Factcheck.org: Yes, its true McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time

Q: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?

A: Yes, it's true, according to Congressional Quarterly's assessment of McCain's voting record.


FactCheck.org: Is it true John McCain voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time?

Considering the fact that Bush is one of the worst Presidents for refusing to veto any bill that crosses his desk, and since Democrats control both houses of Congress -that means no bill reached Bush's desk that the overwhelming majority of Democrats didn't also approve first. Obama didn't buck his party on this stuff -not even once.

Wouldn't that mean that Obama actually voted close to a 100% of the time with everything Bush signed? LOL
 
John McCain used to have integrity.

He gave it up when he lost in 2000.

Since then he has been a lyin sack of s***.
 
Neither of the two 'major' parties are credible, and their blind followers as well. May as well vote green since they won't win and it won't matter which of the other two do.
 
At least McCain once had integrity. Obama never did, and never will.

I was going to side with McCain, until he picked the scary freak for a VP. Biden with Obama balances them out, I love honesty but Obama's ideals are too out there for me and too unorganized.
 
I was going to side with McCain, until he picked the scary freak for a VP. Biden with Obama balances them out, I love honesty but Obama's ideals are too out there for me and too unorganized.

Eh, I don't mind a lot of Palin's views. They're a bit extreme, but so are Obama's. Palin's not running for President, Obama is. I also know that a lot of Palin's extreme ideas would never be voted into laws, while Obama's could be.
 
Eh, I don't mind a lot of Palin's views. They're a bit extreme, but so are Obama's. Palin's not running for President, Obama is. I also know that a lot of Palin's extreme ideas would never be voted into laws, while Obama's could be.

True, but the choice of VP shows some of their own personal ideals. Often ones they won't voice themselves. There is a chance that McCain actually follows Palins extremism, but won't show those colors until in office, while there is a slim (very slim) chance Obama may be able to put his own aside and vote with the people instead of for the people. I don't think Obama has 'no plan' as they accuse him of, I honestly fear he is just trying to keep people from knowing what his real plan is, which is a more frightening thought if you think about it.
 
True, but the choice of VP shows some of their own personal ideals. Often ones they won't voice themselves. There is a chance that McCain actually follows Palins extremism, but won't show those colors until in office, while there is a slim (very slim) chance Obama may be able to put his own aside and vote with the people instead of for the people. I don't think Obama has 'no plan' as they accuse him of, I honestly fear he is just trying to keep people from knowing what his real plan is, which is a more frightening thought if you think about it.

To think that McCain is a closet Bible thumper suggests you know very little about McCain. Palin was clearly not his first choice for VP, because if he had his way, he'd be running with Joe Lieberman. But choosing someone like Lieberman was a sure-fire way to lose this election, because it completely alienated the Republican base. He had to choose someone the neocons could relate to, and Palin clearly was that choose. Again, she's a bit TOO far right for me, but Obama's even farther left, so is his running mate. At least McCain has a moderate history.
 
To think that McCain is a closet Bible thumper suggests you know very little about McCain. Palin was clearly not his first choice for VP, because if he had his way, he'd be running with Joe Lieberman. But choosing someone like Lieberman was a sure-fire way to lose this election, because it completely alienated the Republican base. He had to choose someone the neocons could relate to, and Palin clearly was that choose. Again, she's a bit TOO far right for me, but Obama's even farther left, so is his running mate. At least McCain has a moderate history.

Neo Cons are NOT far right. Again for the slow, they are democrats that the far left alienated and marginalized. They are still left of center on many issues but find the Republicans closer to their major views.

I can not believe you guys keep claiming they are far right.
 
Neo Cons are NOT far right. Again for the slow, they are democrats that the far left alienated and marginalized. They are still left of center on many issues but find the Republicans closer to their major views.

I can not believe you guys keep claiming they are far right.

Hmmm ... you both still sound the same to me. :eusa_whistle:
 
Shoot, I hate it when I'm wrong. I thought it was 90%. :redface:

True, as another poster said, Obama has agreed with D 100% of time, a tad of an overstatement. Then there's those years other than '07:

...

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, 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).

Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.

Is 95% "Significant"?

As for whether voting with Bush 95 percent of the time last year is "significant," that's a matter of opinion that we leave to readers to determine for themselves.

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.

The McCain campaign points out that Obama told a local TV interviewer recently that "the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." Obama was actually wrong about that. In 2006 he voted alongside the president 49 percent of the time, and in 2005, the year before Democrats took control of the Senate, Obama voted with the president only 33 percent of the time.

Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.


And so . . .

So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career.
 
This web site is owned by Annenberg Public Policy Center.

I believe that there are links and connections worthy of investigation between the Barack Obama campaign, William Ayers, the Annenbergs, and ACORN.

For starters, keep in mind: that Barack Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation. Obama spent four plus years (1995-1999) as Chairman of the Board.

William “Bill” Ayers, a Weather Underground terrorist and a friend of the Obamas, was instrumental in founding the Challenge, with his ties to Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley.

Also, there are reports that the Annenberg files have been “locked down” under mysterious circumstances, after a reporter was promised access to those same files.

Factcheck.org, used by many who wish to refute the negative coverage of Obama, is also a Division, or Project, of the Annenberg Foundation.

You may recall that Factcheck was the second site to publish the now-suspect Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) reportedly received from the Obama campaign.

The first site was Dailykos.com, a political blog, publishing news and opinions from the liberal viewpoint. It serves as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists, whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party.

[The Annenberg family, and their namesake Foundation have an interesting history that I would like to examine in greater depth some day when I get the time.]

Next, keep in mind that ACORN has received payments of nearly a million dollars from the Barack Obama Campaign in 2008. It appears that the payments were funneled through Citizens Services Inc., and may have been falsely reported to the FEC.

Barack Obama has been working with ACORN since his first days as a Community Organizer in Chicago: “In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort. He later became a trainer for the group, as well as its lawyer in election law cases.” (John Fund, Op-Ed, “Obama’s liberal shock troops,” “The Wall Street Journal”, 07/12/08).

“Representing ACORN, Obama and other attorneys sued the State Of Illinois, forcing it to implement Federal “motor voter” legislation to make it easier for the poor and minorities to register to vote.” (”Some Cases Obama Worked On In His Career As An Attorney,” “The Associated Press”, 02/20/07). Again, impartiality? I don’t think it’s possible.

A couple more press quotes concerning ACORN:

ACORN used “in your face” tactics like disrupting hearings, bursting into City Council meetings, and protesting at mayor’s homes. (Stanley Kurtz, Op-Ed, “Inside Obama’s Acorn,” “National Review”, 05/29/08 )

Meanwhile, keep in mind: ACORN has been a beneficiary of grants from the Chicago-based Woods Fund, which has a history of issuing controversial grants. Ayres and Obama served together on the Fund’s board (and are still listed). [Other grantees during their tenure included PLO employee Rashid Khalidi and the Obamas' church, Trinity United.]

Conclusions so far:

Are you starting to see the potential connections and conflicts of interest? Here’s what I see:

1. Potential conflict of interest between Obama and anything funded by the Annenbergs, including Factcheck.org. [Why were they one of only a handful of media to get a copy of the COLB?]

2. Obvious conflict of interest between Obama and ACORN: He has been directly involved in funding ACORN, has worked for ACORN, and is now PAYING ACORN in exchange for assistance to his campaign.

3. What kind of assistance is ACORN providing the campaign? It certainly makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

4. Is there a direct connection between the Annenberg Foundation and ACORN, with Ayres and Obama in the middle?
 
Considering the fact that Bush is one of the worst Presidents for refusing to veto any bill that crosses his desk, and since Democrats control both houses of Congress -that means no bill reached Bush's desk that the overwhelming majority of Democrats didn't also approve first. Obama didn't buck his party on this stuff -not even once.

Wouldn't that mean that Obama actually voted close to a 100% of the time with everything Bush signed? LOL

umm you might want to get your facts right frazzle... Bush didn't veto any bill for the first five years, when the Repubs controlled both houses. Now he vetos shit all the time.

Obama isn't running as a maverick either so I'm not sure why people expect him to buck his party? He's not trying to reinvent himself as some non-partisan outsider whose been fighting the corruption in washington all these years only to be "forced" to go along with the politics as usual.

McCain's record speaks for itself. He can try to run from it but there it is. 95% of the time he voted with the worst President in modern history.
 
I'm not going to bother addressing SE's little extremist conspiracy theories... but factcheck.org is pristine in terms of its reputation. you might recall dick cheney telling people to use it it if they didn't believe certain things HE was saying.

it's amazing how the wingnuts can't acknowledge that there are actually FACTS and that reality isn't what you pretend it is in their little worlds
 
umm you might want to get your facts right frazzle... Bush didn't veto any bill for the first five years, when the Repubs controlled both houses. Now he vetos shit all the time.

Obama isn't running as a maverick either so I'm not sure why people expect him to buck his party? He's not trying to reinvent himself as some non-partisan outsider whose been fighting the corruption in washington all these years only to be "forced" to go along with the politics as usual.

McCain's record speaks for itself. He can try to run from it but there it is. 95% of the time he voted with the worst President in modern history.

And the dems aren't the failed administration that a candidate needs to put on their running shoes to get away from.

the comments about obama are just pure deflection from the FACT that McCain voted for BUSH'S failed policies 90% of the time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top