Politics | September 22, 2008 | 22 comments

Is McCain really McSame?

source: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html

Image
iloveravi

Q: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?

The Obama campaign keeps claiming McCain has voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Is this true? Is this significant?

A: Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.

Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:

Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.

Is 95% "Significant"?

As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.

When doing so, they may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.

The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time....

More at link.
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Culture
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Culture,  Obama,  Bush,  6 more
  3.     
    |

22 comments // Is McCain really McSame?

  • Brockie
  • bansheewail
    • 0
      bansheewail  

    • Nobamajon is a troll. Don't feed the troll and he will go away, just like any other vermin.

      If you can come to this site and remain uninformed, it's by choice. Willful ignorance is no longer a viable excuse for the disinformation of partisan politics. Thanks Current.

      Nobamajon, read more, type less.

    • 3 years ago
  • isnamthere
    • 0
      isnamthere  

    • nobamajon: please call for the nurse, you are badly in need of your meds. Calm down, son, don't fight the restraints, you will only hurt yourself.

    • 3 years ago
  • Katanajon
    • Katanajon  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • alicynx
    • 0
      alicynx  
    • Katanajon:

      Did McCain go against the party line when he decided it was okay to torture Guantanamo prisoners? Did he part with Republican ideologies when he insisted the economy was fine just months ago? Has he split with his party when he votes with them NINETY PERCENT of the time??
      McCain will say whatever you want to hear in order to get into office. Seriously. He was all for the "swiftboating" of John Kerry and the challenge to his Purple Heart, but he'll be damned if he lets anyone challenge his POW time as proof he can lead. He came out with a woman who seriously is an insult to the intelligence of every woman in this country (and if they aren't insulted, they haven't watched Palin speak) and insists that the lies are the truth. Unfortunately he's got you hook, line and sinker.
      I would have no gripe with you if you stated McCain's actual policies and agreed with them; instead you spout bullshit about Nancy Pelosi - who has nothing to do with the Presidential debates, honestly - and go off on tangents about peripheral players instead of sticking to the topic at hand - the future of the White House.

    • 3 years ago
  • trut
  • dissimulator
  • trut
  • iloveravi
    • 0
      iloveravi  

    • I still don't understand the Maverick approach the McSame campaign is taking. It seems so paper thin and yet people latch onto it.

      I'm not a fan of either of these guys but the lesser of the two evils is fairly clear.

      Nader simply doesn't get the media attention that is required.

      The Media has really let down americans over the last 10 years. Calling yourself journalist these days is a humiliating prospect.

      Is Nader even in the friday debate?

    • 3 years ago
  • PoisonTheMonkey
  • intelligenceisacurse
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • intelligenceisacurse:

      Well, i would like Nader to win, but it's not likely.

      I'm not holding my breath.

      In fact, seeing as were the Army now has a unit to be used against civilians, I am thinking about heading to Canada.

      Montreal is a wonderful city, and I have friends living there already.

      Viva Quebec!

    • 3 years ago
  • cantucwearebrothers
  • kodada
  • dissimulator
  • asherp
  • RudyRudell
  • asherp
  • kodada
    • 0
      kodada  
    • asherp:

      "I'm voting Nader, and I don't care who wins."

      Sorry dude, but this is a cop out statement. Vote for Nader, that's fine. But to say you don't care is bogus. Why vote at all if that's the case?

      You clearly do care. Maybe you don't care for or appreciate your voting options. I dig it. But you obviously care and maybe because it's worth caring about. Why make a point of trying to convince yourself otherwise? That's bullshit.

    • 3 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • asherp:

      No it's not a copout statement.

      Neither of them are talking about any of the important issues that can save this country--

      * Cutting Pentagon spending
      * Eliminating the Federal Reserve
      * Reshaping our foriegn policy from being a first-strike nation to a trade-based foreign policy
      * Pulling out of NAFTA and the WTO
      * Implementing a real non-profit public health care system (HR 676)
      * Holding the Bush administration accountable for war crimes
      * Reinstating Habeas Corpus.
      * Eliminating the use of private mercenaries in combat
      * Ending all torture programs
      * Joining the International Criminal Court
      * Closing tax loopholes so that large corporations pay taxes
      * Opening the debates

      They don't address a single one of these issues.

      So it doesn't matter who wins the presidency unless it's Nader, McKinney, or Chuck Baldwin.

      It's not likely that they will win, so given the choice of McCain vs Obama-- I don't care.

      I vote because it's my duty. I vote because I want my will put down in the public record. I vote my conscience because it's the least I can do.

    • 3 years ago
  • kodada
    • 0
      kodada  
    • asherp:

      "No it's not a copout statement.

      Neither of them are talking about any of the important issues that can save this country--

      * Cutting Pentagon spending
      * Eliminating the Federal Reserve
      * Reshaping our foriegn policy from being a first-strike nation to a trade-based foreign policy
      * Pulling out of NAFTA and the WTO
      * Implementing a real non-profit public health care system (HR 676)
      * Holding the Bush administration accountable for war crimes
      * Reinstating Habeas Corpus.
      * Eliminating the use of private mercenaries in combat
      * Ending all torture programs
      * Joining the International Criminal Court
      * Closing tax loopholes so that large corporations pay taxes
      * Opening the debates

      They don't address a single one of these issues.

      So it doesn't matter who wins the presidency unless it's Nader, McKinney, or Chuck Baldwin.

      It's not likely that they will win, so given the choice of McCain vs Obama-- I don't care."

      Asherp:

      Still copping out.

      While your list of issues may be significant, it is incomplete, and if everyone here on current, not to mention everyone in the entire voting population, were to add to it it would be never ending without repeat.
      In fact, Obama has addressed a few of the issues on your list but maybe in not caring you have turned a deaf ear.

      The point is no candidate has or ever will satisfy every single need. What you feel are the most important issues will not ring true for everyone.

      Another fact: McCain or Obama will be our next president.

      Yes, you have the option of choosing Nader, but even if he were to win, your list of important issues needing to be addressed would still certainly be unsatisfied.

      This is the fifth presidential election I have been eligible to vote for and I can honestly say that not once has any candidate been ideal. Never once has it occurred to me that any candidate would fix all that ails this country. Even if there were a third or fourth choice, this is an impossibility for anyone, including Nader. Does it mean that I should not care about the outcome because the choices are not ideal? Does it mean that the issues that concern me, my family, my community, and by and large, the world, are less important?

      Does it mean that I throw my vote in the gutter in defiance of not having my ideal choice? You have the option and right to do this, and I'm not saying that Nader is a gutter candidate so much as I'm saying that to vote for him in THIS election is somewhat pointless because you know he will not win. If this is your means of making a 'statement', by all means, do so, but what statement are you trying to make?

      Choosing from the so called 'lesser of two evils' may seem repugnant to your sensibilities, but it is what we are dealing with. The 'Nader factor' is not new and in voting for him, your list of issues will still be left somewhat unaddressed.

      "I vote because it's my duty. I vote because I want my will put down in the public record. I vote my conscience because it's the least I can do."

      This is a statement I can get with as it speaks of character. If in voting for Nader, you are voting your conscience, I can respect that. But in fact, it indicates that you do care.

    • 3 years ago
  • starr111
    • 0
      starr111  

    • No! I feel that he is much much worse.... in my opinion he is on the wrong side of every good thing republicans have done....

      He is ready to go to war in prolly 10 nations and keep our soldiers in Iraq. Yet, he wants the borders WIDE OPEN???

      One of the biggest fears is a bomb coming up through Mexico, they even made a movie about it. (see Southland Tales, by the same guy who wrote Donnie Darko)

      So in conclusion quickly here. McCain is not Bush! He is worse for our country now. Maybe he'd have been better in office pre 9/11? I don't know, but our safety is at risk with McCain in office!!

    • 3 years ago
more from Politics:
from the community

top videos