The McCain Difference

The current Democratic strategy focuses around painting John McCain as "McSame" as Bush -- a man running for a third term. That's not entirely fair, as McCain really does differ from Bush on a few important issues. On climate change, for example, McCain is clearly better. But on national security policy, McCain is, if anything, more hard core than Bush. This is clear in his record, but we're also starting to see it on some forward looking issues like North Korea where McCain wants to repudiate Bush's current policy and go back to Bush's previous, more rightwing policy.

Bush abandoned that policy eventually because even he came to see that it was a disastrous failure but McCain, in keeping with his record, wants to bring back the super-duper-crazy Bush of 2003-2005 in place of the semi-chastened Bush we've seen for the past couple of years.

Comments

Hey you are right, but there are more than enough people to make the charge of unfairness. Why do you, of all the people, and an Obama aficionado to boot, have to do it?

Posted by gregor | May 27, 2008 12:51 PM

McCain talk a good game on Climate Change but does very little, not sure that's the best example.

Posted by tom.a | May 27, 2008 12:52 PM

Dude, "more hardcore" is a little too complimentary.

Posted by TJ | May 27, 2008 12:53 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 1:04 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 1:13 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 1:14 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 1:15 PM

"not fair"

Screw that... Have you been watching Republican politicking over the last 20 years at all? But "McSame" is soooo unfair...

Posted by TDE | May 27, 2008 1:16 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 1:17 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 1:20 PM

I suspect McCain will do the Dems' work for them. He might have been a good candidate in 2000 (he certainly would have been better than what we got), but you don't have to watch long now to see evidence that he is, well, not at all in his prime. I'm pretty sure he'll say or do something during the general that will convince folks he's not in condition to control that nuclear football now, war hero or no.

Posted by jbd | May 27, 2008 1:24 PM

We as a people are at a defining moment or Choice for our planet -- that of right human relations with people everywhere in the world (that means talking to them) or the possible annihilation of our planet due to men with war-mongering minds who want to try and delude us that continuation of wars with all the nuclear bombs out there will not somehow escalate into a full-blown war of these nuclear and atomic bombs which will surely bring about the destruction of the earth! So the question is, will we and can we chose peace and diplomacy or instead be led towards a steady drumbeat march toward wars and an eventual nuclear proliferation. It is our choice after all!

And maybe in a thoughtful exit strategy out of the occupation of Iraq, which is not surrender because you can't surrender from an occupation, we will not only find our self-dignity and respect again, we will find our souls.

What has McCain's voting record been on the environment and alternative energy? Does anyone really know or do we just assume that he is different because of current rheteroric?

Posted by angellight | May 27, 2008 1:31 PM

One thing you have to say about McCain, and that is that he's got some brass ones. He's been wrong or befuddled about so many things concerning Iraq, the Middle East, and now North Korea, yet he continues to consider himself a foreign policy expert.

This is the same guy who turns his entire campaign over to lobbyists yet claims he's against lobbyist influence in Washington. Or that he wants campaign finance reform, but then gets a really shady campaign loan.

How can this guy be taken seriously? If this was a Dem, the media would have eviscerated him by now.

Posted by LFC | May 27, 2008 1:39 PM

While I appreciate the logic of tying McCain to Bush, I think it's small-minded. Bush is malign and incompetent but consistent. McCain's record amply demonstrates inconsistency on nearly every issue area . . .

So run the Kerry strategy against him, but instead of flip-flopping, call it dithering.

Posted by southpaw | May 27, 2008 2:03 PM

Yes, candidate McCain is much better than President Bush on the enviroment, he's a lot more like candidate Bush in 2000 was. I wonder if President McCain's enviromental policy would be nicer to mother earth or to his business pals?

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 2:25 PM

Oh Man! SORRY!
I kept getting a 500 Internal Server Error Message, and I look like a complete idiot. I'm only a partial idiot, I swear!

Posted by Mark Centz | May 27, 2008 2:30 PM

This is clear in his record, but we're also starting to see it on some forward looking issues like North Korea where McCain wants to repudiate Bush's current policy and go back to Bush's previous, more rightwing policy.

Perhaps because certain people are still under the delusion that simply talking to bad actors automatically improves their behavior?

If we had ONLY had our law enforcement people and diplomats sat down and talk to bin Laden's people about the 80+ court warrants we were trying to serve on Binnie & Co, 9/11 NEVER would have happened!!!

Right!

As 6-Party talks have continued, N Korea has not moderated their provocative actions...at least if you consider their continued work with Iranian nuke programs, missiles as provocative, or their efforts to construct a secret weapons-grade plutonium production reactor in Syria, the same.

Posted by chris ford | May 27, 2008 2:45 PM

McCain is even worse than Bush on foreign policy, if that's possible.

And what the hell is the deal with Lieberman? He's headlining Pastor Hagee's big extravaganza and he co-authors this right-wing nonsense with McCain? I sure hope McCain picks him as VP.

How do you like him now, Connecticut?

Posted by Pug | May 27, 2008 2:50 PM

Actually I think his foreign policy positions are equally as hollow as his other policy positions. He talks the hard line because he thinks that this is what will get him votes. He's courting the Lieberman/Neocon batshit circles by trying to sound as crack-pot as Bush, while he knows he already has a fair amount of the wife-beater vote sewn up simply because 1)he isn't black and 2)he's not a woman. His primary message on foreign policy is "I am willing to be manipulated."

The bottom line is that if you examine his record on every position of the last eight years its been a sellout. I think he is as desperate for the office for reasons of self-fulfillment as is HRC and his policies are for sale. Getting punked by Jr. made him desperate. Thats all you really need to know when examining any "policy" position of his.

Posted by Condor | May 27, 2008 2:51 PM

Perhaps because certain people are still under the delusion that simply talking to bad actors automatically improves their behavior?

If we had ONLY had our law enforcement people and diplomats sat down and talk to bin Laden's people about the 80+ court warrants we were trying to serve on Binnie & Co, 9/11 NEVER would have happened!!!

Right!
Um, yeah. Because a cell-structured fanatical terrorist group is identical to an actual state party for purposes of international relations.

Please. I can't think of a less-apposite analogy.

As for the six-party talks failing to make progress: While we were ignoring North Korea, they were taking the *same* steps they are now. The difference is that their nuclear facilities actually have been subjected to IAEA inspection, and that *we actually have more intel about the illicit stuff too.* Sorry to say, but NK's attempts to enhance proliferation (or the Pakistan nuclear connection) would not have been uncovered if they had simply never come to the table with anyone.

Does that mean that war is never a continuation of diplomacy by other means? Of course not. But this RW nonsense of trying to paint Obama as someone who'll ONLY talk and NEVER act is the same strawman crap that paints the Dems as hard-core Communists or government regulation as "socialism." Please. The absolutist at fault here is Bush, and by extension McCain, in painting diplomacy as "appeasement."

Posted by Mayur | May 27, 2008 3:34 PM

"Hard core."

On this context, these two words perfectly describe the phenomenon of the self-hating Democrat.

There is nothing "hard" about George W. Bush's foreign policy, and there is exactly nothing at its "core."

Posted by HeavyJ | May 27, 2008 3:53 PM

When the HELL are the people who run this blog going to fix their GODDAMN INTERNAL SERVER ERRORS?

And if you're too damn DUMB to be able to fix them, then at least put a notice on every blog - at the bottom with your stupid censorship notice that you can't enforce ANYWAY because there are no registered users - to tell people to IGNORE the server errors because they almost always do not affect the post?

And a server error that posts a message that says email LOCALHOST is a fucking braindead message! Can't you morons at The Atlantic even edit your error message pages?

Jesus, the lack of IT professionalism here is mind blowing!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 6:36 PM

McCain different than Bush on Climate Change???

Well... Candidate McCain is different than President Bush on the issue, but Candidate Bush pledged to treat CO2 as a pollutant and flip flopped within 5 minutes after he was sworn in. So "Candidate" McCain is the came as "Candidate Bush... With his lobbyists in every West Wing office... what's the bet that President McCain will be President McSame?

Posted by Otis | May 28, 2008 10:45 AM