — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:29:53 GMT

Your articles are getting better Stumper! How about "Why we should all be voting for McCain in November (Real Sorry Barack)" for your next installment?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

blkjazz — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:45:29 GMT

Andrew Romano, have you been sneeking a bit of vodka while you think of this stuff? This silly neocon game is hurting this country. Just tell the truth...please. We have had enough of Bush and McSame. They are the same policies that killed Americans and innocent Iraq children for the sake of oil company profits. McSame is the same as Bush / Cheney. Like them, I suspect you think if you keep telling a lie long enough it will start sounding like the truth. They fooled us once. Never again.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

jath123 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:48:22 GMT

Let me get this straight, Mr. Romano.. You say that a primary reason why McCain wouldn't govern like Bush is because a stronger Democratic majority in Congress won't let him? In other words, he can't so he won't, but if he could he would? Well then, we shouldn't be giving any credit for moderation to McCain; we should be giving it to the Democrats!

Your commentary all but avoids the most notable and commendable difference between McCain and Bush; Militant right wing Christians hate McCain. So he must be doing something right in that department.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

donbl — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:50:03 GMT

Good article and truthful.

Nice to see a balanced article out of Newsweek.

A couple years ago, I stopped my subscription because they had become myopicly left on their news coverage.

May consider restarting if they continue this trend.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

psychnurse — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:53:20 GMT

Obama may be using "Bush III" as part of his campaign, but many of us were calling McCain an extension of Bush even before Obama went into the campaign mode. We believe he would carry out what would be a third Bush term because of his cozying up to Falwell and the religious right; because of his phony "compromises" with Bush on torture and other issues--compromises that gave Bush exactly what he wanted; because he has made Karl Rove and other Bushies part of his campaign, He has chosen the same path to the presidency as Bush (selling his soul to the devils of the right wing) and, just as they set the agenda for the Bush administration, so will they set it for McCain. In other words, a third term for the neo-con men who have destroyed our nation's honor, our reputation, our credibility, and much of our democracy. We didn't need Obama to tell us this.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

DWillson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:59:57 GMT

so what you are saying is McCain won't govern like bush because a dem congress won't let him...

sorry Mr. Romano...but do you realize how in 2 years a congress can change? Your argument is weak if not dumb...sorry. I hope the readers are smarter and see what kind of message a vote for McCain sends the congress how strongly or not strongly the case may be ...the American people think they should fight against McCain's Bush-like policies. This article is dumb and not thought through enough to be in a national news magazine that is unbiased. McCain's policies and promises and debts... are a hair's breath away from GW. and you don't help the dialogue by using a title and a premise that isn't bouyed by the facts in the actual article.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:04:32 GMT

Well in the end, Americans will realize in the majority the McCain is not another Bush. The power is not in the President, but in the House and Senate. So all your scare tactics are out the door Obamites. People will realize that Obama is nothing but nice speeches and fluff and will vote for a man of substance...McCain.

So Obama-bloggers, save your scare tactics, all the people who will buy into your liltle scheme to put Obama in the White House have already bought in, and it simply is not enough. He won't win the states he needs to win, and he's angered a large group of Democrats in the process who will join the Republicans in the fight against him.

It was a good run Obamites, but it will end in November. I personally, can't wait for that moment....

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

irwind — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:06:07 GMT

Such semantics! What counts most to the American people - the economy and the war; there's little daylight between the two. Continual war, until this nebulous 'victory', and unlimited tax cuts with corporations running amok with minimal egulations - and getting richer, while the rest of continue to suffer. Even if he gets a 'yea' for some environmental issues or earmarks, does not really compare with the war and tax cuts!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

moyer305@comcast.net — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:08:18 GMT

This logic doesn't quite add up: count on Democrats taking the majority in congress, so that McCain is forced to cross the aisle and compromise, instead of continuing to pander to the right, as he has during the last four years. This article does a good job of showing issues where McCain has moved from center to right, and - yes - technically speaking, it wouldn't be a Bush third term. But in terms of issues that are most vital: the war in Iraq and the economy, McCain sounds an awful lot like Bush. While the point Obama's making may be overly simplistic, it doesn't seem far off the mark, to me.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Newsweekbhg — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:10:28 GMT

Don't know how women can vote for McCain.

This man is surrounded by sexists (I recently heard what that pig of a man Clayton Williams who gave McCain money for his campaign said about women who get raped—“As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."”—how sick!!!), plus several years ago McCain insulted Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno by calling them ugly. He left his wife while she was disabled and publicly insulted her. Maybe they should have kept him in Vietnam.

Where are Gerildine Farraro and all the other feminist who back Clinton. It goes to show you that they were just in it for self interest. You ladies make me sick!!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

lloydo21 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:10:59 GMT

I work for a Top 1% guy. He started his own company from his basement 11 years ago, grew it to over 100 employees. He hired me about a month ago so I have a question for Obama. When you Obama, rolls back the taxes on my boss, rolls back the capital gains taxes on my boss, and changes corporate taxes on my boss, whom will be effected more? My Top 1% boss of mine, or me, as the possibility that he would have to cut jobs/pay due to the effects of taxes on his personal and business bottom line, thus putting my job, along with 100 other middle to lower class individuals in potential jeopardy.

Why does he have to pay more? Why is it that because he has produced more in the past 11 years than I have, does he get punished with more taxes than I have paid? Why is it that he has created more jobs in the past 11 years than I have, yet carries a heavier social burden than I?

Let's say you have a team of horses doing manual work. You can increase the burden every day on your strongest horse seperating him from the rest of your team because the rest of your horses are weaker, slower, get in his way, and get tired. Eventually the burden will break down the strongest horse faster thus leaving you with a team of weak horses. Or you can focus on building stregnth among your weakest, training them to carry more, training them to work smarter, and NOT at the expense of running your strongest horse into the ground, rather through your strongest horse being their leader.

Applied to humans, if your plan to "equal the playing field" is to put an extra burden on the most productive, instead of forcing the less productive to learn and develop, the rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to get poorer.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:12:50 GMT

"Unpredictability is welcome as evidence of fresh thinking, but not when it suggests inconsistencies that may be born more of crass opportunism than of insight. There are major contradictions in the McCain America has witnessed over the years that are truly troubling"

.........PERFECT............but really................why in hell would I vote for the tragedians? ....................... The way I see it, the GOP lost all concept of justice.

Democrats on the other hand, are still pro-choice, pro-consumer, pro-education, pro-civil liberties, pro-net-neutrality!!!, pro-healthcare, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, anti poverty, anti Iraq war, anti trying to teach our kids ID in science class rooms.............the way the world looks to me right now.........and believe me...I've been paying close attention to our leaders these last 15 years................. I can tell you in no uncertain terms.......that ONLY Democrats will get my vote....and the Democrats win in 08.....there is no debate.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

v_gajen — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:14:20 GMT

Are you his campaign strategist or what?The evidence is very clear that McCain has flipflpooed on every conceivable issue to align with Bush.Tax cuts,Corporate taxes,wind fall taxes for the Oil companies,wire tap,war,torture are some issues where he has no difference in his approach or the philosophy.His stand on the recent supreme court ruling on the Gitmo detainees is another issue.McCain,according to you,has to be trusted when he pledges that he would be a oneterm president !Nothing could be more hilarious since we all know how steadfast has been very principled in his stands.here is the man who has no principles except the one cardinal principle of winning the election!He has been an attack dog on Obama at the least provocation.The article is misleading as the more appropriate title would be 'Why I think Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III'.This not the critical analysis but a personal view and wishful thinking.Sorry

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Newsweekbhg — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:14:28 GMT

Don't know how women can vote for McCain.

Where are Gerildine Farraro and all the other feminist who back Clinton. It goes to show you that they were just in it for self interest. You ladies make me sick!!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

kgblankinship — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:17:28 GMT

This argument made by Andrew Romano is somewhat disingenuous in that it basically says that McCain would moderate his policies now that the Democrats control Congress. This does not engender faith in McCain on that part. Obama is right in that McCain has moved over to the political right in order to gain the support of that part of the Republican party, which means that he had be a hypocrite to the principles he followed prior to that. Given a Republican Congress, Romano's line of argument would lead one to conclude that such would indeed be a third Bush term. But it's the policies of the political right that have caused most Americans to shift to the Democrats, not the personal styles of Bush or McCain.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:17:59 GMT

McCain voted with BUSH 90% of the time………….. He is not reform…...I don’t know what he is……a flip-flopper?

*McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed; to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he now opposes the measure.

* McCain has been both open and closed to a redeploy-to-perimeter strategy in Iraq.

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

Please!.....I'm saying Mc-Hell-No to mCCain.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Psi1Nupe1 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:20:16 GMT

I think you have missed the mark on this one completely. You really don't get the message Obama is sending when he speaks of a 3rd Bush Term.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

dmihailescu — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:20:30 GMT

yeah, it is not identical with a Bush third term but the issues the author lists:

immigration (McCain-Kennedy), - I personally don't see a difference among Bush, McCain or Obama here since they all lead to amnesty in the end,

campaign finance (McCain-Feingold),

climate change (McCain-Lieberman)

are pretty low in importance compared with the big ones: economy, taxes, healthcare, Iraq.

The first ones are cheap, the latter are hard and expensive and are same as Bush's policies.

In all fairness I'd say is more like McCain = 80% Bush + 20% independent, give or take 5%.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:20:32 GMT

<yawn> at the end of the day, Obama is just to much of a dreamer. To win the presidency you must appeal to liberals and conservatives. Obama will never get those votes. (At least the majority) The Republicans don't want to lose the tax cuts, and some of the Democrats are angry because Hillary lost, some women are angry at Obama because of his reputation with the way he treated Hillary and calls women "sweetie." Others, don't think he is experienced enough, and others just won't vote for him because he is black. You put all that together and what will it equal? A LOSS for Obama in November! Praise Jesus!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

cmorrow22 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:21:45 GMT

Wow...you are blasting the man for being sexist while in the same sentence that he should have been left in Vietnam WHILE HE WAS FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRYA!!!! (whether you agreed with that war or not).....YOU MAKE ME SICK and yes I am a lady. What hypocracy....typical democrat.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RavenMaven — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:21:55 GMT

Wow, I am still amazed at how the left totally don;t understand themselves or the world they live in. All these ridiculous comments make me wonder how dems consider themselves the more enlightened, educated party. There is just a foundation level misunderstanding of the issues being illustrated in these comments. Examples of these little "jewels of wisdom":

"tax cuts for rich" - Tax cuts go across the board, everybody gets them, not just the rich. This is elementary stuff here.

"killed Americans and innocent Iraq children for the sake of oil company profits" Wow, there is a whopper. So, McCain took a gun and shot an american and an Iraqi Child? And the oil company's profits benefit him how?

I could go on.... Just sillyness....

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

mcg20 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:24:34 GMT

Vgajen

Your accusing the author of this NEWSWEEK article for being in the Tank for McCain, that has got to be hypocrisey at its best. You oviously have not read the I love Obama article recently published in this mag. Were you critical of the other articles for not being accurate or just this one. I bet you read those articles with full approval. Just admit that you will say anything in order to get your guy elected.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Dollared — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:25:22 GMT

The problem is not that Romano is a right winger. The problem is his inability to grasp logic.

McCain's intentions mirror Bush's intentions. Yes, McCain might face some barriers to implementing his intentions. But does that mean that you lead with "Obama is wrong?"

That is misleading, pure and simple.

Should we all vote for McCain because we like him and if we're lucky, he'll fail? I guess Andrew would.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Emanuel — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:27:17 GMT

Psi1Nupe1 YO BABY YO !!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

cmorrow22 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:27:57 GMT

RavenMaven...I couldn't agree more. It is just Michael Moore style oversimplfication CONSTANTLY!!!!! THese people complain about tax cuts that MANY if not ALL of them enjoyed. I am sure all of the lower class people that got the tax rebate copaline dbaout it but stopped complaing the minute they turned it over to the retail store clerk they bought new clothes from with it. Once again...hypocracy!!! Stop being angry at the rich, who got up off their butts and went to school, worked from the ground up, paid their dues and are now reaping the reqards of their hard work. I am sure if any of these people were mulitmillionaires and the tables were turned...they would not be complaining. It is only becuase they are not that they have these views. And no I am not one of those rich...I am a college educated woman trying to make it in this world ON MY OWN and without hand outs that some people believe are owed to them. I need my rich boss to stay rich SO I KEEP MY JOB!!!!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:28:25 GMT

Tax cuts benefits all. ANY of you who work for a small business better hope they don't go anywhere, it trickles down, and many of you probably have those cuts to thank for your jobs. So, while you may not directly benefit, you benefit or friends or family benefits indirectly. Obama IS bad for business, that's something for you to think about.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:29:51 GMT

I am tired of the hypocrite airport bathroom toe tapping Republicans.

Where have Republicans failed America?...........

Ethics: Abramoff Scandals, Libby outs a CIA operative, Gonzo politicizes Justice, and just about anyone in the White House could be labeled a liar, torture, extraordinary rendition, non FISA wiretaps.....etc........

Foreign Policy: Iraq war, AQ still on the loose, Bin Laden still on the loose; and are we safer?..................

Responsive Government: Katrina, bungling Iraq war intelligence, maybe even bungling the 9/11 intelligence......etc.......

I’m going to do everything in my power to see that Republicans LOSE in the next elections. I mean across the board, state legislatures to the White House, there is no longer a place for Republicans in the world I want to live in. The Republican of today is an indefensible talking point repeating polarizer of nations, which in my mind no longer deserves quarter. McCain?

Mc-Hell-No….he’s just another GOP leaf blowing in the wind.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

counselortroi2 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:31:23 GMT

Yeah, sure, McSame isn't going to be another Bush and denial is just a river in Egypt. He may have done a few things in earlier days that made him a "maverick" on some issues, but now he is just another neocon, ultra-conservative who wants to destroy women's rights, especially the right to choose. I wouldn't trust McSame any farther than I do Bush: about as far as I could pick him up and toss him.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

belle12 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:32:20 GMT

I'm sorry McCain supporters but this article makes absolutely no sense. I agree with an earlier poster that the "Sorry, Barack" silliness came across as less than credible. The argument that McCain would not be a third term of Bush, because he won't be allowed to be, is beyond silly. The article basically asks the American people to discount McCain's words, actions, his association with Karl Rove, the NeoCons, and pretend that they have all been neutered. Sorry, not buying. My honest reaction to this story is that the constant working of the press by the McCain campaign (especially to Newsweek) is beginning to payoff. Either that or Newsweek is now allowing a McCain staffer to make suggestions and to judiciously "edit" the pieces. Interesting how there is no suggestion that the press should actually function as a free press should and actually be guardians of the truth. But, we all know how the press went AWOL during this administration, and I suppose it's too much to ask for you guys to get back to being reporters and not water carriers, or excuse me, propaganda peddlers. i expect to see this on Fox News, not Newsweek.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

fredblotnic — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:32:57 GMT

One need only look at the way that Bush has politicized the bureaucracy to see what's wrong with this article.

Does anyone think that McCain is going to fire all the operatives that Rove put in place throughout the government?

As far as the mundane mechanics of the government bureaucracy go it will literally be Bush III.

Rove will have gotten what he set out to get, a permanent activist Republican bureaucracy.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:33:44 GMT

"it trickles down"

It does because WE SAY it DOES....

....and "these colors don't run"

Thank GOD for the neo-cons and the TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT!!!

You toe tappers crack me up.....

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

gpsburns — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:36:29 GMT

Mc Same must have caught an earful from his wife about his plan to "veto every beer," but the true alarm that should be sounding is--what about his mental health? We've lived with a mentally challenged president for 8 years and McSame would bring more of the same. We need a man with the intelligence to understand the difference in the tribes in Iraq, the number of soldiers we have there and one that says something different than "it doesn't matter" how long our troops remain there. Just like the old sond says:

Lost john standing by the railroad track

a-waitin' for the freight train to come back.

The freight train come back but never made a stop

lost john thought he'd ride to the top

Well, he's long, long, lost john

yeah, long, long, lost john.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:37:43 GMT

Well keep dreaming Apostasy...McCain is still going to win.

tap,tap,tap.....

Obama won office in Chicago by getting his opponents disqaulified on minor technicalities, he can't do that with the Presidency!

And he's just as dirty as any of them, look at his association with Rezko, oh yeah, conveniently he bought the lot next to his house from them at a lower price...mmhmm. I'd say a few favors were earned. Obama's history come November.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:38:41 GMT

Blah blah blah, gpsburns... Lots of fluff in that post. No substance. Much like Obama's past.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

R Lawrence — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:40:05 GMT

McCain is certainly an American hero and should be celebrated as such because of his personal and physical contributions as a solder and his time in a war prison camp. However, this is not a reason to elect him President and those events and experiences will not make him a good President. His age is also a concern. Obama is by far a much better choice and I hope will become our next President. McCain has been a good Senator but there comes a time for every great person to recognize their limitations and McCain should retire or just remain in the Senate.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

beowolf747 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:41:02 GMT

For me it's throw the bums out. Too many step in line Republicans in the last 8 years. Clean the slate.

I want Dems up and down the aisle with a few good Republicans to help keep things honest.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:41:38 GMT

Obama will take away your employer's tax cuts and leave you unemployed!

His economic plan reveiewed by most economists is a JOKE.

His healthcare plan is a JOKE!

His foreign policy experience is a JOKE!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:42:37 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

Awe...bless you toe tapping republican proopagandists.......you see.....the GOP has allot of "coming-out" to do........and until they understand themselves how can they understand PEOPLE?

Please, someone tell where the REAL Republicans are?

Many Americans today have been enlightened by the two wars we find ourselves involved. One war, the "war on terrorism", finds its main battleground in Afghanistan, and it is a war that costs lives and money but the majority of Americans support. Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, most don't have a problem with us kicking down the doors of members of the Taliban.

When talking about the war in Iraq the parties have much difference. Democrats say that the public and congress was mislead to justify the war in Iraq and that the Bush Administration no longer deserves autonomy in situations where US service men and women's lives are on the line. Based on the results of the last Congressional elections, most Americans see a problem with GOP/Republicans; at least in the way they make decisions about the use of our military.

So why is it that in the GOP/Republican party there are no dissenters, no independent thinkers, no moderates?

Where are the real conservatives who would laugh at how conservatively the current Republican Party has been spending taxes, and creating big government?

Has the Republican Party lost its identity? Can the ideology of the GOP be so easily summed up in Karl Rove talking points like “support this and support that”, and angry rhetoric like “liberals are traitors”?

Hello REAL Republicans! Anybody out there?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

JackieOh — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:48:49 GMT

What a pathetic and disingenuous article. McCain won't be Bush III because Democrats won't let him??? That doesn't mean he won't TRY! His voting record approaches 100% with Bush. Any principled positions he took in the past against Bush he has long since abandoned. He wants pro-life, Roberts-Alito-esque SCOTUS appointments, has reversed his position on torture, 12 of his 20 largest contributors are major Banks (Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia Group, Bridgewater Associates, Blackstone Group and Bear Stearns - per George Will, http://www.newsweek.com/id/136308/page/2), his committment to a presence in Iraq exceeds Bush's and his cowboy diplomacy skills toward IRAN are Bush on steroids. Andrew Romano, I don't know who you are trying to kid (or fool, or dupe, or snow), but this is a joke. McCain is BUSH ON 'ROIDS!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

dgoldclark@usa.net — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:51:27 GMT

Good Grief! Mr. Romano may not be drinking himself, but he most assuredly is hoping we are! Or at the least, we've abandoned critical thinking and reason to buy what is most clearly not only a faulty argument, but a silly one. There must be panic beginning on the Republican side. Maybe the best position is to take an American one--by that I mean that we look clearly at the mess and nightmare created by the Bush administration and decide that no amount of spurious and ingenuous language will divert us from voting in new blood--and maybe even some intelligence. Do your patriotic duty Mr. Romano--face what has been a nightmare and forgo partisan affiliation and vote for Mr. Obama.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ifjed — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:52:32 GMT

John McCain, in spite of what he has SAID about torture, has wholeheartedly supported the use of the torture as well as Bush's establishment of a system of secret Stalinist-style concentration camps which make Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" seem like a Scout camp (remember that Guantanamo is the one we know about; we don't know what's going on in all the other secret prisons).

And McCain, like Bush, would continue the Republican Party's all-out war on the US Constitution, in particular by appointing judges who believe that the courts and the Congress, like the Soviet Politburo, should rubber stamp whatever the president/dictator decides to do. In this sense, it might be better to call McCain the next Nixon. Of course, McCain will claim, like Antonin Scalia, that national security requires that we give up traditions as a free people and put a Julius Caesar figure in power.

Finally, McCain has overwhelmingly supported Bush's concept of declaring the US to be in a permanent state of war as a method for enriching the Halliburtons and the Blackwaters while US troops are killed due to lack of basic protective equipment and veterans can't get the care they need due to the morally bankrupt state of the Pentagon.

What is most surprising, though, is that recent polls suggest that most white women plan to vote for McCain, which totally disses the notion that a world run by women would be better than the current one that is now mostly run by men. I guess women finally are equal to (aka as stupid as) men.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Steve M — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:53:31 GMT

"The only problem? Obama's leap from "McCain agrees with Bush more now" to "McCain will govern exactly like Bush" is pretty misleading."

No it's not... why would you suspect that a guy who's drifted far to the right will govern as a centrist?

Maybe the author's semantic cop-out is the use of the word "exactly" It's no leap with McCain's 90-% 95% agreement with Bush policies... that is enough for my voting Obama

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:56:33 GMT

Well, Rodriguez, I guess you go to the polls with the Republicans you've got, not the Republicans you wish you had. At least It's better than being a dogfoot soldier in Iraq without equipment you wish you had. Thanks Bush.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:57:15 GMT

Or being on a roof in New Orleans with a boat that you wish you had. Good job Brownie.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

rcbatty — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:57:51 GMT

It's a lie. He's got a W tattooed on his butt.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

teddyo — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:57:56 GMT

Tax cuts for the very rich, war, old and wrinkled, liar,...... sounds like Bush to me

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

HLT91179 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:59:26 GMT

You know its funny reading all of these comments talking about how bad McCain would be as a president. I think Barack Obama would destroy this country and bring it down with his Marxist ways of thinking. He wants to make Free Health Care for everyone, the only thing that will do is make hard working american’s like ME and YOU pay for all this through increased taxes. I don’t want to pay for Jane Doe with 8 kids that doesn’t want to work have health care for her and her children because she’s a lazy slob who cant and wont work, then there’s these words he likes to preach about HOPE, CHANGE, PROMISE but I have never heard not once what HOPE he is going bring us and what CHANGE he wants or what PROMISES he will make that will not force everyday american’s like me to pay for. Half the time when I hear him on TV or see him if he doesn’t have a teleprompter in front of him he sounds like a bumbling fool. Say what you want but I would rather have someone in office that has years of experience than someone who doesn’t even know what they are talking about. You all endorse Obama so much why don’t you look at a bill he’s trying to pass called The Global Poverty Act it is currently before congress it states that "The Global Poverty Act (H.R. 1302 and S. 2433), would require the President to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy" to promote "the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

How he wants to do that is making WORKING CLASS CITIZENS foot the bill under an increase in taxes and aid to developing countries. It states that " developed countries should provide 0.7 percent of their gross domestic product annually to developing countries. Such a commitment would require U.S. taxpayers to fund foreign aid at more than quadruple current levels, at an amount of $100 billion per year." In this facts are stated from the U.N. about what the Millenium Declaration has already achieved "The latest report from the United Nations indicates that the goal of halving the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1 per day between 1990 and 2015 was already 80 percent achieved by 2004, 11 years before the deadline." The deadline was in the year 2015. We already have the Millennium Declaration in which this highlights all of the goals of the Global Poverty Act but the Global Poverty Act will put us at another 843 trillion more in debt. You all want to talk about how McCain will ruin our country looks to me like Barack Obama is already trying to increase that Trillion deficit to something that will take the USA decades to recover from. You all want to be SMART get your facts straight!!!!!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:00:03 GMT

Anybody could do better than Bush. Even Mc Cain. But that's not saying much.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

rewinn — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:03:54 GMT

This is easily one of the stupidest articles on politics ever written.

The author doesn't bother pointing out major policies on which McCain differs from Bush. Iraq? the deficit? taxes? education? infrastructure? energy? Nada.

Where the author suggests a difference (campaign finance? immigration?) he completely ignores McCain's abandonment of his own bills.

Mr. Romano's ENTIRE argument is that he, Romano, can't think of a way that McCain could continue Bush's policies and THEREFORE McCain won't. But just because a young, inexperienced writer can't think of how to do something, does not mean that a President can't ... or won't at least try.

Like I said, easily one of the stupidest articles on politics ever written.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

J.Richter — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:04:36 GMT

This article is a fraud!

Only ties McCain to Bush on tax cuts for the wealthy

- What about the recent rehatched Bush proposal of privatising social security

- What about appoach to foreign intervention, Iraq and Iran and the war costing $2billion a week

- What about constitutional abuses - - wiretapping, anditution and its current abuses - wiretapping, and the recent Supreme court ruling.

- What about voting against Katrina investigations twice (while holding a private celebration while Louisiana suffered).

- What about the idea of doing nothing regarding the housing bubble that is providing the second drag on the economy even while touting policies (Phil Gramms) that brought it about in the first place.

McCain really has it good. He has been schmoozong the media for over 10 years. He is now recalling his favors.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

zinc8 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:05:06 GMT

McCain voted with the scumbag in charge 93% of the time. Nuff said.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

GabeMc — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:07:18 GMT

Nice try Andy, and why not, you are all of 17 years old.

McBush is a liar, war-monger, economic idiot and was known as MCNASTY in school due to his propensity to beat kids up when they disagreed with him.

Oh yeah, and he thinks the poor should suffer as the rich get richer.

Hey Newsweek, your conservative friends are worried...

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:07:30 GMT

Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please ’Fess Up?

Part of the disagreement between the candidates has to do with the semantics of what constitutes a tax increase. When Congress approved cuts in 2001 and 2003, it did so with the understanding that those benefits, which largely favor the wealthy, would expire at the end of 2010. While Mr. McCain wants to extend virtually all of the cuts permanently, Mr. Obama favors retaining those that primarily benefit people whose income is less than $250,000 a year.

“The way the Congressional Budget Office scores it, that would not be a tax increase, because their baseline assumes the increase is going to happen as part of current law,” said Chris Edwards, a tax analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Bush and the Republicans would have liked the cuts to be permanent, but you need 60 votes in the Senate to make cuts permanent.”

Mr. McCain is correct when he says that Mr. Obama intends to increase the maximum tax rate on capital gains, the bulk of which fall on the wealthiest segment of the population, and that he would be less generous in offering breaks on the estate tax. But he tends to play down or ignore Mr. Obama’s proposals to eliminate taxes for retirees earning less than $50,000 a year and to give tax breaks to workers earning less than $75,000 annually.

“McCain is picking the areas where rates go up and ignoring the areas where Obama is trying to rebalance the tax code so that taxpayers would save,” said John Irons, research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, which is generally viewed as sympathetic to working families. Mr. Irons said that “the important thing is to look at overall impact on people” and that on this score, “the vast majority of the population, almost the entirety of the middle class, would see more from Obama than McCain.”

Economists have also criticized the methodology behind Mr. McCain’s assertion that Americans from all kinds of backgrounds could end up paying thousands of dollars more in taxes if Mr. Obama got his way. Several criticized him as apparently basing his claim on an average figure in which, as Mr. Irons said, “Bill Gates is mixed with you and me, and everything gets skewed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13check.html

Add the word "taxes" to the GOP fear mongering campaign talking point terms.

“Marxist” is one I’m hearing allot……the GOP must be trying to stir up votes among our elderly “duck and cover” Americans.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

walterjf — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:07:32 GMT

Mc Cain is Republican He was part of the Administration last year and he takes distance from Bush just for November elections .is part of the last 7 years mess

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

GabeMc — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:09:54 GMT

Easily the stuipidist political writer alive today.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

walterjf — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:10:23 GMT

November is about Democrats vs Republicans and last 7 years of Republican administration speaks for itself

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

GabeMc — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:11:58 GMT

Hey Andrew Romano, you will soon know we are tight as you look for a new job in the Bush economy.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

grecko2448 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:13:15 GMT

I don't care what anybody says about McCain. Obama is SOOOOO wrong for this country. It's the mortgage crisis that started this economic mess. That is Bush's fault?!?!?! Don't think so. It was the fault of these lenders that were offering ridiculous mortgage programs to all of these American nimrods that wanted to live the American dream........living in a house that they could only afford for 2 years.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

GabeMc — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:13:56 GMT

Someone bought Andy.

Hey Andy are you same idiot who wrote "The end of the Wal-Mart era?"

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RevWright — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:14:35 GMT

Please don't blame the Obamaites for trying to make McCain out to be George Bush. Lets face facts here. It's the only campaign they can run. It's the only hope they have of getting Obama elected. They can't run a campaign based on his experience. He has none. They can't run a campaign based on his prior voting record in the Senate. Even though he would like to mislead the public into thinking he can bridge party lines the fact is he voted every single time with his party and never once crossed the line. No matter what he says he i,s his voting record proves he is just another left wing liberal supported by the Kennedy's, Kerry's and the rest of the Mass. liberals. I have to laugh when I read folks calling McCain a sexist. I guess all the women out there like being called "sweetie". Nice label for american women isn't it ladies? He calls women Sweetie but McCain is the sexist??? Please don't insult the intelligence of the voters the way Obama has insulted the intelligence of women everywhere okay Sweetie? Obama is nothing more than the same old left wing liberal just like the rest of them. Tax the rich and tax the businesses, give big speeches about how he's going to change the USA. Promise the freeloaders tax breaks and free health care and you will always have their support. Obama will lose and take his place next to Kennedy, Kerry, Al Gore, Edwards and the rest of that bunch of losers. Starting today if the Obama campaign would change their focus and stop trying to convince us that McCain is George Bush (which we all know he is not) the campaign would be over tomorrow for Obama. All they could say about him is:

He wrote a book

He reads a good speech

End of camapign. The man of change with no plan, no goals, no history, no experience. Isn't it amazing how well his campaign has managed to play the race card. According to Obama and the Obamaites if you don't vote for him it's not because you think he's an idiot in a suit. It's because you're a racist. Well I guess I'm a racist then. I'm not voting for him. I'd rather have 4 more years of George Bush than 4 more years of a man who is merely a left wing liberal puppet with no backbone. I still don't understand why he's so afraid to meet McCain one on one in the town hall meetings. The man of change is actually the man of fear. He won't meet Mccain because he is afraid of being exposed as the phony snake that he is.

I know two things for sure:

Obama will never show up for a town hall meeting with McCain

Obama will never run a campaign based on his qualifications.

McCain 2008 THE ONLY CHOICE FOR AMERICA.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

df mat — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:14:59 GMT

McCain may not be just like Bush..but, supports every issue I hate about Bush and want to see changed!

It's the issues and the ability of the President to listen to all sides and change his opinion based on facts. McCain is stubborn with a quick temper- he does not like being wrong- sounds like Bush to us.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:15:38 GMT

<yawn> apostasy

Why do you need a REAL Republican to tell you Obama is a fool?

McCain 2008!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

GabeMc — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:15:58 GMT

If the president is not responsible for the economy, then who is grecko2448?

I assume you admit Bush is responsible for the war, right?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

thomgr — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:18:06 GMT

According CQ, McCain voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007. For the last 8 years McCain has voted with Bush over 90% of the time for six of those years, 89% in 2006 and a low of 77% of the time in 2005.

Draw your own conclusions.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

bluesgutter — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:18:38 GMT

TO THE POSTER WHO SAID HE DOES NOT WANT TO PAY FOR INSURANCE FOR JANE AND HER 8 KIDS WHO HAVE NO INSURANCE. Don't you see you are paying for them? That is one reason why your insurance premiums are so high. Of course another reason is that the insurance companies have hoodwinked you into believing that you are part of a free market system- which you aren't. The American health care system is run by pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. The pharms want you to pay as much as possible for their drugs while the insurance companies want to cover and pay you as little as possible for their services. We need a Federal government that is strong (sorry it won't happen anytime soon) and that can create a health care system that regulates the cost of medicine as well as hospital services- not something part of the free market system like oil. You can see where that is going.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

df mat — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:20:51 GMT

We will vote Obama- as a result of issues (war/economy) facing our Country, now!

McCain is on the wrong side of ALL the issues we care about.

Issues is what counts- not all the smoke blown in these comments.

Stick to the point- it's all about the issues!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

just jerry — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:20:52 GMT

The new politics of Barack Obama look just like the old politics. That is the shameful truth about Barack Obama and the way he runs campaigns. Anything of this sort about him he would immediately say was an example of the old politics he is seeking to change. He say one thing and does another.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

change@charter.net — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:21:03 GMT

this article is a moot point when you take into account the "presidential signing statement" bush has used them his entire presidency , McCain would do what ever he wanted just like bush as the PSS didn't stop when democrats took "control"

as for a real tax and spender, i personally believe that tax and spend is FAR FAR better then SPEND AND SPEND...or spend and give private no bid contracts to my friends and the people that lobbied to get me in office.

maybe I'm crazy maybe tax and spend is the devil and we should just keep borrowing money from China and continue to buy poison toys and dog food AND JUST KEEP THE STATUS QUO

WAIT I know , I've got it

the dream ticket

McCain/Bush in 08

and Cheney could be sec. of state.

talk about an American nightmare.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

change@charter.net — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:23:11 GMT

please give an example and source ...or you are just spreading rumors.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

MilesTrane21 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:24:20 GMT

I'm an Obama supporter, but this article makes a good point. McCain would be easier to work with than Bush, but most of his policy positions are at least extremely similar to Bush's.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

change@charter.net — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:24:54 GMT

Posted By: RDOMINGUEZ (June 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM)

<yawn> apostasy

Why do you need a REAL Republican to tell you Obama is a fool?

McCain 2008!

again why is obama a fool , you are just talking garbage , you give no substance. you are not a REAL republican , you are a neocon

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

grecko2448 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:26:04 GMT

So, the President of the United States is directly responsible for the economy? One man? The President? So, Mr. Bush sat down with Washington Mutual, Countrywide, etc. and said, "I want you to offer the American public mortgages that have an initial interest rate of pretty much nothing for 2 years, then I want that interest rate to jump up to over 10%." LOL.

The war? That was a mistake, but something needed done after 9/11. Not exactly what we did was right, but something needed done. We just did the wrong thing. The war had very little to do with economy turning south. In fact, the war created jobs and the dollar was strong initially. Like I said, the mortgage crisis is what started this economic debacle.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

change@charter.net — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:27:31 GMT

Posted By: RevWright (June 17, 2008 at 4:14 PM)

He wrote a book

He reads a good speech

I know two things for sure:

Obama will never show up for a town hall meeting with McCain

Obama will never run a campaign based on his qualifications.

McCain 2008 THE ONLY CHOICE FOR AMERICA.

WHY DONT YOU GO WATCH MORE FOX NEWS.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RevWright — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:27:42 GMT

Looks like all the Obamaites in the campaign office answered the call to this article. I wonder if Barry sent a text message to all of his lemmings asking them to pst a denial here in response to Andy's article. HAHAHAHHAA Looks like the Obama campaign is starting to falter a little. Obama is outta here. From his sexist "sweetie"remarks to his Rev. Wright lies to his wifes racist remarks. I think we have all had about enough of this phony. No worries though Barry. When you lose I'm sure you can stay at yoru Buddy Tony Rezko's house until you get back on your feet again. God what a pathetic, spineless loser Obama is.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:30:42 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

Awe......you toe tapping republican propagandists are going to make yourselves crazy spreading lies and innuendo about Democrats. Deceit has become you. Conservatives died and left only ugliness behind.

There are folks I know who voted for Bush......but they are independent thinkers who say Obama is looking like the better choice for us in Nov.

The so called Republicans I hear these days are usually loud mouth freaks that can't get anyone to listen to them, so they stay at home and lose touch with society, staring endlessly into the abyss of propaganda from Faux News and Rush Limp-dik.

What happened to Republicans?

Even those who do not call themselves conservatives must acknowledge the power and enduring value of core conservative beliefs: belief in individual agency and responsibility, respect for American institutions and traditions, a willingness to take principled moral stands. It is a movement that draws its inspiration from towering figures: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke. It stands for caution in foreign adventures, fiscal sobriety and a profound respect for tradition.

Today’s conservatism is a caricature of that movement:

It embraces pointless wars, runs up a vast debt, and trashes the Constitution. Selling out their principles for power, abandoning deeply seated American values and traditions simply because someone on "their side" demanded that they do so, conservatives have made a deal with the devil that has reduced their movement to an empty, ends-obsessed shell.

How did the party of Lincoln end up marching under the banner of Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh, *** Cheney and Ann Coulter?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Merkle — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:33:22 GMT

Copying and pasting a plethora of text from The Heritage Foundation website isn't going to change my mind about Obama being the better candidate. It amazes me how happy people can be that their tax dollars can be thrown away in the Iraq War but ask them to let their tax dollars go towards giving starving kids food... now THEIRS a travesty! Way to go, Scrooge McDuck...

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

df mat — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:34:09 GMT

Sorry, Andrew- this really was a lame piece of journalism!!

What aroused our interest was the headline to the article.

The content was boring and prompt us to tell you- good headline, poor content!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

speckelbelly — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:35:00 GMT

SORRY ROMANO-BUT U DO NOT EVEN LOOK OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE! NO MATER WHAT U REPUGLICANS SAY!SAME OLE McSAMEO=ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF McBUSH RULE!

NEVER!

OBAMA RULES! SO GET USED TO THE IDEA ! PRESIDENT OBAMA! BESIDES GET REAL!!!

McCAIN HAS BEEN SCREWING UP LEFT AND RIGHT!RE:HOT WATER BOTTLE? WAR FOR 100 YRS? SUNNI / SHITE? McCAIN IS NOTHING BUT AN OLD MAN WHO HAS LIEBERMAN WISPERING IN HIS EAR! IN FACTMcCAIN HAS OVER 30 YEARS OF PISSING OFF HIS PARTY!FLIP FLOPING ALLOVER THE PLACE! NOW DOES THAT SOUND LIKE PRESIDENTUAL MATERIAL TO U?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

magicktrick — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:35:50 GMT

Okay, it's about the issues df mat. If that is the case, then McCain definitely gets my vote. I do not want to pay more taxes only to have the deficit increase even more.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

afabrick — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:37:09 GMT

It looks to me like McCain's policy positions are a lot like the current president on the war, taxes, womens rights, and even allowing the CIA to use enhanced interrogation (i.e. torture) . The differences cited in this article are external. GW had a Republican majority for six years while McCain would have to deal with a Democratic majority. So McCain is like Bush but the circumstances are different. Maybe that should have been the title of this article.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

yesyoucan2008 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:42:18 GMT

The town hall meetings will happen, and Obama will make McBush look like a man past his prime. Obama clearly has the change message. McCain was about one primary short on making his message clear. He seems to keep caveating on the Obama message of change. Clearly a nominee with no vision of his own. The GOP needs creativity in order to take this one from the Dems. So far it looks like the fear message and typical "Rove-like" tactics won't work this election year. Good luck McSame in Nov, you will definitely need it.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

tulcak — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:48:40 GMT

oh come on Romano... it is so OBVIOUS where your political views lie... mcSame has supported 95% of bush's policies... THIS ISN'T THE SAME? how can you legitimately make your argument. mcSame is the same ole same ole. SORRY MCSAME SUPPORTERS, but claiming that mcSame is different than bush is SUCH A LAME ARGUMENT. but, bush supporters will believe anything - really, ANYTHING. Romano, pack your bags dude, its over, mcsame doesn't stand a chance, Americans don't buy the fear-mongering anymore and they just don't believe the story anymore. change is coming whether you like it or not....

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:52:38 GMT

Apostasy, GROW UP!

Look at you, one little article and you're whining LIKE A BABY!! The only LOUD-MOUTH freaks on here are you Obama people. Whining, calling Andrew Romano names for writing this article, GOD FORBID anyone write something bad about OBAMA, well get used to it, Obama is not perfect. You people are brainwashed, and the rest of America with half a brain will put a stop to it in November,

And Apostasy, blahblahblah, you say nothing of any substance.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:54:30 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

you ain't sayin nothing.

Toe tappers.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

dalrymplesteampipe — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:59:14 GMT

magicktrick- good name for a guy who assumes that the Democrat will increase the deficit. Compare Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Who gave us a surplus and who gave us record deficits. The truth is that a Democrat will be a deficit hawk, which may mean higher taxes, but will also mean a lower deficit and a stronger country. No more voodoo please! (btw, afabrick is a smart guy- listen to him)

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

stacon — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:59:35 GMT

Obama is right on the money with his assessment of McCain. I have been following politics closely since the early '80s, and have watched the metamorphosis of McCain over the past 7+ years. He is no longer the independent thinker, willing to part ways with his party, if necessary, to stand on principle. More alarming is the horrific crash of the straight talk express on the road to flip flops at the corner of pandering, and political expediency. If elected he will be an extension of the Bush administration because he is for keeping in place all of the things that have collectively led to bringing this country to its knees.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:59:52 GMT

Toe tappin toe, toe, tappin.

Toe tappers who will be beating your *** in November.

Come to terms with it. You will Lose.

I'm tappin' my toes right here for you apostasy! All for your baby!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:00:34 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

You prefer our country divided so you peruse your agenda of proliferating division and hate through innuendo and propaganda.

At least the Republican tactics are going to be predictable.

This has become the classic response of the fossilized right-wing status quo:

Create a grotesquely distorted caricature, broadcast the delusion at the top of your lungs, and hope that you manage to reinforce just enough cynicism and hopelessness to ensure the election of someone who truly cares only for funneling all of the country's wealth and power into the hands of a tiny, corrupt elite.

Hey!

"Did you hear that McCain is a hermaphrodite?"

I didn't believe it at first, but now I do.

No way I'm voting for him now.

Yea!! You too can be a propagandist!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

raddave — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:00:59 GMT

magicktrick, The deficit only increases when a republican is the President. Under Clinton, there was a budget surplus.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

twb0392 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:02:14 GMT

McCain Victory = War in Iran

War in Iran = Even Worse Economy, spending all our Tax money outside of America

Bush/McCain Said Iraq Would lower Price of Gas.

McCain Victory = More Right Wing Supreme Court, Goodbye Right to Choose.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Army1 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:03:05 GMT

You poor Liberals! Anything in print that doesn't go along with your viewpoint must be a lie or someone is stupid. All I can say is, "Keep it up!" The more you get angry and get personal with someone whom happens to have a different viewpoint than you, just brings more of us to the voting booth. So please, carry on.

For all those who think Iraq was a mistake or it's a mess and we should bring the troops home right...how many of you have been there? That's what I thought. Let us get the job done, we knew what the risks were when joining the military. Nobody in our volunteer armed forces is shocked that joining the Army might mean they'll have to go to war. It's our job, let us do it.

One more thing, don't believe the polls, most poeple are not honest when answering a poll question or change their mind in the voting booth.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

HLT91179 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:06:21 GMT

TO bluesgutter:

There was no HIM I’m a woman. Also I may be paying for Jane Doe and her 8 kids in some small way (welfare) but Free Health Care come on now. And the Global Poverty Act is a travesty in the making that thank god we have smarter people in this world and in office than people like you who just go with the crowd. How dumb do you have to be for you to realize that if we do (which will never happen) have free health care this country will go right where Canada is going. You know what happens when people get things for FREE, every one wants some. People from Canada come here for health care because it is a lot better than there’s and the waiting period in between isn’t nearly as long. By the way my health care isn’t expensive either because I have a hell of a good job that pays for most if not all of it, I also don’t pay hardly anything for my prescription’s either, see in your thinking you portray me as someone like me as a crazed republican but its right winged liberals like you who are putting this country to shame. You care nothing about the truth, facts, or statistics. Even if it was in a video or tape and the proof is right in front of your face, you’re the type that wouldn’t believe it. I am a hard working educated American that wont vote for just anyone, I need experience not someone who just says things but never really gives you any insight as to HOW he will do them. Also I never got my info from The Heritage Foundation that goes for Merkle you have no idea what you are talking about.

I would vote a thousand times over for McCain over Marxist Racist like Obama.

McCain 08

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:06:45 GMT

Apostasy, that's exactly what Obama has done, he's basically controlled the media, leaked stuff he wanted to catch on that wasn't true and the weak-minded believed it. It's a shame most people forgot they are voting for President and not American Idol. That's ok, because those who can see through the Obama-fog. Will vote against him. I assure you of that. Just come back on here after the elections ok Apostasy? So I can laugh in your face! hahahahaha

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

jamiecooper — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:09:02 GMT

Your logic doesn't jive, Romano. Of course the circumstances are going to be different the next four years, nobody is disputing that. The truth is, McCain stepped off the straight talk express and sold his soul to the Bushites the day he conceded to GW in the primaries way back in 2000. You might be on to something though: I wonder if Bush confuses Shiites with Sunnis? He certainly doesn't need Joe Lieberman there to help him remember such things like McCain.

By the way, how can you be a true conservative and vote for this man? He's all about "nation building", and he's supported an economic policy that has run our dollar and country into the dirt for the past 8 years. He thinks Uncle Sam has the right to tell you whom you can and cannot marry. Those aren't conservative values. Then again, he is tooling around with Joe Lieberman, so how conservative can he be? True conservatives better stick with Ron Paul this year.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:10:05 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

Keep tapping....one day you'll "come-out"........from between Rush Libaba's sweaty legs.

Then you'll realize the world of deceit that has become you.

I love to watch you propagandists……I like watching your storylines evolve……..you know.....

One of the most striking things to me I've seen over the years is the ever increasing effect of the age of information...........I don't think that Congress or the Clinton admin knew what they were doing when they dropped the BOMB that is the Internet into the public's hands..............but the Republicans surely don't appreciate what it's become..............it has screwed them for the last 8 years.....and any President afterward will have at least that to deal with..........why?

Because you can't stop the white rabbit.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

qualquan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:10:45 GMT

This neocon columnist is right without knowing it. McCain is no Bush. McCain's hundred years war in Iraq makes him far worse than Bush

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

yesyoucan2008 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:12:37 GMT

For Rev Wright and Change @charter.net:

Your comment on Obama and the "sweetie" slip up. while I admit it was the wrong thing to say. If I was a woman I would rather be called that than being called a "***" (a comment made by McCain to his own wife Cindy) any old day. Again the "Rove" tactics failed in the primary and it will fail in the general because simply put, Americans are tired of the same ol business in Washington.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

gpsburns — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:14:29 GMT

It's obivous RDOMINGUEZ , like Bush and McSame is mentally challenged

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:17:08 GMT

Apostasy, the only "propagandists" here are the Obama people like yourself, trying to spread your message of "CHANGE" through the nation recruiting people into your hippie-cult. You've taken respectable people like Hillary and McCain and crapped on their good names. It's ok, because people see you in the news, and they see you on your blogs spreading the lies just to further Obama's cause. When they get in that voting booth, they will remember, and they will choose McCain. And honestly, I'd rather lie in-between Rush Limbaugh's sweaty crack than vote for Obama anyday. Yeah you heard me!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:20:54 GMT

so gps that's your brilliant argument? Come to Obama's side or you're mentally challenged?

Brilliant! Brilliant! (not)

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:21:22 GMT

I'd bet you would.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

gpsburns — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:23:56 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ would "rather lie in-between Rush Limbaugh's sweaty crack than vote for Obama anyday" and can't see he's mentally challenged?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:23:59 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

I am a Democrat...and I do HOPE for CHANGE.....whoa.......? eh? So what?

I think Republicans are sad; an angry tragedian...the worst America has to offer.

We have yet to endure the tactical and strategic blunder that the war in Iraq really is.

I know! Why don't we bomb other countries that have schools, water, power, and police for their people? We can quickly lower the population, while creating enemies for our industrial military complex?

How's that sound Republicans?

Bush Sees "Defining Moment" In Iraq? He saw WMD, Al Qaeda; mobile weapons labs, terrorist training facilities, missiles that could reach New York, 45-minute ready chemical weapons, none of which were there.

What he will see is his legacy and his Parties demise, but at least I got my $600 “economic stimulus” check from China!!

You wanna get some Republicans?....lets go.........other wise go sit in the corner with your talking point spewing fallacy of a constituency..... In most areas of the nation, outside the south, the Republican Party could hold a convention in a Phone Booth.

The great Rousseau said it:

"Conservatives have learned nothing and forgotten nothing"

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

bettyd643 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:26:02 GMT

Sorry Andy but from what I've been hearing from McCain makes me think the only difference between him and Bush is age. His stated policies couldn't be more destructive to this country. And yes, one man (the president namely Bush) can and did ruin the ecconomy through his outrageous spending in Iraq while giving huge tax breaks to people who don't even need them at the same time. He has put us so far in debt to the Chinese that we may never get out of it.

McCain voices the same policies that will produce the same results and please don't hand me that "Terrorist" nonsense. Frankly we are at much less risk from terrorists than we are from Bush/McCain's next bad decision. To beat all neither of them believe that our men and women in the military who have had their arms and legs blown off or have suffered through mutiple depoyments enduring immeasurable stress even deserve a college education. Then they have the laughable adacity to say "we support the troops".

Bush/McCain represents the very darkest side of this country and we cannot survive much more of them and the neocon trash they represent.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

StormAZ100 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:27:46 GMT

To HLT91179:

I'm pleased that you have such good health insurance provided is part by your employer. But while you're so happy with that, you still want to vote for McCain? Obviously you've not read his health care plan.

His plan calls for eliminating the tax break your employer gets for providing your insurance. If...big if... your employer continutes to provide that benefit, you will need to take that benefit as income. Now to offset that income increase and the additional tax that cost you, McCain proposes to give you up to a $2,500 tax credit, which will be sent directly to your insurance company. This is supposed to create competition and lower insurance costs. Should you have managed to find an insurance plan that costs less than the $2,500 (like that's going to happen), the remainder of your $2,500 will placed in a medical account for you.

This doesn't even look good on paper, much less what'll happen in reality.

Enjoy your health insurance while you have it, because if McCain wins and gets this pushed through congress, there will be far more than the 47million people in this country without health care insurance now.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

zeb3065 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:34:54 GMT

People Wake up Obama is a Muslim and does not have the experience to run this Country. We live in a different world today and need a stong leader with Military experience, not for more war but for the inevitable.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Politicaljunkie — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:38:31 GMT

The right wing pundits (Andrew Romano included) will do anything to give the appearance that McCain differs in many ways from Bush. The reality is that John McCain has been in lock step with Bush for the last 8 years - despite his comments to the contrary (see voting record). Torture, permanent tax cuts for the rich, "right-wing activist" judges, support for Iraq, limited diplomacy/not speaking with our enemies, no change from "No child left behind (oh vouchers again!) and continued support of big oil.

The "maverick" somehow has taken a detour (or 20) on his "straight talk express." BTW, Mavericks tend to buck the status quo, not go along with it. Flip flopping on immigration, drilling in ANWR, torture, tax cuts, supporting the war on Iraq etc. I also find it galling that McCain talks about campaign finance reform when he can't even follow the rules (he is still trying to skirt the public campaign finance route) and his pal W has moved at a snails pace to bring a quorum to the FEC.

Thank God for the internet or the Republican machines lies would continue to go unchecked. Lastly, the only change that will occur if McCain were elected (fortunately, we do not live in Bizarro world anymore - See Bush presidency) is we would have yet another conflict to contend with in Iran.

We need someone who has a genuine concern for all of the American people, not just the ones who can fly you around in private jets for tee times in the Carribbean or skiing in Aspen. We need someone who will look at "new ways" (new meaning not circa 1950 - see John McCain) of dealing with complex issues. If he can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunnis - we're done - again (See W)

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:39:16 GMT

No, actually Mc Cain is a Muslim.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:45:44 GMT

"McCain is the most polarizing woman in a public restroom."

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Politicaljunkie — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:46:31 GMT

Hey zeb3065,

Is that short for Zebediah or Zebra? Whatever. So Obama is a Muslim...Did Phil Graham send you to the blog to continue to perpetuate this nonsense? Do me a favor read a book, newspaper, blog , etc to get the facts and move on with your life.

Unless you are extremely wealthy, I have no idea why you would vote for McCain. Is voting against your own self-interest what you really want to do. The McCain health plan, education plan, economy will be mirror images of what we have now.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

RDOMINGUEZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:48:06 GMT

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE! HOPE! CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE!

I'm sorry apostasy, but your hope for change doesn't pay the bills. I don't know why I even bother with you, your cause is lost anyway, Obama will lose and McCain will win. It won't even be that difficult of a feat for McCain to beat Obama. So go ahead keep preaching. This isn't one of your rev. Wright black churches and America is not listening. We are all ready to end this CHANGE movement and send you packing to flipping burgers at McDonalds' or whatever you were doing before.

I'm out!

Later Apostasy! It's been fun.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Politicaljunkie — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:49:19 GMT

McCain is a "Christian Extremist." "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" - Did he actually say that??!!

What a scary guy.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

just jerry — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:49:27 GMT

Examples of Obamas old politics include the attempt to say McCain would be a third term for Bush, and the shameful ignoring of McCain's position on Veterans Benefits that confuses Obama when it is clear his point, though you may disgree, has merit and should be considered instead of being dismissed as not supporting our veterans, and the Iraq 100 years situation. Three simple examples - for others just read the Obama camps messages on any blog, and they are full of old, angry, and hateful politics toward anything Clinton. These aren't examples of new politics that bring us together are they?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

harschwarz — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:06 GMT

Romano isn't saying that Mccain's policies aren't 90% like Bush's policies. He's saying that even if they are, he'll never get his wants through congress because of the large Democratic majority expected.He'll have to comprimise anyway. However,in the public's mind McCain is being glued to Bush every day. So the reality doesn't really matter. It's all perception. That hug he gave Bush,memorialized forever in a photo, says more than all of Mccain's denials.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:50:33 GMT

McBush enough said !!!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

News and Notes — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:53:11 GMT

As an objective observer who hasn't decided who to vote for, I thought the article was informative. McCain has veered right, whether that is part of a hidden agenda or not is unknown. Whether that is the real McCain or the maverick is hard to say. Generally, Romano is pretty objective. Whether one agrees with his assessment or not is another matter.

What surprises me is the anger such a benign article provokes on both sides. At first I thought Obama supporters were only arrogant, insulting, and hostile towards Hillary supporters.

While some of the McCain supporters seem hostile as well, that is not surprising. The divisive rhetoric of many Obama supporters is perplexing.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

HDavidson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:53:43 GMT

No McCain is not Muslim, he in neo-nazi and neo-bush, get it right.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Interested American — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:54:03 GMT

Obama supporters are starting to soudn remarkably like Dean supporters... Everything their candidate does is good and defensible, and everything anyone else does should be belittled, ignored or otherwise marginalized. I like Obama, and am giving serious thought to voting for him... but his supporters and their vitriol really make me question where I want to be associated with that group of people.

My Democratic party has proven itself to be sexist, ageist, rascist and hateful throughout this primary season. I might not like the Republican party, but they managed not trample on their own alleged ideals in the process of nominating a candidate.

Obama needs to get his supporters to tone down the shrill anger, while he starts to substantively lay out his plans for the future. And if he wants to get elected, those plans need to include something more than I am going to raise taxes on those people or companys that I deem to have too much money. Come-on DNC! We're smarter than this!

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:55:14 GMT

RDOMINGUEZ

Awe....you are a measure of grace......

I don't get your predictions and generalities.........but I do I love you too!!

You need a hug and so God bless you.

God bless America. This phrase is used correctly when it conjures an image of God helping people cope with the great losses they have incurred, when it pulls members of the nation together to help and serve one another, and when it asks for the healing of our brokenness that only God can offer.

This phrase is used incorrectly when it implies that God should bless our nation at the expense of others, that the United States should enjoy special privilege in the sight of God, or that the lives of Americans are inherently more valuable than the lives of any other people in the world.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:55:51 GMT

If bush stoped quick McBush's noise would go up his ass (sorry, newsweek)

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Interested American — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:56:42 GMT

"Posted By: sparky716 (June 17, 2008 at 5:50 PM)

McBush enough said !!!"

Typical, cute little stupid slogan but no substance. Address the issues or just sit down. Remember, Obama is supposed to be for change... so why don't you change from being hostile and arrogant to responsible American citizen?

I'll just sit here an hold my breath while you decide whether or not to grow up.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:59:12 GMT

Interested American needs to be a better informed American.

Here's a recent comparison of the tax policies of the candidates:

Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please ’Fess Up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13check.html

“the vast majority of the population, almost the entirety of the middle class, would see more from Obama than McCain.”

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Politicaljunkie — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:00:19 GMT

RDominguez, you are apparently another victim of W's failed "No Child Left Behind" program.

Unless McCain and Bush plan on rigging the election - again - it is highly unlikely that the Maverick will be in the White House anytime soon. Take a look at the numbers pal. Hey, you can actually use the internet to get factual information!

Change good! Status quo, same policies bad! I thought I would frame this in language you could understand. In all seriousness, do your homework and check the facts. Obama is pulling in major numbers avross the board, women, new voters under 30, blacks, hispanics, liberals, independents and some Republicans. While McCain has neocons, a smattering of moderate Republicans and evenagelicals and a whole a lot of racists, You're not racist are you Dominguez?

BTW, somehow I get the impression that it's you, not Apostasy, that has the job flipping burgers at McDonald's. Something about the way that you express yourself leads me to this conclusion.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ronpri@microsoft.com — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:08:14 GMT

Hold on a second... so the argument here is that, even though mccain has shifted his positions to be more inline with Bush's, he can't be Bush III....

because the darn Democrats in Congress won't let him?

Fact is, John McCain 2000 opposed right wing religious politics as divisive. He was right. Now, like Bush, he courts them.

The old John McCain said the tax cuts were budget busters favoring the rich. He was right. But now he wants to keep them.

And since he endorses Bush's war, why would he be anymore accomodating than Bush has been with the Democratic Congress.

Oh, McCain 2008 may not govern exactly like Bush. But he seems intent on governing more like Bush than John McCain.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:08:28 GMT

If your happy with $4.00 gas the world hating America high food prices and no jobs go ahead and vote for Mc Bush if not hold your breath like interested american but he or she has been holding theres so long they have very few brain cells left.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Interested American — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:10:06 GMT

Apostasy, what exactly does that have to do with my point? Nothing. Once again, a juvenile and petukant reaction to whatever you don't like.

Fine, the NYT doesn't like McCain's plan... should I be shocked by this?

Obama wants to raise taxes but has created this donut hole so he won't lose too many votes. Couple this with the means-test his has been discussing and we have a great situation where we punish the most productive Americans and redistribute their money. It plays into every well-known anti-Democrat meme. Rather than just be snotty and ape the party line... why don't you employ your brain and try to help out party win??

Contrary to what you might deparately want to believe, Bush didn't steal the last two elections... We, the Democratic party, LOST the last two elections. If we keep ignoring reality (like Apostasy here by only listening to things that we like and agree with) we're going to lose a third.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:10:53 GMT

"Hey, you can actually use the internet to get factual information!"

HEY....shhhhhhh!! Don't tell them that!

You’re going to ruin their entire psy-ops "operation"!!

Where are you Newt when we need you!!?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Politicaljunkie — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:11:33 GMT

To News and Notes,

I find it interesting that you have taken the name of one of the programs from NPR as your web name. I found your comments interesting regarding the tone of the Obama bloggers. It was reminiscent of something William F. Buckley might say. I also do not believe that you have not taken any side - it sounds good, but it is clearly not a genuine statement.

The reason there is so much passion on both sides is because of what is at stake. We simply cannot afford another Republican in office. While McCain will not keep all of Bush's failed policies in play, the fact that he differs from "W" on 3 or 4 issues should give everyone (people in the US and outside the US) pause!!!

BTW, the comments coming from Obama supporters are factual not rhetoric. Refer to the obvious GOP bloggers on the page if you want to see rhetoric ....

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Interested American — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:11:41 GMT

Lieberman is right. I didn't leave the democratic party, the party left me.

Reading this stuff is just sad.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

xanabella — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:12:53 GMT

If your point is that John McCain is not George Bush, yea we get that, he's a separate person, but that distinction is getting harder and harder to recognize. John McCain is such a shadow of his former self he probably doesn't recognize his own face in the mirror, it's a shame too, because he was a lot more palatable when he wasn't pandering and aligning himself with the failed policies of GWB, I'm sorry Andrew, if you were trying to be subtle and make this article not seem like pro-McCain propaganda, you didn't do a very good job.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

LuLuBelle — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:16:30 GMT

Obama and his camp are big liars and distort the truth to suit themselves.

For the first time in my life I will be voting for a Republican since the Democratic candidate is probably the worst crook since Nixon (maybe worse thant Nixon).

The more I see them call John McCain names the more determined they make me to vote for him. I see where a lot of people feel like I do.

We are sick of the ugly side of the Obama camp. Everybody is called names if they are not voting for Obama and we have had our fill.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:19:22 GMT

Interested American

You sound bitter.

Maybe you could use a deep breath.......because I don't know where you get this:

"Couple this with the means-test his has been discussing and we have a great situation where we punish the most productive Americans and redistribute their money."

"productive Americans"........eh? is that what Obama is saying? That he wants to only tax (punish)the "productive Americans"?

Come on now.......if you keep pressing these obfuscations what’s the point of even having a discussion? It's pretty clear where I stand if you just go back though my comments.

Where do you stand?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

boarding85 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:20:58 GMT

FROM YOUR BIO: Romano graduated summa *** laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University in 2004 with an A.B. in English and a certificate in American Studies. A native of Medford, N.J., he lives in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Dude, you went to an ivy league school and graduated Summa *** Laude. You SHOULD be smarter than that. I bet your a republican? Go vote for McCain, but don't get mad when your grandkids blame you 50 years from now, when china is the most powerful country and you have no control over your choices in life. Republicans want less government only when it affects them, but not when it makes us safer and securer...

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ejohnson1234 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:46 GMT

I'm a long time Dem and I'm voting for McCain - primarily for the reasons in this article. While I absolutely hate the far right, my dislike for the far left isn't too far behind. Obama to me represents the far left as much as Bush represents the far right. Furthermore, I just do not believe that Obama has the experience to be President. His outlook on the world boarders on foolish and careless.

McCain represents a middle ground to me that position our country for the future.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

popmanifesto — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:27:50 GMT

Posted By: Interested American (June 17, 2008 at 6:11 PM)

Lieberman is right. I didn't leave the democratic party, the party left me.

Reading this stuff is just sad.

________________________________________

Are you seriously trying to convince someone that you used to be a Democrat? Puh-leeze. One look at your post where you're spilling tears for the poor, oppressed rich people and there's no way you can pull that off, pal. I hate to burst your bubble, but here's your wake up call - YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE RICH! YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THEM AND YOU NEVER WILL BE! You crazy Republicans who bow down and worship the rich while you eat cake, and who think this country should be handed over to wealthy people and huge corporations... you're just too much. Do you know what country you live in and what it stands for? I don't think you do.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:28:35 GMT

If interested American is a Democrat then I'm Jesus.....if we had bush or Mcbush durning WW2 we would still be fighting it....if the Democrats we running the yellow dog he would be a better choice than Mcbush and have more brains also....American will not vote for hate and fear this time....it wont gas up your car or put beans on the table...

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:33:39 GMT

If bush had the experience to be president he sure did not use it....don't you just love the "long time Dem." that say there voting for McBush...they have probably never voted democrat in there life......

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:33:44 GMT

popmanifesto

"Are you seriously trying to convince someone that you used to be a Democrat?"

That's what I'm saying!! What are these fake postys?

Airport bathroom toe tapping Republican Propagandist tools????

Hmmmm.......I'm gonna have to say...yes...

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

harschwarz — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:36:51 GMT

If you believe in supply side economics(the "trickle down" theory)and in giving Exxon/Mobil tax breaks, and that healthcare in this country is NOT a problem, and that losing 4000 soldiers in Iraq, 350,000 to head trauma, and psychiatric problems is fine because we are fighting for Iraqi freedom and fighting terrorism, and that $5 for a gallon of gas is acceptable, and shipping domestic jobs overseas is a great idea, and watching our kids become third rate in education doesn't bother you, than vote for the man who will continue all of these processes...John McCain.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:38:22 GMT

sparky716

"American will not vote for hate and fear this time".........I hope you are right.......

"It is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Wilhelm Göring

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

june_bug_777 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:50:05 GMT

just a little response for jackieoh:

do you think all people voting for obama are pro-aborts like yourself? think again. you do not represent the true democratic party for me. many dems now think that democracy equals liberal. that's not how it all started. democracy is for the people, of the people. that means EVERYONE is (or should be) welcome-even little unborn democrats, not just animals and the environment, which should be protected, too.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:55:36 GMT

"that means EVERYONE is (or should be) welcome-even little unborn democrats,"

june_bug_777

I'm a Democrat that thinks philosophical grounds are NOT enough to remove the right of a mother to make her own choice.....

and furthermore.....

I don't think that Republicans are willing as voters, to support the social systems necessary to avoid abortions within society; i.e. education, healthcare, poverty...etc.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

popmanifesto — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:00:54 GMT

Posted By: ApostasyUSA (June 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM)

Interested American

You sound bitter.

Maybe you could use a deep breath.......because I don't know where you get this:

"Couple this with the means-test his has been discussing and we have a great situation where we punish the most productive Americans and redistribute their money."

"productive Americans"........eh? is that what Obama is saying? That he wants to only tax (punish)the "productive Americans"?

________________________________________________________

Apostasy: You obviously don't have the latest Republican to English dictionary. "Most productive Americans" is Republican code for rich people. "Punishing the most productive Americans" mean making rich people pay their fair share to the country that made them wealthy. Republicans are against this. "Redistribute their money" is Rebublican code for giving back to the country that made them wealthy for the benefit of the working people on whose backs they made their fortunes. Republicans are also against that.

Aren't all these brainwashed dittoheads fun to watch? Don't you love it when some average, working-class American gets outraged when Democrats want to increase taxes for billionaires while his tax dollars get squandered by corporate welfare, Bush's war, and sweetheart giveaways to Cheney's friends at Halliburton? Ya gotta love 'em.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ApostasyUSA — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:08:23 GMT

popmanifesto

Ohhh....I see....It's neo-con speak....

"Support our troops" .....Send them to die in a needless war.

"Family Values"...... Second and third trophy wives and for the more adventurous ones, restroom toe tapping.

"Fiscal conservatism"..... Borrow and Spend and Print more money and Spend!

"Toe tapper speak"

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

harschwarz — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:32 GMT

to ejohnson1234: John McCain doesn't represent any kind of middle ground. Especially in Foreign affairs. McCain has been WRONG on every single decision on Iraq. Now he wants us to take more advice from him; a man who thought the war would be over in months, and there was WMD,because he paid little or no attention to Tenet's intelligence. He wants us to stay for 100 yrs, wasting lives and money. Obama voted against going to Iraq,instead saying even back in 2003 that we should concentrate our efforts in Pakistan to capture Al-Queda and the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Does that sound like someone who doesn't understand foreign policy? Does that sound far "left" to you? Is it far left to suggest that Exxon, Chevron and other multi-billion dollar corporations do not receive tax breaks? Is it far left to suggest that the majority of tax rebates go to the middle class earning under $250K? I have no idea what you mean by "far left". Labels are totally useless.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:08:52 GMT

Yeah, Mc Cain is the president of the retired Navy Pilot Muslin Association, just about as much as Obama is a Muslim. This is sort of a "your mama, too" thing. If you say that Obama is a Muslim, then I say that Mc Cain is a Muslim. Both statements are kind of stupid, but it only seems fair to enter into counter-stupidity if that is what the traffic is here. Otherwise, you can't blog at the current level. Beats watching TV.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:17:52 GMT

Probably the hardest job in the nation today is being a republican candidate for president following two Bush administrations. You can't afford to adopt anything that Bush did and share his 28% approval rating. Who wants to get beat 72 to 28 in any game? Then, if you want to cherry pick the war out of the Bush fabric and try to keep it going for another 100 years, you can maybe get beat 92 to 8. Then, if your opponent outspends you two to one, you can't keep your suit from turning green in your opponent's money storm. Add to that being too old to work the brutal schedule that it would take to clean up the Bush mess before you even get started on your own policies, probably well after the usual 100 day honeymoon, and having to go to bed in that honeymoon with an angry democratic congressional bride whose passion is not the one that you envisioned before the marriage. Gosh.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:00:34 GMT

We can thank God bush wasn't king in 1962 and got bad intel from the CIA FBI and every one he blames for his decision to invade Iraq or there might not be a world to live in today....JFK (got the same bad advise) but did the right thing and the world survived he like President Truman believed the buck stoped on the Presidents desk...King Bush blames every one else but his right wing nuts, you would have thought we would have learned from Vietnam you can't fight a civil war and win...how long were we there? is Vietnam a united country now? are they fighting each other? When we leave Iraq this year or in a 100 years like some wont then they will go back to like they were before we invaded them...oh yes how many days has it been since we see the king land on a air craft carrier a say " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" ?

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

raddave — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:06:24 GMT

It is funny in earlier articles, Andrew Romano is accused of being an ultra liberal and an Obama supporter, now he is accuesed of being a neocon and a McCain supporter. So he must be pretty objective.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

raddave — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:09:25 GMT

McCain is a muslim???

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:25:24 GMT

Raddave, that is for all of those who say that Obama is a Muslim. Equal credibility. Fair is fair.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:26:21 GMT

Even foolishness needs a modicum of balance.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

vakosh — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:29:47 GMT

Barack Obama is actually Bush III. Another deer in the headlights.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

J.Richter — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:40:29 GMT

I am BOYCOTTING Newsweek for a while until Rpmano goes back to practicing accurate journalism. This article cherry picks differences with Bush and plays down the similarities which are the more major ones.

- What about the recent rehatched Bush proposal of privatising social security

- What about appoach to foreign intervention, Iraq and Iran and the war costing $2billion a week

- What about constitutional abuses - - wiretapping, anditution and its current abuses - wiretapping, and the recent Supreme court ruling.

- What about voting against Katrina investigations twice (while holding a private celebration while Louisiana suffered).

- The recent flipflop on drilling off our coasts.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

raddave — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:57:05 GMT

I got the joke Older. It would be real funny if the white guy did turn out to be a muslim after all though

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

mict1111 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:01:48 GMT

Even Republicans get to publish articles. It's okay.

But, it's interesting that Andrew Romano feels it necessary to distance McCain from Bush. Thereby suggesting that Bush is indeed a complete screw up and if McCain were anything like the last eight years of mounting debt, death and lies (even Bush admits his 'exaggerations' now) then this country should never allow him to be President.

But, that's up to McCain and so far he believes Cheney is worth rehiring for the good of the country, and has agreed to continue most of what Bush has set forth. Not a good start Andrew.

It's okay to be a Republican, but do you truly believe that McCain is the best choice for this country that has been in so much pain. Or are you just siding with the only choice your party has?

That's a ? for all Repbulicans. VOTE YOUR HEART. Not your party.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

coolrepublica — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:02:25 GMT

This is by far the fairest article I have read in Newsweek this election season. I was reading it and yet I was shocked that the bosses at Newsweek allowed this to be printed. I have this opinion that Newsweek is becoming an Obama propaganda wing. I was glad to see that there is still hope. Now if only they would stop putting Obama and every other cover with a halo around his head it would be wonderful. But I will take this blog as a step in the right direction. The middle.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

hellbreaksloose — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:50:37 GMT

McCain will be in a position of little power, especially to be a agent for the far right. other issues will far outweigh social issues. it would be like a reverse Clinton. And there are mid-terms to worry about. With this said McCain chances are remote unless a weirdo event happens

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

Ofi14 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:58:18 GMT

Some good points. But the central argument -- that McCain would face significant Democratic majorities in Congress -- seems problematic. The author is essentially suggesting an argument for electing McCain based on the outcome of the very same election.

Also McCain's choice, "a) bend or b) get nothing done" seems to leave plenty of room for Bush-like behavior. Since Congressional Democratics took control in 2006, b) get nothing done is exactly the route Bush has chosen.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sparky716 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:19:03 GMT

When people are really hurting.....and they are now....there not looking at a person's race they arelooking for Hope and Change...joe 6 pack can't afford another 4 years of McBush

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

HappyDay41 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:59:48 GMT

McCain's chances improved drastically with the appointment of BHO to the (un)democratic party ticket.

Already the party is having trouble raising money, the host committee in Denver is having trouble meeting its financial obligations, the legions of Clinton Democrats are NOT flocking to the Kool-Aid stand, Hispanic congressional Committees are NOT fallling in line behind Dean's shiny boy, and many Clinton Democrats are still p*ssed about how disrespectful this two-year, two-bit JUNIOR senator treated Hillary and Bill--the only Democrat elected to a second term since FDR.

What was BHO thinking? He could diss the ex-prez, align himself to Reagan (economics) and Bush 1 (foreign policy) and become endeared to loyal Dems? We have left the party, because of the stench of BO

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

olderwiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:00:29 GMT

Yeah, Mc Cain is a lot different than Bush. Lot older. Hair's whiter. Served as active military while Bush served in reserve. That's sort of how Bush served as president. In reserve. Cheney, Rumsfield, and a host of others did the active stuff while Bush waited in reserve. Screwed it all up and then blamed it on Bush.

But, other than hair, military service and age, he can't divorce the republican mantra very much to differ from Bush a lot. Except that the congress might have something to say about that. He's not going to win anyway, so what's the difference.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

magicktrick — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:40:56 GMT

"Posted By: raddave (June 17, 2008 at 5:00 PM)

magicktrick, The deficit only increases when a republican is the President. Under Clinton, there was a budget surplus. "

And Clinton got my vote. However, Obama wants to spend billions on new programs with no plan on paying off the deficit. Sadly, McCain also has no plan to address this, but at least he's not going to be adding as much to the deficit. Look at their tax plans, or lack thereof.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

MariaIsabella — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:46:38 GMT

You're right, he isn't Bush, he is much worse. One of McCain's biggest attacks on Obama is that he is inexperienced because he would meet with those we consider terrorists, or our enemies. I suppose he doesn't follow what's going on in the Middle East. Israel just met with Hamas, and they agreed to a truce. They also are meeting with Syria, and want to have talks with Lebanon. Iraq is now meeting with their biggest enemy, Iran, and sitting down having talks. You would think the one thing McCain would of learned from the Bush mistakes is lack of diplomacy doesn't work. Oh well, as the saying goes, you can't teach OLD dogs new tricks.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

raddave — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:38:02 GMT

The only issue that was truely different between Obama and Clinton was on health care and his is a little more conservative than hers because he doesn't want to make it mandatory for adults to get insurance. So either Clinton's ideas were just as bad as Obama's or both of them make sense. If McCain has his way by continuing to pour money into Iraq and possibly a war with Iran, the deficit will still increase.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

SPORTLOCK09 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:02:07 GMT

God bless all the Obama bots. Look how they still try to convince themselves and others that Obama has a chance against McCain. Funny how the media is starting to leave you all high and dry on the Obama tip. See you bitter people after the McCain azz whoopin Obama is about to receive. Looks like your going to have to accept responcibility for your actions and choices you make after all. Go change your screen names AGAIn and hop on the band wagon. You Dems have been flip flopping for so long I wouldn't think anyone will notice.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

ozarkajuice — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:10:27 GMT

question for mccain followers. Does israel harbor terriost now, since they agree to truce with Hamas?.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

MFPrice — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:27:13 GMT

Following the twisted logic above, why not elect Adoph Hitler to another term (if he hadn't offed himself)? After all, what he did in the past is certainly not what he might do in the future right? And he did reform himself in the last few weeks of the war. NOT! Nor McSame.

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

sjpersonal — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:34:58 GMT

Letter to Hillary: Remember When John McCain Slimed Your Daughter?

Dear Hillary,

Reasons abound why you should do all you can to defeat John McCain--but for you, it should be personal. Maybe you've forgotten in the heat of the Democratic contest. But remember McCain's cruel joke about your daughter, when Chelsea was 18 and vulnerable. This alone should give you every reason to stand against McCain--and nothing to boost his chances.

Link to article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/letter-to-hillary-remembe_b_97004.html

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

HDavidson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:53 GMT

And yet in light of evry attempt by McCain to distance himself from Bush there is this...

Yesterday McCain gave a speach on Offfsore Drilling, in strak contrast to his "McGreen" add being released, and today, BUSH give a speach on Offshore Drilling, what a gap there is between them ;)

re: Why McCain Wouldn't Be Bush III (Sorry, Barack)

HDavidson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:31:16 GMT

This was a fun one:

Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/19/2008 15:35:41

Comment: FEAR FEAR FEAR....is that all Obama has now, since people can see past his smoke screen on "Change," "Hope," and "New Politics."

Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/19/2008 17:02:25

Comment: Hey you just satrted the McCain general election chant, keep going, it' goes like this:

"Fear, Fear, Fear, the Brown Boogeymen are here,

Now Ilay me down to sleep, McCain has said my

safety he'll keep.

When I'm 18 it's off to his war,

see my mom and dad no more

OIL is what we are fighting for,

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!