Voting Record Shows: McCain = Bush 2.0

It’s surprising to me that, after the fiasco that was the Bush Administration, a Republican candidate can be taken seriously in the United States.  In showing that Americans have learned very little from the past eight years, it looks like John McCain actually has a chance at winning the Presidency.  What will this mean?  In short, more of the same.  ProgressiveMediaUSA provides some statistics in an article titled John McShame:

CQ’s Presidential Support numbers do not include votes that legislators miss – in other words, missing a vote on an issue Bush supported did not lower McCain’s score. Now, it is a well known fact that Senator McCain misses the most votes in the Senate. In fact, he was crowned the most absent Senator in 2008. Therefore, when John McCain even bothered to show up and vote in the Senate – which wasn’t often – he voted with Bush 100% of the time.

John McCain and George Bush believe the same things on virtually every issue – the list of their agreements goes on for pages. But a better judge of a politician’s views is not how he talks, but how he votes. John McCain – when it counted and when he showed up in the Senate to do his job in 2008 – never deviated from George Bush’s position. Not once. 100%.

I hope no one needs to ask why siding with Bush is disastrous.  Keep in mind that this guy believes in creationism, has given numerous tax cuts to the rich and is practically owned by private interest lobbyists.  He unapologetically wages war based on manufactured evidence, cares little about the environment and seems completely ignorant of our economy and its direction.  Bush believes in faith-based programs and that God talks to him personally.  He is generally regarded by historians as either the worst President in U.S. history (most others rank him second worst).

McCain has quite a legacy to support here.  Of course, the real blame should go to American Republicans.  I wonder: What more would this party have to do to the U.S. in order to for the electorate to ask for some kind of accountability?  Smaller empires have crumbled under far less strain.



  1. bill said,

    June 4, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Funny, that all you dems have such a twisted political view. Iraq war, seems to me most of your elects voted in favor of the war (including Clinton) a few years back. Pretty easy to be a judge in retrospect. The economy, no one was bitching a few years ago when you were all slapping some paint on your walls & making a clear $100K on your houses. It’s called an economic CYCLE, it’s gonna be good & bad! Sorry you didn’t put a couple bucks for a rainy day. Meanwhile you won’t let us drill for oil, you all create hesteria about false climate information, & sit back & cry because it’s “1 mans fault” Gimme a break! Quit being babies! Everyone in congress & the presidency is wothless.

  2. RealAmericanBOB said,

    September 4, 2008 at 12:34 am

    McCain seemed to be a true party maverick until he was swiftboated by the bush backers in 2000 primaries, regarding the phone campaign about his adopted baby in the bigotted South. He has since tried to goose step in line with the Right. He even picked up a right wing Big Oil Babe to bring to the grand ol’ party in MN. Do we dems think it’s just one person? No. There seems to be a strong undercurrent of greed, fear and/or ignorance that pulses through the GOP’s veins nowadays. Do you really feel that Mr. Bush is just an unfortunate victim of circumstance? He was a bad student, a bad CEO…the only reason the Astros were profitable was because of guess what: taxes that he levied on the fine citizens of Texas that went into his coffers. By the way, the only reason congress gave Bush that power, was based on trust from lies that Bush perpetuated. One more thing: I’m projecting to lose 5 figures in revenue per year with Obama’s taxes, and I welcome the change in the interest of America.

  3. Johnson5 said,

    September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am

    I’m sorry to say Bill, but very little of what you say is accurate. You are mistaking a democratic polity with a democratic voter. The two are not synonymous. Most democrats in the voting populace did not want the war, yet the democratic elected officials voted for the war, a fact few in our bloc supported.
    Most liberals believe that it is intrusted to the Congress to declare war, a proposition which the Congress has cowered from since WWII. None of the politicians had enough spine to vote whether to, or not to declare war, rather they gave Bush ‘permission”, which was awful.
    But the starkest problem in your paragraph is your assertion that the economy runs in cycles, yet you insist on drilling for oil. Why drill and ruin the oceanic environment further when the cycle will eventually come around? Your insistance that the climate information is false is absolutely wrong. The studies are in, the facts have been reported, the earth is warming up. Every scientist who has tried to prove otherwise has been found to have broken laws of physics to come up with their findings. Whether this is due to man or not, wouldn’t it be better to be on the safe side and assume we can do something about Global warming and try to reduce our effect on the world? Do you hate your children that much you are willing to sacrifice their ability to live on the planet? I would hope not.

    • May 4, 2009 at 1:00 am

      Johnson5, contrary to your claims about Congress’ ability to declare war, it’s not collective liberal ideology… it’s Constitutional law, as ascribed by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. On that note, Congress didn’t give Bush permission to declare war on their behalf, Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan absent a declaration altogether, not to mention against the wishes of the UN, of which the US is a member.

      Also, the economy does essentially run in cycles, but the cycle does not turn on its own. The Great Depression was caused by Herbert Hoover. The recession between July 1981 and November 1982 took place during the Reagan Administration. The recession between July 1990 and March of ’91 was during the Bush 1.0 Administration, and the recession from March to November of 2001, as well as the depression we’re in right now, which started in the summer of ’07, was Bush 2.0’s fault. What do these presidents have in common? History has shown us that all of them are Republicans. It’s historical fact, not partisan rhetoric.

  4. May 3, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    Actually, McCain would’ve been Bush 3.0. We can’t forget about H.W. Bush back in the late ’80s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: