The McTorture aspect comes from McCains inability to stand up against TORTURE under this Administration… one of those defining characteristics that make Johnny more of a McSame than not.

By simply agreeing with Laura I.’s attempt to separate Bush and McTORTURE by drawing out this dichotomy as it exists, simply is, to me, an eloquent way of calling the whole situation B.S.

I mean, yes, McCain was tortured. And Yes, the current definition by this Administration would then disagree with the first known fact, McCain was tortured. However, McCain’s inability to resist this Administration’s attempt to redefine TORTURE, belies McCain’s own history.

… or maybe you just don’t get the irony. Maybe?
Especially when the Irony IS the reality.

For the percentage, I’ll have to figure out how to divide zero by zero.

And also, folks, consider that Sen. Obama has voted in line with Pres. Bush 40% of the time. So if Obama is voted in, will we get 40% of Bush? Or is it that you agree with Pres. Bush 40% of the time? (because Sen. Obama does)
_______________________________________________________

In the first place, the topic of this thread is McCain, not Obama. The debate point here is how different from Bush McCain is. Nice attempt at distraction, though.

Second, Obama’s voting record isn’t all that unusual for someone of the opposition party. Many bills aren’t controversial, and Democrats don’t vote against something merely because a Republican proposes it — they vote against something if it’s flawed or just plain wrong. Voting against something just because it was suggested by somebody on the other side is the hallmark of the Republicans, not the Democrats.

Third, voting records are kind of moot this year, because both Obama and McCain have missed a lot of votes due to their campaigns (McCain has been absent more, but that’s another thread).

Fourth, about voting with one’s party — that’s fine if your party is doing a good job and you agree with their position. However, it’s tough to sell yourself as a maverick if you’ve been voting the party line when the party is on the wrong track.

Fifth (getting back to the thread topic), the point being raised is that Laura Ingraham is making a rather outrageous claim that McCain isn’t anything like Bush on the issues. Where we have seen McCain take every principled stand he has ever had and has changed it so he is marching in lockstep with Bushco. And the GOP apologists’ attempts to claim this isn’t true just look pathetic.

Ingraham told us that she sees virtually no similarities between the policy positions of President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Same) , blah, blah, blah….

Upton Sinclair said it best: “If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

This is especially true for Repug shills like Ingraham.

Another disengenuous and frankly STUPID argument. Pelosi didnt stand for a national election Congress traditionally has a bad approval rating. Everyone seems to hate all the Congressmen EXCEPT for the one THEY voted for. And for Pelosi that is people in San Fransisco. Also the RECORD rate of filibustering by the GOP has made congress look bad. ALL of America is Bushs constituency. THEY voted him in and now he is slightly more popular than tooth decay.

Maybe he *should* try to distance himself from her.

And this has what to do with the fact that Laura is a liar and an asshat for the GOP? Mixing apples with oranges may work for morons on the reich but facts are facts. John McBedpan has voted with W 95% of the time.

Pelosi has the wrath of the democrats on her for not impeaching these crooks and thugs.

You can keep repeating that line if you want. MAYBE you will convince SOMEBODY that McSame isnt a Bushclone. What you cannot reasonably argue is that Lauracretin LIED. FLAT OUT. McCain is NOT different from Bush on every issue. THAT is what this thread is about. You can keep beating that horse if you want to but it isnt breathing and its starting to smell funny.

Maybe he *should* try to distance himself from her.

Yet Laura says:
He’s pretty much been different from President Bush on every issue other than on the war, and even on the war, he was very critical of how it was being handled.

so a 10% differential is proof positive on how he’s distanced himself from the Worst President Ever?
Please tell me what alternate universe you reside, so if I ever need a break from reality, I can join ya!

(whoops, yet another ad hominem. My bad.)

David Brock was a good friend of hers and he said she seldom read a newspaper and did not have a single book where she lived.

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush

It’s called voting with your party. McCain does it. Obama does it. It doesn’t mean that the candidate agrees with every party line. Otherwise, we could just select a Dem at random and a Republican at random.

McCain voted in line with Bush 95% of the time.
Bush voted in line with McCain 95% of the time.
Obama voted in line with Bush 40% of the time.
Bush voted in line with Obama 40% of the time.

See the 55% difference DaleW?

And also, folks, consider that Sen. Obama has voted in line with Pres. Bush 40% of the time.

You do this could be spun as that Bush agreed with Obama 40% of the time?

But as with McCain: A. McCain agreed with Bush 95% of the time. B. Bush agreed with McCain 95% of the time. Either way Bush and McCain are very alike.