McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama

[HardRCafé]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.

The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.

"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

That margin reversed Obama's 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.

McCain has been on the offensive against Obama during the last month over energy concerns, with polls showing strong majorities supporting his call for an expansion of offshore oil drilling as gasoline prices hover near $4 a gallon.

Obama had opposed new offshore drilling, but said recently he would support a limited expansion as part of a comprehensive energy program.

[Sam Spade]

Ah, Zogby.

[Democratic Hawk]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

He'll be as inept as frickin' Bush on that score, you mark my words

Dave

[Lunar]

This is the #1 story on Drudge, so of course this will be the story of the day.

If Obama announces  his runningmate soon and a real poll comes out showing them tied or something, the media will say the VP created a 5 point bounce.

[Reaganfan]

Time for El Rushbo! Conservatives are mobilizing!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[Reaganfan]

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. He's a tax-cutting Republican and fat lot of good he is

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

Obama is running against John McCain not George Bush.

[Bono]

As much as I'd like this to be true, it's Zogby. Burn it.

[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. 

[Beet]

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.

[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.

[Brittain33]

Obama is running against John McCain not George Bush.

George Bush sure as hell ran against Bill Clinton as well as Al Gore.

[Democratic Hawk]

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. 

When it comes to John McCain, I only ever tell it like it is

I'm with the left-leaning pragmatic Christian Democrat in 2008, who has waged a most civil and dignified campaign paying his opponent one hell of a lot of deference along the way

Dave

[Beet]

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.

Of course the incumbent has relevance, through his or her actions. McCain is a "successor" to Bush in many ways: despite McCain's one or two 'maverick' positions, they agree, for the most part, on foreign policy, economic policy, and social policy. Did McCain not campaign for Bush in 2004? Did he not say he was proud of it? Do his foreign policy views not have a heavily aggressive, neoconservative bent? Does he not support the Bush tax cuts and extending them? Does he not now court the support of the religious right?

Sadly, politicians do not tend to shift as much as the facts on the ground do. Many liberals in 1960 were still liberals in 1975 (to their credit, some were not) even though it meant something very different to be a liberal in 1975 than in 1960. McCain is one of those that stays on the right even when that means going further to the right than he was at a certain point in his past. That is expected of him, since the GOP must represent the right-of-center no matter what the status quo is, but that does not mean the voters should not take into account how things have changed in the past eight years.

Suppose you opposed Bush's tax cut plan in 2000 and supported McCain. By 2008, you still oppose Bush's tax cut plan, but now McCain supports it because it has become status quo. Or suppose you supported the war in Iraq in 2003, but expected a commitment of no more than 5 years and also supported diplomacy with Iran. By 2008, you still think the war was a good idea and 5 years are up; and you still support diplomacy with Iran. It is your hypothetical positions that are consistent here, not the politician's.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

It's not ridiculous because McCain is basically just promising to continue Bush's policies.

[Dan the Roman]

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.

To be frank with the current deficit and current account deficit figures, and McCain's nearly deranged fiscal promises to cut taxes or give gazzillion dollar balances to any group I would consider Obama better even if he was promoting a 35% Capital Gains tax and I am a day trader. McCain  would be a continuation of the supply side economics that agree rapidly turning us into an economic basket case.

The markets are smarter than high schoolers, they respond to sane fiscal policies altogether more than the micro incentives if they are surrounded by nonsenical policy. That's why Clinton's tax increase in 1993 set off the largest economic expansion in history, and Bush's have driven the economy further into collapse. Clinton's showed the grown-ups were in charge, Bush's that ideological children with no sense were. McCain for his part understood that at the time. He's just "forgotten" it. If he remembered that opposition I might be able to force myself to vote for him over Obama. Now I can't understand how anyone who cares about the country or economy could.

As for investment dollars, the opposite is actually the problem. The bear stearns bailout, and controls on short selling is forcing billions into worthless financial stocks. The government has created a massive bubble and the best performing stocks of the last month all have negative equity and should not exist as companies. But because there are rules in place making it impossible for them to fail, everyone is dumping Microsoft to buy Washington Mutual. Watch, all the administration has done with its bailouts is create a much more massive bubble that is going to burst this fall. They should have taken over Bear Stearns and Fannie Mae. It would have been bad for the economy in the same sense taking over Northern Rock was for the Brits, but every major British bank is turning a profit this year because they got the message that their shareholders and execs would be ruined if a they didn't cvlean up their act. And their property collapse was worse than ours. Instead here we have given billions of dollars to the same executives that caused this mess. It would be a good thing if we cooled off buying of worthless stocks, and quite frankly McCain is just going to create more bubbles.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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

It is ridiculous to assume that President Bush is responsible for the current economic downturn, and even if he is at fault, I wasn't planning on voting for him in 2008 anyway.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Suppose you opposed Bush's tax cut plan in 2000 and supported McCain. By 2008, you still oppose Bush's tax cut plan, but now McCain supports it because it has become status quo. Or suppose you supported the war in Iraq in 2003, but expected a commitment of no more than 5 years and also supported diplomacy with Iran. By 2008, you still think the war was a good idea and 5 years are up; and you still support diplomacy with Iran. It is your hypothetical positions that are consistent here, not the politician's.

I opposed the Bush tax cut plan in 2000 but support keeping it now because, again, I do not believe in raising taxes in bad economic times.  Certainly, the right economic policy for now will not be the same as the right economic policy for eight years ago.

[NDN]

The economy will probably be recovered in a year. Which makes letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the wealthy not that bad. Really the economy now isn't that much different than '92, the last time we proposed re-adjusting the tax rate (actually substantially better in terms of growth/recorded inflation).

Of course I actually don't really care that much if Obama loses now. It's clear he's pretty much all about 'compromise' and less about implementing any meaningful 'change.'

[J. J.]

It's Zogby!

You got me all excited for nothing.

[Beet]

Suppose you opposed Bush's tax cut plan in 2000 and supported McCain. By 2008, you still oppose Bush's tax cut plan, but now McCain supports it because it has become status quo. Or suppose you supported the war in Iraq in 2003, but expected a commitment of no more than 5 years and also supported diplomacy with Iran. By 2008, you still think the war was a good idea and 5 years are up; and you still support diplomacy with Iran. It is your hypothetical positions that are consistent here, not the politician's.

I opposed the Bush tax cut plan in 2000 but support keeping it now because, again, I do not believe in raising taxes in bad economic times.  Certainly, the right economic policy for now will not be the same as the right economic policy for eight years ago.

I was just using that as an example to illustrate the general point that an incumbent's actions make a difference, since politicians (and sometimes voters, such as yourself) base their position-taking on the status quo, and an 8-year incumbent will heavily influence what that status quo is. If the incumbent's policies have been unsuccessful, and the next candidate is promising to continue many of the same policies, then the predecessor's lack of success is quite relevant.

For example, if the Bush era's low tax rates have gotten us to this economic point, what does it say about Bush's tax structure as far as helping the economy?

[Democratic Hawk]

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

[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.

[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.

Let's look at some areas.
McCain supports Bush on taxes; the entire revenue side of the fiscal/economic equation.
McCain opposes any move toward universal health care coverage.
McCain voted against the SCHIP reauthorization bill, which 18 Republican Senators voted for.
McCain supports teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
McCain has talked about a long term, permanent presence in Iraq.
McCain championed campaign finance reform but supports justices who will basically gut those reforms.
McCain's plan to kick Russia out of the G-8 is not only impractical but would basically start another Cold War.
McCain says he's against reckless spending but his fiscal plan has a $5 trillion hole.
McCain's campaign seems to be staffed with many of the same people and seems to be running the same kind of campaign that Bush ran. 

Sure there are some differences.

He has a GHG limit in his environmental plan (but not the credits for windmills whose images he used in his ads).

But as we've seen with Bush, laws can be subverted or significantly reduced through the use of signing statements, poor regulatory enforcement, and judicial interpretation. Even the facts that are necessary to have a worthwhile debate on the subject are now being suppressed as today's story out of the EPA shows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you can say, well McCain is different, he won't do that, etc. etc., but how do you know? The reality is that Republican administrators will enforce those laws as weakly as possible, Republican judges will interpret environmental laws in ways favorable to business, and a Republican President has less incentive to enforce a law that goes against his political base.

McCain is entrapped in that system, just and he would be as President just as much as he is now running for President and just as he was last year running for the nomination, if not more. Bush too ran as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative" who would do things differently. But it did not turn out that way because of conservative hubris.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If McCain dislikes the religious right, why does he keep pandering to them? According to an Op-Ed published on the Miami Herald blog-

"Since the campaign began, McCain has deemed gay couples unfit to be adoptive parents, and declared that openly gay people in the military would put our national security “at grave risk”. Recently, McCain switched from supporting a federalist approach to define marriage, to actively endorsing an anti-gay amendment to California’s state Constitution, and he described a scenario where he might flip from his past opposition to a national Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay unions. Gay former Congressman Jim Kolbe’s praise of McCain for being “straightforward and consistent” has become laughable.

The most lasting and devastating damage McCain could bring to gay Americans would come via his imprint on the United States Supreme Court. At a recent forum, McCain said he would never have nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, or John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. These four jurists happen to be ones who found it unconstitutional for any state to criminalize sexual relations between consenting adults. For his part, Obama cited Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as Justices he would not have nominated. They are the Court’s two jurists most disdainful of any legal recognition for gay Americans, and support the rights of states to criminalize gay men and women for having sex."

It may be true that McCain dislikes the religious right, and they dislike him. He does seem to have a real proclivity toward independence and taking maverick positions at times. But McCain's independence is neutralized for all practical and effective purposes under the weight of the need to represent his base.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is not as if Bush ran as a traditional conservative in 2000. His father was not known as a doctrinaire conservative and he claimed to be a "compassionate conservative," somehow fundamentally modifying conservatism. We now know that was but a campaign slogan, but it was believable at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree. The only real change in American politics comes through elections. It doesn't come through approval ratings. The latter are just statistics. If approval ratings don't translate into votes, why should the government take your "approval" or non-approval seriously?

After every American election there are post-mortems and interpretations that emerge and fundamentally alter the future direction of U.S. politics. Take a moment to imagine what the post-mortems and interpretations would be after a McCain victory in 2008. Yes, there will be some talk about how the Republicans did a good job by nominating someone with a maverick reputation, etc.

But the most cutting commentary will be directed at the Democrats. The Democrats, it will be said, failed to understand the basic nature of the electorate. "America is a center-right country" as ADHuke says. Therefore, government must be center-right. Politicians must be center-right. Whatever failings Bush perpetuated, a real turn away from Bush's policies, his political coalitions, and his governing philosophy will fall by the wayside toward the "new wisdom" about the "basic center-right America" and how Democrats must emulate it to win. In short, Bush's political and policy positions will be permanently entrenched in the conventional wisdom of both parties. I don't think he could ask for any more vindication than that, and I think it would be an utter and absolute disaster for this country.