There are a lot of fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal people out there. He just kind of strikes me as an opportunist. (Ignoring the fact that 9/11 happened in his backyard.) I think that if we weren't in a war, he'd be the Joe Liberman who can cross over. He's NOT comparable to Palin or Huckabee, who are the social heroes of the party.

He also ran a very poor campaign for president. He did a great job on 9/11. I think he was the voice of calm. Other than that, he really was not that good a governor IMO. He did handle 9/11 great. The right wing of that party never would have accepted him. I give him point, at least he did not change his positions on social issues.

I too think he is more democratic than republican today. Of course, New York Republicans are different.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Jess

I don't know, I guess I just find Giuliani very ironic since he was essentially surrounded by people that are VERY different from him. Yet he was trying to appeal to them. And social issues are a lot of what Republicans use to scare the country with.

Maybe it has more to do with his own personal finances. There are some Republicans who aere in the party mainly because they're rich or have a business.

He also ran a very poor campaign for president.

As did Joe Biden.

He did a great job on 9/11. I think he was the voice of calm. Other than that, he really was not that good a governor IMO. He did handle 9/11 great. The right wing of that party never would have accepted him. I give him point, at least he did not change his positions on social issues.

He was never governor, only mayor.

I too think he is more democratic than republican today. Of course, New York Republicans are different.

I think it's up to Giuliani to decide which party he belongs to. He evidentally sides with republicans because his views on economic issues and national security outweigh his stances on social issues.

The Obama Campaign:

The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Governor Palin and John McCain want to define 'change' as voting with George Bush 90% of the time, that's their choice, but we don't think the American people are ready to take a 10% chance on change," said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.

The Obama Campaign:

The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Governor Palin and John McCain want to define 'change' as voting with George Bush 90% of the time, that's their choice, but we don't think the American people are ready to take a 10% chance on change," said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman

I am still baffled by the voting "with" Bush spin. I would hope that the American public is smart enough to see through that. Bush votes on nothing. He is an executive and not a legislator.

I am still baffled by the voting "with" Bush spin. I would hope that the American public is smart enough to see through that. Bush votes on nothing. He is an executive and not a legislator.

I think that's kind of a semantics problem. If you're doing something that Bush approves of, then you're "voting" with him.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by bandbfan

I think that's kind of a semantics problem. If you're doing something that Bush approves of, then you're "voting" with him.

If semantics are the problem then an exact percentage (90%) cannot be used. There is no way of knowing how Bush would vote on each and every issue. He does not participate in the daily debates in congress. Is there a record somewhere of Bush's stances that would generate an exact numerical number compared with John McCain's votes? Is there public access to this information somewhere that I dont know about or does the Obama camp have exclusive access?

The fact is, this statement that is being used over and over again by the Obama campaign is not true.

I guess if Obama's campaign can draw this conclusion with Bush/McCain, then I could say Obama has voted with Rosie O'Donnell or Michael Moore 90% of the time.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

I think that's kind of a semantics problem. If you're doing something that Bush approves of, then you're "voting" with him.

Pretty much so. It's probably packs more of a punch to say he voted with Bush as opposed to he voted for policies approved/supported by Bush. However you phrase it, the end result is the same so it is totally about semantics.

That's a whole lot different than telling outright lies.

I think that's kind of a semantics problem. If you're doing something that Bush approves of, then you're "voting" with him.

Do you mean when the Bush Admin. sent a piece of legislation (Such as they would do), McCain voted in favor of that legislation?

The last entry:

12:30PM

That's all for me tonight. More liveblogging Thursday night for McBush's show when the crowd of white people at Xcel will mock and laugh at community organizing -- people like Senator Obama, César Chávez and a slacker named Martin Luther King, Jr. -- all community organizers who, according to Palin, never had any "actual responsibilities." Cheers!

For anyone interested the blogger is named Bob Cesca on Huffington

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/li...c_b_123699.html

This is all IMO, but they're saying that Bush is the ideal Republican. And he was until this campaign started. I'm (only) assuming that they're saying that McCain voted in a Republican way 90% of the time. (Which, I'm actually surprised about since many conservatives didn't 100% back him until Palin)

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by bandbfan

Do you mean when the Bush Admin. sent a piece of legislation (Such as they would do), McCain voted in favor of that legislation?

That is not how congress works. No none-member of the senate or house can sponsor a bill.

Do you mean when the Bush Admin. sent a piece of legislation (Such as they would do), McCain voted in favor of that legislation?

I think it's more like that Bush would get sponsors for whatever he wanted pushed through who would present the bill as their own brilliant idea.

Pretty much so. It's probably packs more of a punch to say he voted with Bush as opposed to he voted for policies approved/supported by Bush. However you phrase it, the end result is the same so it is totally about semantics.

That's a whole lot different than telling outright lies.

Maybe not an outright lie, which I never said it was, but it is very misleading. I think it demeans the expected intelligence of the average American. It is in no way based on fact. If you can prove me wrong and provide me with documented examples that prove the accuracy of the 90% conclusion, please do so.

How can you attach a specific percentage to Bush's approval of a vote?

If semantics are the problem then an exact percentage (90%) cannot be used. There is no way of knowing how Bush would vote on each and every issue. He does not participate in the daily debates in congress. Is there a record somewhere of Bush's stances that would generate an exact numerical number compared with John McCain's votes? Is there public access to this information somewhere that I dont know about or does the Obama camp have exclusive access?

The fact is, this statement that is being used over and over again by the Obama campaign is not true.

I guess if Obama's campaign can draw this conclusion with Bush/McCain, then I could say Obama has voted with Rosie O'Donnell or Michael Moore 90% of the time.

They aren't saying Bush voted on anything, the point is that McCain has voted for almost everything Bush has wanted and that is voting with the Bush Agenda. It's all about context, but it doesn't matter how it's phrased, McCain still voted for the Bush agenda 90%.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by ReddFoxx