They are non sequitors to the question of changing the current administration to another one. They're not non sequitors if the substance of change is about doing politics differently; i.e., not along simple partisan lines.

And, don't you find it a "bad thing" that a state legislator couldn't bring himself to vote on a number of issues? How is that not a "bad thing?"

Both of them sometimes like to act like they offer Change B, but they don't. Both candidates obviously stand in the mainstreams of their parties, they're proposing policies on every one the most important issues (war, taxes, health care, education, energy, abortion, I could go on) that are supported by members of their party and opposed by members of the other party.

Is that a really good thing? No. Is it a particularly bad thing, when his "present" votes had no effect on the outcomes of the bills? Hardly.

Obama in particular is almost the soul of non-confrontational politics in the way he tries to understand and appreciate the other side's point of view. In this he's very much unlike the run-of-the-mill politician.

I agree with that. I think this is one of the illusions being sold to the American public. OTOH, I find this a source of optimism, b/c it implies that they recognize we (the public) want, to some extent, less partisanship.

Sure, but let's try not to be so cynical. My vote in the general election will have virtually no effect on the outcome of the election, so, sure, if I decide not to vote from that perspective it's not a particularly bad thing. But political responsibility compels me to vote, as it ought to compel our politicians ordinarily to vote. It's gonna be great if our legislators give in still further to political ambition and avoid controversial votes.

How so? The two Senate bills he's most known for were co-sponsored by Coburn (government transparency) and Lugar (non-proliferation).

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. I mean, I'm an academic, so I'm drawn to the way he speaks and furrows his brow, but when decision time comes his record speaks for itself, doesn't it? Which brings us back to Matt's point: voting for Obama's really a vote for "change A," (Dem policies replacing Repub policies) not for "change B" (a new way of doing politics)

Obama's been quite happy to find areas where disputes are not located in partisan, ideological differences, and write bills that everyone can basically agree on, and get small things done. That's a good thing.

It doesn't mean he wouldn't govern toward partisan goals around war, taxes, health care, etc. (To me, that's a good thing too, and I'm sure Joey B thinks it's a good thing that McCain doesn't propose to meet Democrats 50/50 on any of those issues.)

Obama, fwiw, has no record of that kind of activity. That simply may be a gap in his record explained by his limited time in public office, or it may show he's more entrenched on the left than he puts on. Time will tell.

It's a meaningless thing. Even the most inept politician is capable of resolving that kittens are cute, ice cream is delicious, and nuclear proliferation is bad.

The Appropriations Committee expressed support for the initiative and provided $48 million for Lugar-Obama, $36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies.

What depends on the issue?

And, of course, as alluded to in the parenthetical, I really think the US should withdraw from Iraq and raise taxes on the wealthy and spend lots of money on health insurance for everyone. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but that acknowledgment of my own structurally-limited stance isn't going to stop me from confidently articulating what I think - without clear and confident articulations of positions, we're not going to have a real debate

As for McCain, Andy is right. That McCain doesn't exist anymore, and no amount of wishing or hoping is going to bring him back. I was hopeful about his stance on immigration, but the past is the past. He's sold his honor and integrity for a chance to win.

Sure. But it's not a new kind of politics or bringing people together.

Will McCain return to his position on immigration, for instance?

Will McCain return to his position on immigration, for instance?

The effects a presidency has lie primarily in policy, not in tone. Obama's policies represent a very large change from Bush's, and McCain's represent a very small one.

The Braves signing me to replace Jeff Francoeur would also represent a very large change from Jeff Francoeur's performance.

I'm more than happy to have a discussion of policy, but I'm worried that in such a discussion, you'd choose to misrepresent my arguments just as you did in the above post.

This is silly.

It wasn't a statement of opposition to proliferation, it was a substantive commitment of money, time, and policy to non-proliferation:
The Appropriations Committee expressed support for the initiative and provided $48 million for Lugar-Obama, $36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies.
The money wasn't available before the bill, and it had taken nearly two years to get it passed.

And it isn't being a mavericky straight talker, either. Neither candidate has proposed that he wants to pass major policies based on meeting the other side in the middle. If that's your requisite level for a "change", then neither candidate meets it.

There is no controversy here, no courage displayed, no tough decisions to be made, no leadership to be exercised.

The bottom line is still the basic calculation of the good

If a bill has effects - and $50M for non-proliferation is a significant change, non-proliferation mainly requires work hours, not massively-expensive technologies or wealth transfers - then it isn't meaningless. It's irrelevant whether people were pissed off or not.

As I read this post, you don't care about reaching across the aisle, but about reaching across the aisle and pissing people off? Why is that good? There's no inherent virtue in rejecting your own beliefs in favor of someone else's, and in many cases it's a bad idea.

All of which is to say, right now McCain is saying a lot of stuff so he can get elected. Once elected, he's likely to act more in accordance to his previous established behavior

My point, which you have done nothing to refute, is that the bill is not a noteworthy accomplishment. It is a meaningless "achievement" because all politicians are capable of such achievement on a regular basis.

There were $50M that weren't appropriated for non-proliferation until Lugar-Obama passed. It didn't exist before the bill was passed.

You don't need to present hardcore porn to impart relevant knowledge of the topic in an age-appropriate way.

This is silly.

It wasn't a statement of opposition to proliferation, it was a substantive commitment of money, time, and policy to non-proliferation:

McCain, Obama put politics aside to mark Sept. 11

Putting their partisan contest on a respectful hold, they walked together Thursday into the great pit where the World Trade Center once stood and, as one, honored the dead from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This seems right to me. The part of the Obama campaign that goes after substance and talks about the issues and directly scrutinizes Palin's record is half of what he needs to do to win. The other half, with apologies to rr and Andy and others, is to trash McCain as a senile, adulterous warmonger who can't keep a plane in the air and whose war record is a joke.

They are non sequitors to the question of changing the current administration to another one. They're not non sequitors if the substance of change is about doing politics differently; i.e., not along simple partisan lines. Is it unfair to conclude that McCain is more likely to "cross the aisle" given prior voting records than is Obama? Lots of people have made hay from quoting that McCain votes w/Bush 90% of the time, but that's less than voting with your party 96% of the time, and certainly the 90% number is relatively meaningless without something to compare it to. If correct, the 96% is now something to compare it to.

Earlier in the week, in Columbia, Mo., Mr. Biden urged a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized.

"Chuck, stand up, let the people see you," Mr. Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Mr. Graham uses a wheelchair.

"Oh, God love ya," Mr. Biden said. "What am I talking about? I'll tell you what, you're making everyone else stand up, though, pal... I'll tell you what, stand up for Chuck!"

Rollicking good times on the campaign trail with Biden :-)

If Obama attacks McCain for getting shot down in Vietnam, he will lose all 57 states.

Rollicking good times on the campaign trail with Biden :-)

With apologies. to Matt, Obama needs to Swift Boat McCain to win.

Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?
The Obama campaign keeps claiming McCain has voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time. Is this true? Is this significant?
A: Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.
Sen. Barack Obama has attempted to use the Arizona senator's voting record against him in statements like this:

Barack Obama (June 3): It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.


Is 95% "Significant"?


As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.

When doing so, they may wish to consider that Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007. That shouldn't be terribly surprising. Even the Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted with Bush 39 percent of the time last year, according to the way Congressional Quarterly rates the votes.

...to my knowledge.

Ray doesn't care about that stuff, ark--he carries no water for the McCain/Palin ticket

Numbers at 538 show McCain making a lot of gains. I am not surprised.

I guess I don't understand the Forrestal reference since from what I remember seeing and reading it was McCain's plane that was hit but was not his fault about the damage from the fire. It was a more of a case of the way the fire was fought that caused most of the damage to the ship.

It's humorous. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Palin had done this. "Bimbo. Doesn't belong on the national stage. Incompetent. How could McCain have picked her?"

There is a quote attributed to Lyndon Johnson, in which he said that to beat Republicans in elections, you "Just find their balls and keep on squeezin', 'cause they don't understand nothin' else."

And those emotions may affect the outcome in ways that are a little off the radar right now.

...pretty much their only tactics to date...

I notice that nobody's questioned the accuracy of this observation, which tells us pretty much the moral state of the McCain campaign.

It's humorous. But I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Palin had done this. "Bimbo. Doesn't belong on the national stage. Incompetent. How could McCain have picked her?"

We'll see about this one when the dust settles, and if and when the media actually hav the guts to dare treat Wonder Woman like an ordinary politician.

But if anyone seriously wonders why the government of the United States is held in such casual contempt by so many people throughout the world**, the last two weeks of this campaign---which is a linear continuation of that government on the Republican side---have provided Exhibits A through Z.

**and the undisputed truth that countless millions of people want to immigrate doesn't change this fact one iota.

But you can't deduce feelings---or even depth of feelings---about steroids one way or the other merely by looking at attendance figures.

Not that this will likely cost the Wonder Woman ticket many votes,...

ark, you may or may not be right in your general take on politics. Certainly nothing in the past generation suggests that you're not. We'll see about this one when the dust settles, and if and when the media actually hav the guts to dare treat Wonder Woman like an ordinary politician. They all promise that they will. This election is far from over if spite of your pessimism.

...if for no other reason than the [bold]media's self-respect[/bold].

I look forward to DMN and Ray's (and JC's) breakdown of the Charles Gibson interview. <shudder>

"being briefed on them.."

However, if you say she did not do well, that to me is telling.

All that said, that clip is not good. She didn't do well.

I look forward to DMN and Ray's (and JC's) breakdown of the Charles Gibson interview. <shudder>

Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Though if Democrats attack her too hard for this it'll probably end up helping her