I was wondering when someone would get it that running against Bush and tying McCain to him isn’t such a good strategy when the nation is tired of the partisan bickering. Obama was supposed to be post-partisan but now he just sounds like any other lefty partisan with their Bush hating rhetoric. Trippi offers some words of advice on how to turn the campaign around:
But now it’s the Obama campaign’s turn to learn the lesson of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign looks at all its polling data and research and in a race between change and four more years of George Bush, change wins big. So it keeps trying to frame the race as four more years of George Bush and more of the same vs. change and cannot understand why it isn’t pulling away.
It’s not just Palin.
The brilliance of the McCain strategy and messaging is that it includes a trap for Obama. To push back on the McCain claim of “country first” and “the original mavericks who will shake up Washington,” the Obama campaign’s attack of “four more years of George Bush” becomes a problem. In a country that yearns for post-partisan change the Obama campaign risks sounding too partisan and like more of the same.
It would not surprise me if in one of the debates Obama or Biden uses the “you voted with George Bush and supported him 93% of the time,” and it’s John McCain that retorts “that’s the kind of partisan attack the American people are sick of….”.
Actually McCain should say at that point, “You voted with Reid and the rest of the Democrats 97% of the time, that doesn’t sound very post-partisan.”
I think Obama would have a problem dropping the whole McSame schtick because the left want this election to be a referendum on Bush. They want to finally beat him at the polls. Wouldn’t it be funny if he won yet again 
posted September 15, 2008 at 9:08 am
Wow, somebody that still glorifies Bush.
posted September 15, 2008 at 10:05 am
Actually it really depends on who you are campaigning to. McSame works really well on the internet, with younger voters(not really sure why 25-35 is young though), and anywhere hurt by Bush policies. Its not effective among the GOP faithful, or seemingly the majority of over 35 voters that are not affiliated with a party.
If it wasn’t effective I think McCain would be embracing it, rather than kicking the true believers out that say McCain == Bush.
posted September 15, 2008 at 11:56 am
When you are nearly 60, 25-35 is young, very young.
posted September 15, 2008 at 1:45 pm
McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time in the last eight years. He can’t escape that record. He offers NO significant departure from Bush’s policies on any front, except that he will cut taxes even more for corporations and the wealthiest 3-4 percent of the country.
People should check out his lies and inaccuracies at http://www.factcheck.org, a neutral site with a sterling reputation. May as well bookmark it; you’ll need to check every day from here on out, because this Rove-driven campaign of his is filling the airwaves with a blizzard of deceptive ads and outright lies. He is following right along in the worst Bush tradition of all: lying and dividing Americans against one another in order to gain and maintain power. He’s sold his soul.
NO MORE YEARS! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
posted September 15, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The economy is fundamentally strong. The economy is fundamentally strong.The economy is fundamentally strong.The economy is fundamentally strong. The economy is fundamentally strong.the economy is fundamentally strong.The economy is fundamentally strong.
Just remember: The economy is fundamentally strong.
posted September 15, 2008 at 6:08 pm
You know, you’re right. McCain isn’t the same as Bush. He’s WORSE.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1786848892
posted September 16, 2008 at 1:17 am
mcsame: “the economy is very strong. by the way, did i mention that i’m a p.o.w.?”
here’s the fault in your logic, michele – democrats are trying to move the country in the direction they want to go: away from the bush/republican path. what republicans don’t stall in congress, bush vetoes. why in the world would we expect obama to vote against his party in favor of bush? that’s the stupidest, lamest, MOST ILLOGICAL argument you could make. mcsame has already tried to make that argument for you, but then my dog could beat him at checkers. way to stay on the party talking points there, michele.
posted September 16, 2008 at 7:23 am
Here’s the thing…
Conservatives don’t like the liberal position on issues. So you’re complaining about McCain voting the conservative party line isn’t a problem for us.
You all say that he votes with “Bush”. No…he votes with Republicans. The Republican position is why Republicans are Republicans.
Bush is not a popular president even among Republicans. I want him gone. And as much as you all want to pain McCain has Bush #3, McCain has a better record of reaching across the aisle in bipartisanship that does Obama (according to who the co-sponsors of his bills are, according to the Washington Times).
Voting “with Bush” doesn’t mean much…Bush doesn’t vote in congress, nor does Bush sponsor bills in congress.
Both McCain and Obama have a record of voting with their party positions. That is why they are in the party that they are in. Obama votes his party line more so than McCain does. That party line is not a problem for your side (even when it includes infanticide). But the Republican party line is supposed to be a problem for Republicans?
posted September 16, 2008 at 10:33 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
posted September 16, 2008 at 10:51 am
Actually, there is, and is intended to be, MzEllen, not only partisan competition, but also some tension between the branches of government.
In other words, just because Bush is a Republican doesn’t mean that everything Bush supports, the Republicans in congress will support. As you noted yourself, Bush is not popular, even AMONG Republicans. So, conflating ‘with Bush’ with.. ‘with Republicans’ means that all Bush positions (including the ones that made him unpopular) are the Republican position.
Is that a case you really want to be making?
For the most part, true, the Republicans in congress have pretty much rolled over and played dead for just about everything Bush has asked, but.. not 90 percent of the time. Every once in a while, the congressmen remembered something about ‘checks and balances’ where being of a different branch of government, and representing not only your party, but your particular constituency, and even simply having a different interpretation of Republican platform and ‘conservative’, and voted and even began legislation that Bush did NOT want.
So, if you can find me a case (and they exist, more than one of Bush’s vetoes was overturned, and that requires quite a few Republicans voting against the desire of the President), where McCain voted with congressional Republicans, but contrary to the desires of Bush, that would be appreciated.
As for bipartisan bills.. Of course McCain currently has more. McCain has been in the Senate longer. But, considering the short time Obama has been a Federal level Senator, he actually has a few of those as well. I think we can say that, depending on the subject, BOTH senators are equally able to work with the other party.
Indeed, you have to look at his years in the State Senate as well (people often forget about that part), and in his 8 years there, some of his most influential work involved working with the majority State Republicans. He HAD to learn how to work with the other party, since his was the minority, or he wouldn’t be able to get anything done.
The same as McCain during the years the Democrats were the majority in congress prior to Bush.
posted September 16, 2008 at 11:19 am
But, of course, if you want to rebut that Bush positions and Republican party positions are identical, which IS, after all, the whole point of ‘McSame’, then please, please.. do so, as often, as loudly, and as publicly as possible. *grin*