nimh wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:if McCain voting 95% of the time with the leader of his party is somehow proof that he is not a change agent, how do you explain Obama's even more faithful (to his party leaders) voting record?
People want change from the status quo. They're dissatisfied with the president, his administration, and its policies. They're dissatisfied with Congress too, but when specified by party much more so with the Republicans than with the Democrats.
To pick up on your comparison here: you have a candidate voting 9 out of 10 times or more with the Republican leadership, with the President and administration and its policies; and you have a candidate who has consistently voted with the
opposition to that administration and President. Who has been in opposition to the party that has ruled the Presidency for eight years, and ruled Congress for a stretch of 12 years that only ended a year and a half ago, and has now hit rock bottom in popularity.
Who's more of a credible change agent, you ask? Well, maybe neither would suddenly overturn the two party system or the climate of partisan polarisation, but there's one who's consistently propped up the powers that be now for years, and one who's consistently opposed them. Doesnt seem like a difficult question.
Perhaps not when viewed through a distorted lens.
There is nothing particulary radical about someone remaining in lockstep with the policies and positions of their party's leaders, whether that party is in the majority or is the opposition.
As I suggested to Cyclo, if you believe that the Liberal way is the only way then you might not expect to see occassional breaks with the party of Liberals as a sign of independent thought.
You might also require McCain to have been in a constant state of rebellion, before you will acknowledge his independence.
The fact of the matter is that McCain has repeatedly put his principles above party loyalty, and in so doing has incurred political damage. When has Obama ever done this? Surely there must be one or two policies advocated by the Dem leaders to which a free thinking person might have objected.
Another fact of the matter is that McCain has repeatedly reached across the aisle whem he he felt it benefited the country, although it hurt him within his party: McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy are two pieces of legislations that support this claim. His leadership in and support of the Gang of 14 is further evidence.
What similar instances can Obama supporters point to? Obama joining Sen Lugar in a fact finding mission on nuclear proliferation? The Dem leadership and base must have really been pissed at him over that one!
Participating in a bi-partisan effort to reign in Chicago police? The mavericks in that case were the Republcans, not the Liberals who reliably target police departments as sources of oppressive abuse.
Perhaps you, Cyclo or others can present a specific, factual case why anyone should believe Obama is the change agent and not McCain, but you haven't so far, and I doubt you can.
Hey, you like the guy. I get it. He endorses the policies and positions with which you agree a very good reason to support him, but please spare us this messianic crap about him being Change and New Politics personified. Just say you want to see a Liberal president in the White House, because that what Obama promises.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama will buck his party and its base. You and Cyclo are probably A-OK with this but the 47% or so of Americans who don't vote for him surely will not.
