Is that 90% number true? Is it more than you would expect – after all, many laws are uncontroversial. I hate numbers without context. Here’s some context.
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 [Why did they feel the need to put “However” in here? It doesn’t rebut anything. Can’t anyone just present facts?], 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).
In contrast,
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.
That’s an enormous difference. I thought it would be an empty soundbite that dissappeared under scrutiny. It didn’t.
Who is more bipartisan? Who is more of the same?
McCain voted with the Republicans (Bush does not actually vote) 90 percent of the time.
Obama voted with the Democrats 96 percent of the time.
http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-vs-mccain-who-is-really-more-of.html
Muttrox,
I completely agree with your earlier post. McCain of 2000 was a very likeable candidate, and I too may have crossed party lines to vote for him (something I have never done for a national election). But the bloom is certainly off the rose in 2008. I still think McCain was the most tolerable of the major Republican candidates this year, but there’s no way I’d vote for him. I only take minor consolation that if he does win, it’s still bound to be an improvement over what we have now.
And by the way, you’re essentially saying that when McCain votes, there’s no reason to expect he either believes it, or will believe it in a couple years. How is that good?
By the way, I welcome a guest post laying out your case for who to vote for. It’d be fun.
I have no problems with “present” votes. If I was a legislator, there were be issues I cared about and issues I didn’t. You can’t make an informed passionate vote on everything. I would have to know what it is Obama voted present on.
And by the way, McCain often does not make a stand on issues. (I can never find the link when I need it…) He has missed many many many votes in the last couple years, choosing to campaign rather than do his job. This is country first?
This isn’t to say Obama’s perfect. I am extremely dissappointed with his FISA vote. But of all the things to hold against him, some “present” votes are low on my list.
Making a stand and then changing mind ain’t ideal obviously – sometimes your principles or opinions change and as Matt indicated sometimes it’s about politics….but at the end of the day, I believe it’s still better to actually take a stand and change your mind (since you are on the record) then to vote “present” – that’s as political as it gets.
Wow, Brad, I don’t think I could agree with your comment above more unless you were actually inside my brain typing this…wait…are you??
@Ole Ole USA — You really should check out this link (which has citations, so it is not just liberal meanderings) for how much John McCain has “made a stand” recently…changing his mind on 75 different key issues (some very key to his so-called “maverick” status) doesn’t really smack of someone with cajones. More like someone who is corrupt to his own former ideals.
At least McCain makes a stand on issues whether you agree with him or not. Whereas Obama votes “present” over 100 times during his IL Senate stint. He either doesn’t have an opinion or he’s got no cajones to make a stand. For the record, I’m still undecided. I like Obama, but his high volume of “present” votes really really bother me.
Depends on your timeframe. Somewhere in 2004 John McCain threw out whatever principles he had and stuck his nose firmly in Bush’s behind. He has been incredibly unprincipled since then. I was saying this in March 2005, it was already obvious then. It’s gotten worse. It’s been sad to see this happen.
The John McCain of 2000 would have attracted me. I might have crossed party lines, depending who the Democrats put up. The John McCain of the last four years is a senile corrupt moron.
Agreed that McCain has differed with the Republican establishment in several areas over the years — campaign finance reform, Gang of 14, stem cell funding, climate change, interrogation techniques, etc. However, some of the most important issues to voters this election are a) economy (where McCain has morphed to be very close to Bush), b) national security / war in Iraq (where Bush and McCain positions are also close), and c) health care (where McCain position is pretty close to Bush). Throw in some other very key areas (taxes, abortion) — and on most of the most important issues to voters, McCain is close to the same as Bush. I believe that in voters’ minds, this agreement with a very unpopular president will outweigh other issues where there has been historical difference with Bush.
I think the McSame label playes on people’s ignorance and lack of a knowledge about John McCain’s record. It basically applies to one hot button issue – the war in Iraq. But regarding so many other issues, McCain is no party hack and no fan of Bush. The beltway conservative pundits and radio talk show hosts were fit to be tied about McCain. They thought his nomination would be the death of the GOP. McCain broke ranks with Bush and fellow republicans on a number of issues. You know that’s true. Calling him McSame is a good marketing tactic, but it’s not likely to stick once more people start paying attention and watching the debates.
Good analysis. I’m glad you did this. I was like you — I heard the “talking point” of 90% or 95% voting record with Bush, but then I wondered what it would be for a random member of the Senate, or even the most polar opposite from Bush. It wouldn’t have surprised me if it was 70-75% for even opposition members of the Senate. But I’m glad it’s much lower — it underscores the point that McCain is pretty darn close to McSame.
Very good point. Thank you for noticing. In addition… I suspect that McCain and democratic senators share a very high percentage of votes as well. A lot of votes in the Senate are for appropriations or resolutions which have support from both sides. When you take all the mundane matters and ‘meaningless votes’ out of the equation, what is the REAL percentage of overlap on votes with Bush / Obama / others? I wonder…