This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

Fact Check: Does McCain almost always agree with Bush?

Posted: 11:58 PM ET

Does McCain almost always agree with Pres. Bush?.

The Statement:

At a presidential debate Friday, September 26, in Oxford, Mississippi, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama attempted to tie Republican opponent Sen. John McCain to President Bush. "John, it's been your president, who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time, who presided over this increase in spending," he said.

Get the facts!

The Facts:

According to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly, McCain has voted for bills favored by President Bush 90 percent of the time. The nonpartisan publication, which has analyzed voting by members of Congress since 1953, said the report took into account all legislation that Bush had taken a clear position on. It spans from the beginning of Bush's term to Congress's recess in August.

In the 100-member Senate, 14 current members — all Republicans — voted with Bush more than 90 percent of the time, according to the report. Six others have a 90 percent rating like McCain's. The report shows Obama voting with Bush 40 percent of the time and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, voting with Bush 52 percent of the time during the course of his presidency.

Obama surrogates also frequently say McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. This is a reference to the Republican senator's record in 2007. That was the highest percentage in the seven years studied. In 2005, McCain voted with Bush 77 percent of the time — his lowest percentage in those years. "The president and I agree on most issues," McCain said in a May 22, 2003 interview on Fox's "Your World with Neil Cavuto." "There was a recent study that showed that I voted with the president over 90 percent of the time, higher than a lot of my even Republican colleagues."

Verdict: True

My gut?

Obama didn't lose. He did not get his ass kicked. By that not happening, did he lose......or did he win?

On face value, that's one thing. Deeper......what happened?

I'm not certain what you are asking, but Obama won the debate. I watched on CNN. They ran monitors of undecided voters. Even among those voters, Obama won and did better. The Drudge polls and Fox polls are viewers polls. People who read Drudge or watch Fox are largely Republicans and they are of course going to say McCain won. The more "scientific" surveys indicate Obama won.

McCain just seemed angry and condescending. He came off as a little bit of a war monger, and yes, he did not separate himself enough from Bush.

It will take a few days to learn, but I doubt it changed the direction of the campaign. I don't think debates make that big of a difference any longer unless someone just screws up and nobody did. I do think that Obama erased some concerns about himself. I also do not agree with those who say the candidates should have gotten in each other's faces more. I really do not think when the country is in two wars and the economy in the pot, that people want to say their future presidential leaders screaming at each other and acting in a disrespectful manner.

I also think there were a few little mistakes and probably some deliberately misleading comments by both candidates. I don't think there were any just stupid statements made or any of the outright lies that we have seen in the campaign ads.

On ads, at this point, I think both candidates would be well-served to play to their own strengths. Obama should talk personally to the cameras about his thoughts on the future of the economy and what his vision for America is. He should talk about his opposition to the Iraq War and how the country took its eye off the ball.

McCain should talk about his service to his country and also about his deep love for America. He also should talk about his views for the world and for the economy. Both of them need to run something about themselves and a whole whole lot less about each other.

JMO.

by the way, sorry the earlier message was so confusing. I was off to Weight Watchers -- there are some things that temporarily knock politics and the national economy off my front burner. LOL.

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Jess

I'm not certain what you are asking, but Obama won the debate. I watched on CNN. They ran monitors of undecided voters. Even among those voters, Obama won and did better. The Drudge polls and Fox polls are viewers polls. People who read Drudge or watch Fox are largely Republicans and they are of course going to say McCain won. The more "scientific" surveys indicate Obama won.

Here is a description of the "science" that you tout behind the lone poll that Roman linked..The CNN poll..

I'll link it again so that you can read this for yourself...

Roman's CNN Poll- link

Poll interviews were conducted with 524 adult Americans who watched the debate and were conducted by telephone on September 26. All interviews were done after the end of the debate. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents

The best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is roughly 5 to 7 percentage points more Democratic than the population as a whole.

These numbers are pretty much in line with the "results" and conclusions that CNN came to..Isn't it?

Here are the lastest results from Drudge...It seems to me that 332,506 would be a larger sampling than 524..I'm no math major though..

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN 68% 225,564

OBAMA 30% 98,874

NEITHER 2% 8,068

Total Votes: 332,506

With that being said, the majority of Drudge readers may be conservative, but they allowed anyone to vote in this impromtu poll. They did not deny access to Obama supporters. You can vote there as well if you would like...

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Casey008

Casey, you should know as most people do that FAUX and the Drudge Report are neo-conservative Republican "news", so of freaking course there damned polls will show McCain won the debate by an overwhelming margin.

Casey, you should know as most people do that FAUX and the Drudge Report are neo-conservative Republican "news", so of freaking course there damned polls will show McCain won the debate by an overwhelming margin.

Sure..the same can be said in reverse of CNN and MSNBC. Do you agree?

I've never made any reference to any "Faux News" or Fox News polls in relation to this debate for that matter...

Also, I'm wondering...What in the world is a "neo-conservative"?

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Casey008

QUOTE (Mulder @ Sep 27 2008, 09:12 AM)

John McCain is NOT right on any damned thing. Another McCain lie.

How in the world is this a lie? Please explain that to me..

UPDATED: Obama said McCain is “right” nine times

Any response to this, Mulder?

Casey, you should know as most people do that FAUX and the Drudge Report are neo-conservative Republican "news", so of freaking course there damned polls will show McCain won the debate by an overwhelming margin.

Yes that and they are online and phone in polls. Who reads Drudge -- neo-cons, who watches Faux -- neo cons. Hell even Faux admits there is not scientific or reliable about their polls. It is like an online blog, a way for viewers to participate. The Drudge poll is not more accurate than those pop up boxes when you go to certain web sites that say who do you support in the election

McCain just seemed angry and condescending. He came off as a little bit of a war monger, and yes, he did not separate himself enough from Bush.

IA with you on this. I think that McCain's attempt to paint Obama as clueless might have had impact had McCain's general tone and demeanor been different but it was kind of pushing it since Obama doesn't seem stupid. In order to convince people on whole that Obama doesn't understand people would have to either buy into McCain's version or to understand enough to believe that Obama didn't and that's tough to pull off.

It's also kind of hard to sell everyone on the idea that the surge worked and that's the only thing that matter when McCain could not even entertain that the premise for the war was false or even flawed.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm not real interested in who won or who didn't since it can be spun either way. I'll leave the Democrats and the Republicans to sort that out. What should mater to both is what Independents thought.

I didn't agree with Pat Buchanan on MSNBC thinking that McCain won because he was a basically belligerent because I disagree with that approach. He might have made sense to me had he pointed to something McCain actually said. I didn't like their format since they had surrogates and/or members of both campaigns on and of course, Joe Biden is gping to say Obama won so that was useless for me.....call it partisan politics burnout.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that I didn't want to see any in your face exchanges. I have never been for the negative campaigning and I think that the media contributes to this idea that people only want to hear and see the negative. Positivity would be nice for a change. If either candidate knows what America needs then hopefully he will understand that these are hard times and a little hope can go a long way.

Yes that and they are online and phone in polls. Who reads Drudge -- neo-cons, who watches Faux -- neo cons.

Is that why "Faux" has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined?

Hell even Faux admits there is not scientific or reliable about their polls. It is like an online blog, a way for viewers to participate. The Drudge poll is not more accurate than those pop up boxes when you go to certain web sites that say who do you support in the election

At least Fox is honest about it. CNN tries to pass their slanted polling off as scientific. Prime example from above...

What exactly is a neo-conservative?

Speaking of Fox News:

Conservatives Race Bait the Economic Meltdown

John Ridley

As the US economy continues to crater, there's plenty of blame to go around. Apparently, way around.

Over at Fox news, punditator Neil Cavuto claimed the current crisis could be put on financial institutions "lending to minorities and other risky folks." While Neil is making this assertion there's B-roll of Barack Obama playing for no other reason than to make sure the Fox audience knows exactly what minorities and risky people look like.

Click here to view this delightful video.

Meanwhile, over on her blog, conservative pin-up girl Michelle Malkin has got an idea at whom we should wag our collective fingers:

"Illegal immigration, crime-enabling banks, and open-borders Bush policies fueled the mortgage crisis. Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime (the accursed species of loan to borrowers with the shadiest credit histories). A quarter of all those subprime loans are in default and foreclosure."

Michelle, of course, does not substantiate or attribute those figures in any way, nor does she differentiate between legal and illegal Hispanic borrowers.

I'm sure in Michelle's mind they're all the same.

So, let's look at some facts. Over at the Heritage Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. wrote a prescient article in June of 2005 with the no-beating-around-the-bush title: Time to Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie and Freddie being two lenders at the heart of Wall Street's financial reckoning. In the piece, Dr. Utt notes that the government must act to "reduce financial market risk and taxpayer exposure."

Where is that risk coming from? According to Utt:

"Despite its claims to the contrary, Fannie Mae's basic operating procedures do not target any particular type of buyer/borrower....Nine percent of the conventional conforming loans made by the private mortgage market were to first-time minority homebuyers. By contrast, only 4.7 percent of Fannie Mae loans and 3.5 percent of Freddie Mac loans over the same period were to first-time minority homebuyers."

Bear in mind the minority population in America is 34 percent.

Again, for clarity: According to a conservative writing for a conservative Think Tank (I would add, using stats from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "New Housing Goals for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in 2005-2008"), at the head of this crisis only nine percent of loans in the greater market place went to minorities. Four-point-seven and 3.5 percent of the "risky" Fannie and Freddie loans went to minorities.

In both cases more than ninety percent of available loans went to good, old-fashioned, non-minority white folks.

So, despite the claims of Neil and Michelle, if minorities are not the primary recipients of bad loans, from where did we hatch our Lex Luthorian scheme to bring down America? From the boardroom of Lehman Brothers? From the corporate headquarters of Bear Stearns? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything like 34 percent representation of minorities at those or most other major financial institutions.

Were we somehow secretly manipulating John McCain when, in 1995, he screamed that banking regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream" and voters "want these regulations stopped." Though he was pushing for a culture which bred risky loans, he is certainly by no means a minority (that I know of). And it would have been far more appropriate to run B-roll of McCain behind Neil's rant rather than Obama.

As I've noted previously, with Election Day drawing closer, the far right has dialed their race baiting up to eleven. Under ordinary circumstances it's to be expected.

These are not ordinary times.

Despite this fact, agents of intolerance seek to demonize for the sake of demonizing.

Or worse, merely to game an election.

If reactionary conservatives wish to play their exclusionary games, well, the Republican convention wasn't one of the least diverse in recent history for nothing. But to openly race bait when hard times are coming is not only irresponsible, it is deadly dangerous.

Speaking of Fox News:

Conservatives Race Bait the Economic Meltdown

John Ridley

This is misleading IMO. Because two out of three conservatives referenced in this article "race bait", the title constitutes the implication that all conservatives are lumped together and are guilty of this..? Not fair at all...

The title of this editorial should be "Cavuto and Malkin Race Bait"...not "Conservatives Race Bait"...

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Casey008

This is misleading IMO. Because two out of three conservatives referenced in this article "race bait", the title constitutes the implication that all conservatives are lumped together and are guilty of this..? Not fair at all...

The title of this editorial should be "Cavuto and Malkin Race Bait"...not "Conservatives Race Bait"...

But now, you, Casey, seem to lump all Democrats and Liberals into the same group.......so it's now wrong to say that conservatives shouldn't be?

IA. NO ONE should be lumped into any group. Period.

You want to continue pointing out my personal approaches (or my presumptioness as you put)..but I cant do the same in return..?

If you dont want to be drawn into a personal debate with me..then why the hell do you initiate it?

Thanks for the blessings..

I wasn't implying that you were being presumptuous what I did was point out that by saying this:

Thanks for your respectfullness. It is greatly appreciated.

What type of response have elicited?

I'm sorry if you didn't mean that as a smartass remark. But, when you pointed out that you already knew what happened during the holocaust...I did not feel it was not dripping with respect..

I knew that you probably knew what happened during the Holocaust ...I was trying to push you further into explaining where you felt Palin was wrong...And you still dont seem to be able to do that.

I dont know how you see Palin's comments..You haven't explained. You have just conveyed your being "baffled"

I think the comment of you being "baffled" by Palin's response was implying that you do not see the situation in Iran as similar to the Holocaust?

Sorry if I was too presumptious once again for your taste...

You did not explain your reasoning for feeling this way..so I filled in the blanks for you...

I'll just let this go too, because I don't have the interest in debating with someone that wont back up their comments with reasoning.

Uh Oh. Am I being to mean or rude? You probably wont read my posts from here on out....Oh well..

and this:

Obama was there to get his picture taken too? You honestly believe that neither candidate (both potentially being the next president) had NO meaningful input in the meeting. You feel our next president was there just to get a picture taken?

For someone that shows the effort and passion to participate in a political discussion, you sound more like uneducated Joe Blow (that is not even going to vote) by making a comment like that..Very cynical and presumptious, I might add...

you were doing the sort of thing about which you've complained.

I don't care whether you think I come across as uneducated or not because I'm not here to measure up to your standards. If you don't like what I have to say or cannot accept that I don't want to waste my time on a particular issue or candidate that is your problem not mine.

I merely said in response to one of your posts:

Don't you need to first be sure what GGL meant before you presume to know how he feels?

I was totally baffled by the reference to the Holocaust to the point where it didn't matter what she said or might have meant after that.

then you went on to make it seem as if I should have to accept the comparison to the Holocaust which I don't have to do if it does not work for me. I don't have to provide reasons for anything at all. If I were demanding reasons from you then I would expect that you'd point out my hypocrisy in not providing any of my own....but guess what?? I demanded nothing.

I didn't initiate a personal debate with you. I have no control over how you choose to interpret my posts. I try as mucn as possible to seek clarification from posters. Sometimes I slip up. Had you said that I was wrong when I said you presumed to know how GGL feels, I would have apologized to you for jumping to conclusions but you said:

I was forming it as a question, not so much a presumption.

If I neglected to say this before now, it was wrong of me to indirectly respond to or make reference to the fact that I was ignoring your posts. I should have only said so once so that you were aware, in case you were interesed, that I wasn't responding to your posts at the time. I will not make that error in judgment again.

And I am going to reiterate that I post for entertainment. I don't have the kind of passion that you attributed to me and I have encountered people who are for all intents and purposes undeducated and very politically aware--whether they choose to vote or not.

dp

Edited September 27, 200817 yr by Wales2004

But now, you, Casey, seem to lump all Democrats and Liberals into the same group.......so it's now wrong to say that conservatives shouldn't be?

IA. NO ONE should be lumped into any group. Period.

IA about the grouping.

I don't think the title is a big deal because I've seen titles that refer to Americans when the story is not about all Americans. I don't think people generally think any reference to a group in a title is all encompassing. The main issue, for me, is that this seems to happen quite a bit at Fox News. It may be that not everyone is guilty of it but from different references that I've seen to specific individuals employed by that station, it's no longer shocking for them.