McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama

[Gustaf]

That much has been made abundantly clear, but then there's the question of Obama being any better.

There's no possible way I would consider McCain better on the economy...if Obama wasn't advocating raising taxes on the rich in the middle of an economic downturn.  We have enough trouble with investment dollars sitting on the sidelines as it is.

The point in 2008 should be who's fault is it that the economy is in the middle of an economic downturn? The incumbent president, as far as I'm aware, isn't a Democrat

Clearly, that base low-life John McCain's character assassinations on Obama are paying off

More of the failed same John McVain? Erm, no thanks. The GOP nominee must be held accountable for what Bush less than stellar record

Dave

No, that should not be the point. And it's always just as amusing to hear you call him a "base low-life"...because of his character assasination! Lol.

If the American people are clever enough to realize that the incumbent, term-limited president is irrelevant to the election at hand I'd be encouraged. 

[Gustaf]

That much has been made abundantly clear, but then there's the question of Obama being any better.

There's no possible way I would consider McCain better on the economy...if Obama wasn't advocating raising taxes on the rich in the middle of an economic downturn.  We have enough trouble with investment dollars sitting on the sidelines as it is.

The point in 2008 should be who's fault is it that the economy is in the middle of an economic downturn? The incumbent president, as far as I'm aware, isn't a Democrat

Clearly, that base low-life John McCain's character assassinations on Obama are paying off

More of the failed same John McVain? Erm, no thanks. The GOP nominee must be held accountable for what Bush less than stellar record

Dave

No, that should not be the point. And it's always just as amusing to hear you call him a "base low-life"...because of his character assasination! Lol.

If the American people are clever enough to realize that the incumbent, term-limited president is irrelevant to the election at hand I'd be encouraged. 

Well, he leaves a substantial legacy of both policy and politics which, while not decisive, form the context of the next Presidency. That said, if McCain were a real moderate (as opposed to just a "maverick") in any of the three major areas of policy (social, economic, or foreign) I would give him another look.

Unless any of the candidates is a "successor" to the incumbent he has no relevance. The idea that people should vote for the Democratic candidate just because Bush was bad is ridiculous. And Dave, like everyone else, would call it out as ridiculous if it had been an impopular Democratic president stepping down.

[Gustaf]

Unless any of the candidates is a "successor" to the incumbent he has no relevance. The idea that people should vote for the Democratic candidate just because Bush was bad is ridiculous. And Dave, like everyone else, would call it out as ridiculous if it had been an impopular Democratic president stepping down.

I'm not suggesting that people should vote for the Democratic president just because Bush was bad. I'm suggesting that McCain should be held accountable for enabling Bush to the extent that he has. I would have had nothing but the utmost respect had John McCain:

1) Accepted John Kerry's offer to be his running mate in 2004;
2) Ran as an Independent in 2004;
3) Challenged Bush, a mediocre, if not failing, president as of then for the GOP nomination

I'm not impressed with Bush's record and while kudos to McCain on the Iraq-surge, it wouldn't be my only issue

McCain has went out of his way to alienate me from him in 2008 on whole host of things; and most notably his conduct. Having been the victim of smears in his 2000 run for the presidency, I expected a civil and dignified campaign but no he has conducted himself most appallingly towards Obama, especially during and in response to his recent trip to the Middle East and Europe

Clinton's tactics in the Democratic primary had the same kind of effect and the appalling sign that Obama's supporters were more likely to fall in behind her candidacy than hers would with him grieved me somewhat - even when it became apparent that only he had a fair path to the nomination. She was reliant on the rules of the game being changed after the event

Obama has had a hell of lot thrown at him by way of lies, smears and scares. Is it any wonder I sympathise with the underdog in 2008?

The John McCain of 2008 does not appeal to me, politically (where it matters most, that is) and certainly not, personally

Dave

That post is so ridiculous that I don't know if I should waste my time responding. You were fine with McCain not having thrown away his entire political career on some stupid anti-Bush move as late as earlier this year. You take pride in being a partisan Democrat and yet expect Republicans to openly defy their own president! You lambast Lieberman for not supporting the Democratic nominee and yet expect McCain to run against Bush. And calling Obama the underdog...as I said, if you're this far detached from reality I don't know if there is much point in pointing it out to you.

-----------------

Beet:

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I understand that many people (myself included) would have been happy to see McCain tell Bush and the Religious Right go  themselves and then proceeded to win the nomination and the presidency. If it were a movie, that might happen, to the sound of sentimental music, intervowen with clips from his toughest moments. But this is not a movie, it's a real world. What did you expect? We all know that McCain does not like Bush and will not continue his policies in a lot of areas. We know he dislikes the Religious Right and he got nominated without them. We know he dislikes reckless spending. We know he would have handled the Iraq war a lot differently. And so on. Given that Bush and McCain represented different wings of the party in their 2000 primary fight and given the clear animostity between the two it's obvious that he's not a successor. Of course they share some positions on some issues, but a vote for McCain is not a vote for Bush. Given Bush's approval ratings and the GE polls it's pretty clear that a lot of people don't think like that either. If you want to argue that the Bush presidency shows that positions taken by McCain are obviously wrong that's another matter. Beyond the emotional knee-jerk responses and the hack talking points I don't find it to be that obvious though. They're two very different persons, something that is quite clear from the past 8 years. Again, I would say that unless one of the nominees is a "successor candidate", clearly tied and pledged to the incumbent the incumbent's record should have little relevance.

[Gustaf]

Beet,

that's a damn long post. I'm not gonna answer all of those points tonight. I trust that you can appreciate that. I'll just say that generally I don't blame McCain morally that much for giving himself a serious chance at his party's nomination and I don't consider the moves he made to get that to be very significant of his real views. He doesn't believe in reckless tax cuts, he believes in responsible environmental policies, he's not a religious conservative, etc.

I strongly disagree with the interpretation you talk about. With Bush's approval ratings still low and with McCain's history being what it is and especially given the likely Democratic gains in Congressional elections the presidential election will be seen as a personal vote for McCain. It will, on the contrary, show that the McCain brand of Republicanism has great potential while the Bush brand does not and it will thus help to bring a definitive end to Bushism and make the Republican party infinitely better by moving it more in McCain's direction. A vote for Obama will reinforce the extremists and hard-liners in their belief that there is no point in nominating a more moderate candidate while at the same time Obama, with his traditional dogmatic approach to all the key political issues is unlikely to bring about much fundamental change on the Democratic side. McCain is, imo, much more of a real candidate of change, because he represents substantial changes from the past, while Obama is only superficially so. And changing the Republican party in that direction would be an excellent move forward for America, imo. It would also give us divided governance, which I consider to be a good thing.

[Gustaf]

Well, Beet. I guess the difference between us is that you're taking McCain's accomodating the Republican base in the primaries more seriously than I am. Or at least that's one of the differences.