Why McCain = Bush WON'T WORK

[RooseveltTruman]

The bedrock of the Obama/Biden strategy has been to portray McCain as Bush III, as "more of the same."

"That's not change! That's more of the same!"

They've been hammering on this for weeks and weeks and weeks and have practically staked the campaign on it.

Well, to quote McCain, it's time for some Straight Talk.

It won't work. It's not enough to quote McCain's policies and say "That's not change! That's more of the same!"

It's a hollow rallying call that only is effective with the base. It reeks of opportunism--at least it will to independents.

For one, everybody who thought McCain was more of Bush has already sided with Obama, if not earlier in the year than certainly by the conventions.\

Secondly, the problem is everybody else just DOESN'T perceive McCain to be more of the same. They remember John McCain the Maverick. And they know that McCain and Bush have a strained (at best) relationship and that McCain and the base have an uneasy one. By continuing the McSame strategy, Obama/Biden will just hurt themselves with this key demographic, who will likely see it as desperate Bush-bashing as an attempt to gain an edge in a quite close race.

Third, to make a third presidential election about Bush (and a fifth election overall) just won't work. It failed for the Dems in 2000, '02, and '04, and the '06 elections were helped by the numerous scandals and rampant corruption present in the Republican party--not just from Bush, but from all corners.

John Kerry's entire candidacy seemed to rest on the "I'm Not Bush" premise. While he did a good job of criticizing the President, he never articulated a clear and forceful message in favor of HIMSELF.

As a result, he paid for it.

And a lot of people--supporters included--are just sick and tired of hearing about Bush. For these people, hearing more Bush references will be seen as the Democrats trying to go to the well once too often.

What Obama/Biden NEED to do is brand McCain as...McCain. They need to go after his economic and foreign policies, showing how out-of-touch and aloof he is. They need to make an issue of his temperament. They need to emphasize the difference in social values to get the Hillary voters who think McCain is pro-choice on board. Borrow a page from how LBJ branded Goldwater back in '64 as a dangerous nutjob..."In your guts, you know he's nuts."

The case needs to be made that McCain is unsuited to lead. Make this election about McCain. Hell, the McCain people will love it, and they'll probably think it'll benefit them to bring out his courageous war story.

But a courageous war story won't win an election. It didn't for John Kerry...it didn't for Bob Dole...it didn't for George McGovern.

Questions of policy, judgment and temperament will win an election, though.

Obama/Biden already have a leg-up on previous Democrat candidates, seeing as they ARE articulating a forceful message about what they stand for and what they'll fight for. People have a reason to vote FOR Obama/Biden, not simply AGAINST McCain/Palin. So going after McCain in this way (or to bring more focus to McCain's judgment/temperament) won''t have to be the only prong in their strategy.

But man, every time I hear "That's not change, that's more of the same!" I see us walking one step closer to fumbling this election. And it's really upsetting me.

[Jane Austin]

1. Noted. n/t

[An Intellectual]

74. Indeed. Bush and McCain are both radical free-marketists. End of story.

[yourout]

2. Thanks for your concern but I disagree.

This is not 2004 and with everything that has become Bushco.....Katrina, Iraq, Torture, and now the economic meltdown. The closer we can tie McSame to Bush the better.

[WeDidIt]

5. Obama constanctly understates

McCain would be worse than Bush.

[RooseveltTruman]

7. INdeed!

Yes! One way I can see Obama starting to move away from this message would be for him to come out and say "Look, I would like to formally apologie: I was wrong. John McCain is NOT more of the same George Bush policies.....he is WORSE!"

[Overseas]

49. Disagree. I switched from John Sidney McCain III to McSame because

I noticed that the whole -- SAME AS BUSH was sinking in several weeks ago. The fact that JSM III would bring about more of the same failed policies was finally sinking in. Don't stop now.

Same, Same, Same... Same Damn Fooools... (to Aretha Chain of Fools music)

So while I still think calling out his full name, John Sidney McCain III, is powerful because it reminds people of his pedigree and seven homes, I use McSame more often now because I've seen people realize he would bring in more of the same failed policies.

Folks are beginning to see that McSame is no maverick or straight talker. He lies through is teeth and makes up facts. Kind of like his mentors, Bush & Cheney.

Totally McSame.

[RooseveltTruman]

52. John Sidney

Interesting point. While I think calling him "John Sidney McCain III" is effective for us to use on the grassroots/activist level, I hope that it's not adopted by Obama/Biden...or else McCain/Palin will start calling Obama "Barack Hussein Obama" and can rightfully say that Obama/Biden "started it first!" (insert schoolyard whine)

[Overseas]

100. I guess that's why it didn't catch on. Back to McSame and McZombie. /nt

[RooseveltTruman]

6. Yeah but

I just don't think independents will buy it. The people who would be swayed by that have already lined up for Obama. I think it's good that we got that message out there--the McSame message--but it's time to let it go, and focus on McCain himself. Voters will smell the reluctance to take on McCain himself as proof that McCain himself "isn't all that bad"...that the only way to make McCain LOOK bad is to tie him to Bush.

There's plenty to go after with McCain himself. Simply pointing out what his policies are (and juxtaposing them with Obama's) will lead people to naturally conclude that he is not the "change" we need.

[Jennicut]

94. Independents do not want 4 more years of Bush economics, McLiar is being blamed for it right now

Which is why Obama is pulling ahead aside from their increased attacks on McLiar. He is like Bush but with a nasty temper and the ability to easily lie. He is not a dumbass like Bush, he is worse.

[WeDidIt]

3. Your concern concerning this concern is concerning. n/t

[WCGreen]

8. As long as it is not disconcerning...

[FVZA_Colonel]

4. He has been developing a clear, concise economic strategy.

He has been articulating his own plans. Obviously he's been trying to tie McCain to Bush, but there is more out there.

[NEDem]

9. Thank you for your concern

[TNMOM]

10. it's working so far, isn't it? as they say, .. if it ain't broke...

a Republican will try to fix it.

[RooseveltTruman]

14. I disagree

I don't think it has been. Obama's convention bounce was not that significant, and the polls have been fairly even since July. McCain's convention bounce was much greater--and I think his convention succeeded in extricating him from Bush in the minds of the public.

The recent bounce in Obama's polling numbers has been due to the economy, the bailout and the bankruptcies.

You gotta know when to hold 'em, you gotta know when to fold 'em. It's time to fold this message and move on to phase two. People won't forget the McCain=Bush theme, but it's time to develop new ones to buttress it. There's no way they can ride that theme all the way to the White House.

[TNMOM]

25. I think you are wrong. The next step: Palin=Cheney,

and watch Palin's favorables take a deep dive.

[Midlodemocrat]

42. Oh, FFS.

:eyes:

God, this gets fucking tiring.

[TankLV]

56. In what respect?

we're on to you...

[dansolo]

64. Obama's bounce was muted by the Palin announcement and the RNC

McCain announced his VP pick of Palin the day after Obama's speech. That dominated the news, eliminating the glowing coverage of his speech that would have happened otherwise. It was a smart move by McCain, in that one regard, but I wouldn't use the lesser bounce as a justification of anything, without taking all of the other factors into account.

[babylonsister]

11. It's working just fine, but thanks for the optimism.

McCain is unsuited to lead, granted. But so is the dim one, as we have seen for years. Everything he touches turns to shit. McBush would be more of the same.

[RooseveltTruman]

16. Bur

I don't think it has been working fine. Obama's convention bounce was not that significant, and the polls have been fairly even since July. McCain's convention bounce was much greater--and I think his convention succeeded in extricating him from Bush in the minds of the public.

The recent bounce in Obama's polling numbers has been due to the economy, the bailout and the bankruptcies.

You gotta know when to hold 'em, you gotta know when to fold 'em. It's time to fold this message and move on to phase two. People won't forget the McCain=Bush theme, but it's time to develop new ones to buttress it. There's no way they can ride that theme all the way to the White House.

[babylonsister]

21. Ya know what? Obama's handling of his campaign, from the primaries

on, has been stellar. I give him a lot of credit and props to his team for knowing what they're doing, and wouldn't dream of second-guessing them.
As for McBush, that big bounce was a result of Palin. I think the more people hear about the lies she's been telling, the more turned off they will be.
Then we have the debates.
I think it's all over but the crying for McBush.

[RooseveltTruman]

23. I agree

I think it's been stellar too, I just think we need to de-emphasize this one tactic as we proceed in to the future.

[Arkana]

65. You couldn't even find the time to write a unique post--you just regurgitated something

you've already said.

And the reason Obama's convention bounce didn't last is the closeness of the conventions--plus Caribou Barbie's introduction to the American public. Most pollsters thought that McCain's lead would last until the first debate and Obama would have to play catch-up--but as we can see that is clearly no longer the case.

Anyway, if you're SO fucking concerned, why not go work for his campaign?

[donco6]

12. It already is working. And besides,

it's just one theme out of many.

[FrenchieCat]

13. McCain is Bush, only older.

Include Palin as a merger of a Cheney-Bush type, and those four are all one thing.....fucking dangerous losers.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Ohdearlord another one ...

I don't usually bother but COME ON!

Can't you people get a new routine? (And by "you people" I mean "you people" who seem only to be inspired to start posting because you have some "concern" you want to whine about.) This is really, really old now. It's not entertaining anymore.

Impress me. Do something new. Please.

[RooseveltTruman]

19. Look

I have a lot to contribute to these boards. I didn't register simply to talk about this one issue. I wasn't trying to be entertaining. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the campaign.

Please don't insult me simply because you disagree. I actually had a thoughtful post that went beyond a link and a one-sentence comment. If anything, isn't that what we want more of?

[RoyGBiv]

28. Okay then, do ...

It's not my intention to insult you.

It's my intention to tell you this litany of "concern" is boring. BORING.

[Orsino]

17. Fortunately, it's only one small tactic in a larger strategy that IS working.

And I'm not hearing it much lately.

[backscatter712]

18. Your concern is noted...

:eyes:

[RooseveltTruman]

20. Why...

Why can't we have a thoughtful discussion about this, rather than eye-rolling and condescension because I dare question a strategy? Isn't it the Republicans who resort to that sort of thing?

[writes3000]

26. Frankly, no.

We're inundated with trolls here. Everyday. You may not be one. I hope you're not. But when your first big post is "Here's what Obama is doing wrong"....people here turn off.

If you're here for the long haul, hang in there. Join our discussions. Make sure at least half of what you share is positive. It will get easier.

But there is a reason for the reaction. We've seen it before. Don't take it personally if it's not deserved.

[RooseveltTruman]

29. I don't get it

I didn't bash him or smear him or disagree with him on policy issues. Why can't we criticize the people we like? Why can't we have a good and honest debate about campaign strategies? Looking at the Republican forums, it's THEY who demand lockstep agreement on every small facet of the Republican platform or campaign...or you get deleted.

Looking at my other posts/responses, it's pretty clear I'm an Obama supporter and a Democrat. I just don't understand why we can't have a conversation or debate, or why we have to slavishly support every minute detail of our candidates and their campaign and stifle anything that smacks of even a slight hint of criticism. That's depressing to me.

[RoyGBiv]

33. Here's the issue ...

The primary method used by those who want to undermine one of Obama's major strengths, which is his ability to organize and inspire at a grassroots level, is to question elements of his campaign strategy over which we have absolutely no control. The intent is to make people question whether he is the correct candidate, to throw a little water onto the fire that is burning under people who are sacrificing much to work for him. It's a seed that is planted: why should I work so hard if his campaign is rooted in a fundamentally unsound strategy?

This started in the primaries, and it has continued, pushed largely by those whose horse did not win in those primaries and by others who for one reason or another want Obama to fail.

As was suggested to you, we who have been here awhile have been dealing with this for a long time, and we're sick of it. If you've been reading DU for any length of time, you should be aware of that. Whether this was your intent or not is irrelevant. We can do *nothing* to change Obama's larger campaign strategy other than withdraw our support from it, which would be mind-bogglingly stupid at this point.

You made an assertion that his strategy is not working. Your assertion cannot be proved one way or the other right now. Since we have little to no influence on this, it becomes pointless to get into a debate about it. The only result it could have would be to dishearten those whose work is required to make this strategy work.

[RooseveltTruman]

40. Hmmm

Hmmm...interesting.

"The primary method used by those who want to undermine one of Obama's major strengths, which is his ability to organize and inspire at a grassroots level, is to question elements of his campaign strategy over which we have absolutely no control. The intent is to make people question whether he is the correct candidate, to throw a little water onto the fire that is burning under people who are sacrificing much to work for him. It's a seed that is planted: why should I work so hard if his campaign is rooted in a fundamentally unsound strategy?"

I admit, I never thought about my comments in that light. I can see what you're saying, and I believe it is a good point, though I disagree that we should not criticize. Certainly, my reasoning for posting was that I want Obama to win so badly, that it is my hope that he and we--as his advocates--shift to a new message since I think this one has run it's course.

After all, what makes us good liberals, Democrats, and yes, moderates, is that we have the ability to criticize but still support. If I may borrow a line from one of our few great Republican presidents (and probably one of our most liberal overall), Mr. Abraham Lincoln...

"He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help."

[RoyGBiv]

47. Not criticizing ...

That is not what I said. That, again, is another canard that is trotted out from time to time when people are questioned about the motive behind their concerns.

However, let us consider the nature of criticism. A good critique offers alternatives -- reasonable, rational, achievable alternatives. What should be done, or what should have been done? What is your alternative? Note that the correct answer is *not* that the Obama campaign should thoroughly retool their entire strategy because, as noted, we have no direct influence over that. A correct answer is something along the lines of suggesting that we in the trenches focus on specific things in our encounters with those we are attempting to influence. In other words, a rational, reasonable, achievable alternative to that which you criticize is to focus on how these things you criticize affect us at our level and how we might work to see better results.

Further, when criticizing a strategy, some degree of verifiable evidence would seem to be reasonable to request. You can say "look at the polls," and note how close they are or where Obama is behind, but that in and of itself does not automatically associated the McCain = Bush strategy to the reasons for that. So, again, we need something that is not simple an assault on a campaign strategy over which we have no control.

[annabanana]

59. You are so patient RoyGBiv.

I admire that. I usually just tell them to read more and post later..

[RoyGBiv]

63. Well, thank you ...

That put a smile on my face.

But I'm not sure if it's patience so much as deep seeded masochism. ;-)

[CarlB]

72. Your response is disheartening me.

If you are "disheartened" by some conversation about one piece of the campaign strategy, I don't think you would be working for Obama in the first place.

I work for the Obama campaign in Missouri and think a lot about new ways to talk to people and new ideas to help Obama win. There is nothing wrong with that. Frankly, as a new person on the board, I find this whole attitude and paranoia stupid and hostile. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I don't need you to look out for me and the fire I have for this campaign. Can't we just talk about something and stop asking the poor guy for fingerprints and blood samples, voting records and aquaintences, geez let's start a vetting committee. Get over it.

[RoyGBiv]

73. Question ...

Do you really think this is a good idea?

Just curious.

I was a newbie once. I remember it well. I remember that I didn't have to change a single bit of my manner of engaging in discussions with others not to come off as a troll because, ya know, I actually believed in what we were doing here. And I didn't go launching sarcastic tirades at people who had been around awhile either.

[RooseveltTruman]

80. And?

I believe in what we're doing here. I don't like that suggestion; that somehow I don't "believe" in what we're doing here because I dare to criticize one aspect, one theme of the Obama campaign.

I've donated to Obama's campaign. I watched him speak in Sept. 2007, and have been a supporter since the early days...when many Democrats still backed Hillary.

I appreciate it, Roy, that you've done what others have not: explained why I have encountered such animosity. But I don't think what I did was wrong or trollworthy. I think it reflects poorly on this board that criticism is met with fierce resentment and suspicion. I don't care if my ideas are rebuked, but why must my credibility be called in to question? Why must my loyalty to the Obama campaign and Democratic causes be called in to question merely because I suggest one theme may not be effective? It's this that hurts the most to me, since I've been a supporter much longer than most and that I care so much about the turnout of this election.

You clearly have the most intellect of anyone that's called my integrity in to question. I would hope that you see how much time and thought I put in to my post, and that it was designed to spark discussion, not an attempt at trolling.

I'd hope that you see my other posts and responses and see that I'm very supportive of Obama and the Democratic party.

And I would hope you'd see that us Democrats have a fine tradition of self-debate. We are "the big tent party." The name sake of my handle--FDR--presided over a Democratic party of many wings: intellectuals, farmers, the poor, northeastern liberals, labor unions, minorities, and the solid south. I'd hope that we could accept the varying opinions of everyone here and engage in good-hearted debate...and here, my post wasn't even critical of Democratic party or orthodoxy. I merely called into question the effectiveness of one campaign theme.

Good grief.

[RoyGBiv]

81. Please note ...

You're responding to a post that wasn't a response to you ... unless that was a sock puppet of course.

OnEdit: I have no intention of assaulting you. I think your original post is wrong-headed and lacking in substance, but I am not now, nor have I in this thread accused you of being a troll. I actually went out of my way in my original comments to distinguish between "troll" and someone who is new spending one of their first few messages on a concern.

That said, I ask you to review this thread and review the responses to me and others from people who have been here a very short time. Yes, it sucks being new and having to prove yourself, and no, based on other comments you've made in other threads, you don't exhibit "trollish" behavior. But, give *us* a break. We who have the affliction of spending far too much of our free time on this forum have had it up to here with newbies coming along and telling us what's what. You may be a frakking genius who has all the right answers for all I know, but there is something to be said for presentation, and you, and the person to whom I was responding here don't seem to understand that.

Know your audience. That is the *first* rule of writing.

[RooseveltTruman]

83. I know

I know it wasn't a response to me, but I saw the jab and I didn't approve.

[RoyGBiv]

85. It wasn't a jab at you ...

Please see my edits. You may not like those either, but they explain my position more fully.

[RooseveltTruman]

88. I guess

I guess where I went wrong was assuming I knew the audience. I expected a lot of people to disagree with me, but I didn't think it'd be seen to be an apostasy. I didn't think people--not you, but many others--would smear me and infer that I was a troll because I decided to criticize a campaign theme that I didn't have control of. I always saw the Democrats as being open-minded and willing to discuss. I saw Democrats as being the ones who assumed innocent until proven guilty. And I still do believe those things. But obviously, the Democrats on this forum are a more fervent, zealous bunch. I guess I should have suspected that, but I didn't. And that's my loss.

As for my presentation, well, I took it for granted that people would understand that it was my opinion. As they taught us in high school when writing an opinion piece, "There's no need to write 'I think...' 'In my opinion...' of course it's an opinion! Assume your audience realizes that!"'

From now on, I won't assume this audience realizes that.

[RoyGBiv]

90. We're not necessarily more zealous ...

Let me put this a different way.

If/when you have the time/inclination, go and read the General Discussion: Primaries forum. (You may have to donate to do this, so perhaps this isn't fair, but I'll suggest it anyway.) It was a mess, an absolute mess. I, personally, avoided it entirely because I found nothing at all of value in it.

But that -- and for those of us who were around during the last primary season in 2004 -- has left a lot of people jaded. Your audience doesn't consist just of Democrats. It consists of people who have been assaulted day and night both from people within the party and from those outside of it who desired to leverage those internal divisions to their own ends.

We need group therapy, obviously. I don't claim this makes us all good people, but it is something that needs to be understood.

[RoyGBiv]

92. Addendum ...

Another reason your post is receiving the reception it has -- and the reason I even noticed it -- is that you had the misfortune of posting it during a time when there is more unity here than I have ever seen in my four years here. It's only been going on for about a week, but that week is gold.

It's all well and good to criticize a campaign and/or a candidate. We've been there. You want to see some criticism, go look up the FISA wars, and you'll find plenty of it. Go back just a couple of weeks and find all the commentary complaining about how Obama is not taking a hard enough line with McCain, not attacking enough. All that has been swept away. We're experiencing something now we have *never* experienced, and many of us are holding onto it with a vigor. These -- pardon my poor phrasing -- complaints about technicalities that cannot be proved one way or the other simply seem out of place at the moment.

I am *tired* of losing to the idiot masses who vote because they think someone like Dubya would be a good beer drinking buddy, and because of that I am highly sensitive to anything that might undermine the level of enthusiasm that we have developed.

[CarlB]

84. So now I don't believe in what we are doing?!

WTF.

I've read this site for a long time, but I only had computer access at work and could only get off with looking occasionally, not risking getting into trouble posting on message boards, which was on the list of no-no's at my old job. I am now staying in St. Louis with my sister for a while and she has a computer, so I thought I'd sign up. I guess I just don't get this intense concern about what people talk about and how it may or may not effect other people. There's a lot of things I don't have control over but that doesn't mean I don't talk about them. I've seen lots of venting and discussing about strategy about campaigns on this board, and I know maybe you only want to hear it from 1000+ posters, but you don't have to read it or like it. Your concern is noted.

What do you mean "Do I think this is a good idea?" How could ever expect to agree with everyone on a board with thousands of members? I guess I found one I don't agree with, life goes on.

[RoyGBiv]

86. I don't know. Do you?

Am I to take your word for it?

[CarlB]

87. Thus is the nature of the internets. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

89. Uncritical acceptance?

That's the nature of "the internets"?

Yes, yes, I know what your most recent sarcasm is actually saying.

Here's the thing. I almost never go off a new person. As I said, I remember being new, and I remember how much is sucks, and I remember the first time I launched myself into a controversial discussion with a view that wasn't popular. I was acutely aware of my post-count and how recent my "join date" was at the time, and it worried me.

As a result, I made very clear what my position was, and when I was blowing back and forth with a long-time member of this group, I made sure that my position was articulated clearly and with as much supporting evidence as I could find. And I never, ever, let it devolve into a pissing match.

You may not realize it, but I'm giving you and the other individual in this thread a helluva lot more leeway that many others would. I don't look at you and see "troll." If I did, I simply would have hit "alert" and been done with it. I don't enjoy the game of feeding the trolls. But I do see that chip on your shoulder, expecting me to come up there and knock it off so you can hit me in the face while I'm distracted, and I'm not playing that either.

If you want me or anyone else to take you seriously, you might try avoiding the belittling game or the aggrieved newbie game or some variation thereof.

I don't know you. You don't know me. I have no idea what you're about, and you have no idea what I'm about. The difference between us *here* is that a person can recall my posting history and construct a general outline of my ideology and what I'm about. We don't have that luxury with you, and you would do well to consider that when you choose to play this game.

[writes3000]

34. Oh plenty of posters debate strategy and question policy here. All the time.

But here's the thing. They've been here awhile. So we know them. And that makes all the difference in the world.

When people arrive here and the first thing they want to do is tell us why the campaign is failing, it feels less like kindred spirits and more like someone trying to dampen our spirits.

But you'll make your way, either way.

This board loves to debate - with people who genuinely support Obama.

[BlueIdaho]

22. 17 posts - Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay. nm.

[TheKentuckian]

24. McCain is Bush minus IQ and actual beliefs with a theocrat sidekick

and surrounded by even less competent people.

[RooseveltTruman]

30. McCain...

McCain's smarter than Bush, but I think he's also crazier and more driven by blind ambition. I used to really respect John McCain back in the day. Now he frightens me.

[Blasphemer]

27. With Republicans falsely trying to disentangle themselves from Bush and his policies...

It is essential that Obama (and every Democrat in a battle with a Republican who is desperately trying to reinvent themselves) not allow McCain to get away with the lie that he is a Maverick. Obama is not Kerry. He has clearly defined himself (both personally and politically) and to make it clear why his plans for the future of this country are fundamentally different than those of McCain, he has to point out that McCain's are the same as Bush's. McCain is trying to co-opt the change message because it's working.

[cliffordu]

31. Thanks for your concern

[Motown_Johnny]

32. I disagree, the more this election focuses on McCain the better we look

anything that accomplishes that is OK with me

[A-Schwarzenegger]

35. That's the most beautiful story I ever heard.

:cry: :scared: :boring: :puke: :*

[and-justice-for-all]

36. I disagree...

shurb and McSame are identical.

McSame wants to maintain the failed shrub policies as well as implement the things that shrub could not get done. Like privatizing Social Security....

[FrenchieCat]

37. Here, Barack's got a message for you.....

[RoyGBiv]

39. I love that graphic ...

I never get tired of it. I knew what it was going to be before I opened your post, and that just made me want to open it even more.

I wish I knew who created it. It's awesome.

[RooseveltTruman]

41. Lmao

Lmao, that's a pretty amazing image. His daughters appear none too pleased, too.

[Iterate]

38. The "Imagine a country..."

and "Imagine a future" sub themes that Biden used seem to me particularly powerful and positive. I thought of them as having an impact on independents especially, and certainly couldn't be countered or copied as easily. It seemed to make an even sharper contrast between parties, makes a moral argument rather than a policy statement, and might offer hope in the last three weeks at a time when hope will be hard to come by.

It's not amateurish second guessing - the Obama campaign has been marked by thoughtful brilliance and care, but is just a bit of praise for something I'd like to hear again and again.

[FloridaGrl]

43. I disagree

it is working and there are people who are still unsure about both candidates. Obama needs to continue pointing out that McCain=Bush and if you like what Bush has done in his 8 years well vote for McCain, if not then McCain is not your guy.

[Bonn1997]

44. 2 years ago, how many thought McCain = Bush?

Probably less than 1% of the public. I didn't think defining McCain as another Bush term would work and the media didn't. But Obama's team defied everyone's predictions and got the majority of the public to see it that way. They need to keep up the good work until everyone who disapproves of Bush is voting for Obama. Any sentence that merely mentions Bush and McCain will continue to pair the two in people's minds.

[FrenchieCat]

69. McCain is worse than Bush, because he was willing to sell out

anything he ever stood for just to win his primary, i.e., he has no integrity. McCain's "Country First" slogan is what is in need of revising; should read "Country Club First and whatever they say, I do, cause I'm a weakass".

In otherwords, McCain has less honor than Bush does. Oh, and McCain lies as much as Bush.

[TheKentuckian]

45. Bush is more intellectually lazy and incurious because he "has" the answers than anything

He also don't give a fuck, but McCain is probably has the slowest cpu, least ram, and smallest harddrive we've seen from either side maybe ever. He also and perhaps more importantly is surrounded by evil hacks and dimwit legacy people like McCain. McCain knows nothing, he's got just enough curiosity to have a penchant for gimmicks and hail marys that makes him even more scary.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Who to trust?

The people running the Obama/Biden campaign, currently 4-5% up in the polls, or RooseveltTruman and his 26 internet posts?

Hmmm...

:rofl:

[RooseveltTruman]

51. You know

You know, Jimmy Carter was leading Reagan by a couple of percentage points at this point in 1980, too. Who to trust then, eh?

Look, I'm not saying you should "trust" me. Just read my argument and then agree or disagree; make a post adding to it or make a post rebutting it; enhance its validities or emphasize its faults.

And by all means, think for yourself and form your own opinions.

But do you need to attack ME? I'm just putting forth my opinions, which is what message boards are for, after all. Feel free to attack my ideas. I'm thrilled that my first post got 46 responses, even if they're all critical. After all, my post itself was a criticism...as Abraham Lincoln said, "He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help." But schoolyard sarcasm and insults aren't necessary.

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. I don't trust you

I think your post is shit.

Cheers.

[Sensitivity]

48. Thoughtful. We need more of this. Wonder if "More of the Same" in being TESTED WITH INDEP, VOTERS

If regular focus group work is showing the line to be effective, I have no problem.

But, I agree that it rings phony to knowlegeable citizens.

McCain did show independence in the past. Now he is either cynically willing to be a con-man or he is just a puppet being used by his backers as he deals with mental enfeablement.

[RooseveltTruman]

54. Thank you

Thank you for appreciating the nature of my post. I think you're the first positive response I've got! I really appreciate your understanding, haha.

[Sensitivity]

57. My group promoted the "More of the Same" theme. Baracks orig line "Bush will not be on the Ballot"

was just the wrong thing to say for the General.

The gut fear in focus groups was that "Bush would be on the ballot -- under a different name!"

Thus the "More of the Same" theme is powerful. The question is whether if is still as effective especially with the undecided vote.

[RooseveltTruman]

58. Yes!

YES! That's exactly my position. Yes, it's been powerful, but the question is: Is it still powerful today? Especially with undecided voters?

I like the way that you think.

[Sensitivity]

62. I DOUBT YOU ARGUMENT. Just feel it should be tested -- w Palin pick GONE NUTS themes be winner

[RooseveltTruman]

66. I don't understand what you're saying here.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

96. LOFL....Good news: you have a fan!.... Bad news: it's Sensitivity!

:*

[blondeatlast]

102. ...

:spray:

[blondeatlast]

101. Nobody understands what Sensitivity says, not even Sensitivity. nt

[anonymous171]

50. Simplicity and Repitition are what win elections these days.

Nuanced policy discussions don't win votes in today's world of mass media stupidity.

[Me.]

53. Wow It Really Must Be Working

The only thing that is hallow is your way too obvious post.

[TankLV]

55. "thanks" for your sudden "concern"...

Don't you have some OT at your local REPUKE headquarters to do that you've forgot?

[RBInMaine]

60. You are off base. We need to do BOTH, and we ARE !

McCain has voted with Bush 90+% of the time, and he is on tape proudly proclaiming so. (This tape should be played OVER and OVER and OVER again in Obama ads EVERYWHERE.) McCain has said he is a "conservative Republican" that would never have considered running with Kerry in '04 (he was asked if he would be interested in being considered, and he said NO.) . He campaigned hard for Bush in '04. His policies on most issues mirror Bush's, or are WORSE. It is AWESOME strategy to remind, remind, remind the voters that McCain is McSAME on policy andideology and to pull the curtain back on the "maverick" BULLSHIT at every turn! And it IS damn well working, and we need to do it a million times from now until election day. More more more more ads with McCain hugging his BUDDY Bush. This is a CHANGE election. Glueing the hugely unpopular Bush/Cheney thugs to McCain with SUPERGLUE is EXACTLY what Obama should be doing, and IS doing. GOOD !!! And they are ALSO doing what you say: they ARE attacking his current policy proposals as being OUT OF TOUCH, and again, a big and IMPORTANT part of that attack is and MUST be how close they are to BUSH/CHENEY. So BOTH strategies are NEEDED, and BOTH are being done !!

[PolNewf]

67. Have you seen the polls? 60-70% rightly believe McCain will continue Bush's policies

[Kahuna]

68. "RooseveltTruman," huh? How original...

dead giveaway. :eyes:

[RooseveltTruman]

71. What?

I don't get it. How is my screenname a giveaway of anything? REad closely what I've said in other threads, and in this one. I'm an Obama supporter. Just because I criticize one theme doesn't make me a troll or somehow disloyal.

[JeffR]

70. I disagree, but it depresses me to see people dismiss you as a concern troll

I think you've raised some interesting points, and you put together a thoughtful post that's worthy of some contemplation.

[New Dawn]

75. McCain is not a "maverick" though. That is just corporate media propaganda.

The real McCain is just another Neocon like Bush.

[D23MIURG23]

76. I think you are oversimplifying the Obama attack strategy.

They are linking McCain to Bush, but they are also highlighting McCain's own issues in the process. While it is true that McCain needs to be attacked for his own failings (which he is) I don't think it is an accident that Bush appeared at the Republican convention on a screen, or that McCain suddenly ditched his entire narrative in favor of Obama's. People are pissed off at the way this country is being run, and Bush has the lowest sustained approval rating in the history of approval polling. Finally, it is ridiculous to contend that attack is most or all of the Obama strategy. I don't think they even started attacking until the convention.

[yourguide]

77. Thank you for your concern...

back to freepsville I assume?

[krawhitham]

78. read this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

[Willo]

107. Interesting. That article was writting September 18, 2008.

and includes this:

“From everything I’ve heard that he plans to do if elected, McCain doesn’t sound different from Bush to me,” said Susan Bearman, 47,
an independent and writer from Evanston, Ill., in a follow-up interview.


PALIN/McCAIN = MORE OF THE SAME

PALIN/McCAIN = SAME AS BUSH/CHENEY

[quakerboy]

79. Hmm

I guess its the polls that have Obama at 50% nationally that are throwing me off, but I think its working just fine.

This is not 2004. Bush is not the deciderer anymore, he is our national jester. And being connected with him is not as bad as being connected with Cheney, it is nothing that any one wants.

There is a reason that McCain and his people tried out the "Obama is more of the same" argument.

[endthewar]

82. Who are the 3 idiots that rec'd this thread?

Just curious. :rofl:

[mitchum]

91. Sockpuppet1, Sockpuppet 2, and...you know...

[doc03]

93. I think you are wrong n/t

[mokawanis]

95. How come Obama hasn't hired you as campaign manager?

You seem to have it all figured out and if only he would listen to you he'd win the election.

Sarcasm aside, has it occurred to you that maybe Obama has more insight into electoral politics than you do?

[RooseveltTruman]

97. ...

Has it occurred to you that Hillary Clinton has more insight into electoral politics than you do? If Obama listened to people like you, we wouldn't have him as a candidate in 2008.

Look, I do no profess to be a genius. I'm just sharing my opinion; that's what message boards are for. Feel free to rebut my opinion. Feel free to tear it to shreds. But there's no need for sarcastic ripostes simply because my opinion differs from yours. After all, if I was in total agreement with you, you'd probably be lauding my wisdom. We--as the party of dissent and open-mindedness--should be able to have spirited debate amongst like-minded people. For the last eight years, we have fought an administration that ridiculed people who strayed from their rigid orthodoxy. Is that what we want to become? And here, I didn't even criticize any policies of Obama or even Obama himself...just one campaign theme.

[iceman66]

98. But it's TRUE!!!

[Top Cat]

99. great point

[OnionPatch]

103. I'm not sure I agree.

The fact that McCain selected "Bush in a Skirt" for his running mate is a clear indicator the he's going to pander to the extreme right (aka. the Bushies.) He needs to be called out on his phony "maverick" act. There is a lot of very clear evidence that he is no maverick and it needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.

Besides, this is not the only strategy Obama is using. He's using it when it matters and uses it when the issues in the forefront are related to Bush-like policies.

[demwing]

104. Have You and I Been Watchikng the Same Election?

Becaue, in the election I've been watching, Obama has spent the last couple of weeks hammering McCain on his lack of honesty, lack of insight, lack of integrity, and lack of judgement.

Also, tying McCain to Bush IS an argument against McCain's ability to lead, because it shows that, under McCain's stewardship, we would be in the same motherfucking stew of problems that we're already in, but without Bush's weird ability to get people to like hime. McCain is a creepier, crustier, less polished version of Bush, which should scare the bejesus out of every person in the whole damn country.

[BlooInBloo]

105. You fail pathetically.

[Willo]

106. McCain = Bush has been working just fine

Breaking down all the similarities is the key.

Bush has now clearly proven he is unfit to lead on based on policy, judgment, temperament and decisions made. Now John McCain echoes these traits.

It has been so effective that the republican campaign has taken great pains to cry "foul, not true" while attempting to put distance between them and point to small, long-gone instances of difference to prove their point.

Republicans fear to use the word "Republican" in print because of how it ties to Bush. They call their brand dog food and advocated not attending their own convention LONG BEFORE IKE.

The republicans hate that we won't let it go. They hate that we constantly remind them of it because it works.

It works so well, that now there are discussions on whether McCain or Palin is more like Bush.

I believe it is partly what has some people on the fence.