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.
Now if McCain wasn't running on the exact same platform as Bush then you might have a point, but when he's running on a platform of not changing a damn thing and doing exactly what the unpopular Bush is doing well....
