Status Quo Is Now Party of Change

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
How is it that the Republicans are now the party of change? I'm really confused by this claim that somehow McCain, Palin and the Republicans are now the party of change, when they are the party that has been the majority.
Republican president in 20 of last 28 years
Republican majority in congress 1992-2006.

Are they claiming that they will be reforming themselves from the previous 8 years? How can you claim this without admitting that you were part of the problem for the last 8 years? It can not be denied that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time, so if he wanted to be the candidate of change why didnt he start changing things when his party had a majority in congress and a Republican president?

I would like to hear from Republicans, who can explain to me how McCain can be the change candidate when he has been the status quo? How can he claim to be the candidate of change without admitting guilt for the things he wants to change? How can you vote with your party 90%+ of the time and now claim to be the party of change? How can you claim to be a change candidate when your policies are right in line with the previous administration? McCain has not claimed to want to do anything different from what the Republicans have been doing for the last 8 years but somehow he is going to change that. ?????

If anyone can provide real answers it would be appreciated. In my opinion this is a strictly political move, meant to confuse voters and separate themselves from Bush and the last 8 years. It would be one thing if this were Republicans Ron Paul or Bob Barr, claiming to change Washington and separate himself from Bush and the rest of the Republicans. But this is John McCain, he has been voting with his party lock step and now he is going to change things without admitting that his decisions in the last 8 years were wrong.

You cant have this both ways. If your party has been in power for the last 8 years and you are claiming to change things, you are admitting that many of the decisions you made were wrong. If you claim that most of your decisions were right, why would you want to be a party of change, that would result in doing things wrong.

I think this is the most low down political move I have ever seen and the sad thing is, many will buy into this theory. Without realizing the flawed logic behind making these claims.

Any answers?

[edit on 5-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]




posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
People just see the cover, and judge the book that way. Thats the world. They see a person in a skirt and see change.

We all know who ever wins, the same boring crappy polictics will be done and none of us, will get any choice, in it. Ron paul is a good example of wolf in sheeps clothing, he must be able to afford armani now, lol....



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
How is it that the Republicans are now the party of change?
Any answers?


Here are answers.

The Dems see everything as if loyalty to the "Party" is paramount. I have a friend from Eastern Europe who grew up under communism and she says the Dems remind her of being back in Europe. Everything is about "the party."

McCain belongs to the Republican Party. This doesn't mean he IS the party, or HE was in charge the last 8 years.

McCain represents change because he is the one willing to buck the system and go against his own party. Obama has never shown this type of willingness to go against the Democratic party.

And then when Obama picked lifetime Washington insider Joe Biden, whose son is a lobbyist, it was obvious that he is just another politician trying to claim he isn't

When McCain picked Palin, he showed that he was going to pick somebody outside the D.C. insiders' club.

McCain is 72 and is married to a woman worth $100 million. He's not doing this for the money. He's doing this because he believes he's going to change the country.

Obama is 47 and he's shown he will sell himself out to the special interests and party insiders to further his career. This campaign is about him no matter how many times he tries to convince you it's not.

McCain/Palin = change.

Obama/Biden = same old, same old.

It's really not that complicated. Obama sold you out. You should have realized this when he voted for FISA.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


But if McCain wants change in Washington, why did he vote with his party and president so much? When you say change you are implying that what was happening was wrong or is in need of change. If McCain is a 'Maverick' and hold his own ideals, separate from his party, why did he vote with them so much?

Can you provide some good examples of McCain 'bucking' the system? If you are opposed to the system why did you vote with the status quo so frequently?

It is not simple. It is a seriously flawed argument.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]

[edit on 5-9-2008 by iamcamouflage]



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I agree, I noticed this last night in McCain's speech. They mocked Obama for claiming to be the party of change and then they essentially "stole" the idea. IMO, they realized it actually had some weight with some people and decided to use it for themselves.

I also noticed a speaker last night mocking Obama's speech when he said, "It's not that John McCain doesn't care It's that John McCain doesn't get it." This speaker used the same line and turned it on Obama, obviously mocking him.

To me, it seems like they've seen the highlights from the DNC and used them for their own advantage like they couldn't come up with some original ideas of their own?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by jamie83
 


But if McCain wants change in Washington, why did he vote with his party and president so much? When you say change you are implying that what was happening was wrong or is in need of change. If McCain is a 'Maverick' and hold his own ideals, separate from his party, why did he vote with them so much?

Can you provide some good examples of McCain 'bucking' the system? If you are opposed to the system why did you vote with the status quo so frequently?

It is not simple. It is a seriously flawed argument.


First, do you have any evidence that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, and what are the specific votes?

Who else voted the same?

Were all the votes a mistake?


Second, here are examples of McCain bucking the system.

1) campaign finance reform

2) immigration

3) "gang of 12"

4) having Joe Lieberman speak at the convention

5) picking Sarah Palin as VP instead of entrenched Washington or Republican lapdog.


So now turn it around.

What has Obama DONE -not what has Obama SAID, that shows he's ever bucked the system?

Anything???



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


I have been puzzled by this, too, iam. For the past 8 years, John McCain has been praising Bush and the administration all the way, he DID vote with Bush 95% of the time, and in 2008, 100% of the time!

Then McCain (or the Party) selects a person for VP who is even more conservative than Bush, and now they are claiming they are the party of change. It doesn't matter where she's from or where she lives. Her political ideology is right in line with Cheney.



And most incredibly and unbelievably, people believe it!


Nothing has changed except the words they use and people fall for it like they're in a trance or something, and then they accuse others of Party Loyalty.

80% of the country doesn't like the direction it's going, but they'll vote again for the same old thing.

And they have a yard sign: "McCain and Palin for REAL Hope and Change". Couldn't they come up with anything on their own? It doesn't show leadership to follow Obama's every single move as they have been, even regarding their own war!

They saw Obama was winning the election, so they followed him. Who could blame them?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
First, do you have any evidence that McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, and what are the specific votes?

Who else voted the same?

Were all the votes a mistake?



This rhetorical tactic that you use all over the boards is getting exhausting. Can you not concede that the OP has raised a legitmate and accurate observation?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And they have a yard sign: "McCain and Palin for REAL Hope and Change". Couldn't they come up with anything on their own? It doesn't show leadership to follow Obama's every single move as they have been, even regarding their own war!

They saw Obama was winning the election, so they followed him. Who could blame them?



So what has Obama DONE that is an example of change?

Was the FISA bill change?
Was picking Biden, whose son is a lobbyist for drug companies, change?
Was his career path from Harvard to State Senate to U.S. Senate to POTUS candidate with no private sector experience change?
Is raising taxes on the rich change?
Is raising taxes on oil companies change?
Is inciting class warfare change?
Is being unconditionally pro union change?
Is being unconditionally pro abortion, even late term abortion, change?
Is hiring David Plouffe to run a campaign change?

Not accepting public financing was change. He's the first candidate since it's been implemented to decline it (even though he said he was for it).

Seriously, can you name something Obama has DONE that shows he represents change from the same old, same old?



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
Seriously, can you name something Obama has DONE that shows he represents change from the same old, same old?


Absolutely! But 1. that's not what this thread is about. 2. I've had enough of your partisan crap. 3. I have no interest in educating you or convincing you to change your mind.

Carry on.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I like the post that McCain is not in it for the money, but Obama is.

McCain had to give the Republican Party a tax cut, Obama did not with his lot.

I like McCain, but the tax cycle is not with him because W Bush has been so irresponsible.

Real change is paying for others to have health care, not bowing to a self-serving party tax cut.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I have a great slogan for them, so they can be unique!


How about:

The more things change, the more they stay the same!



I think that says it all.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


I recall this thread being about the irony of the GOP claiming to be the party change. You have not proved otherwise and only attempt to derail by repeating my question back to me with Obamas' name in the place of McCain.

If you do not care to address the argument that has been proposed, dont.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And they have a yard sign: "McCain and Palin for REAL Hope and Change". Couldn't they come up with anything on their own? It doesn't show leadership to follow Obama's every single move as they have been, even regarding their own war!

They saw Obama was winning the election, so they followed him. Who could blame them?



So what has Obama DONE that is an example of change?

Was the FISA bill change?
Was picking Biden, whose son is a lobbyist for drug companies, change?
Was his career path from Harvard to State Senate to U.S. Senate to POTUS candidate with no private sector experience change?
Is raising taxes on the rich change?
Is raising taxes on oil companies change?
Is inciting class warfare change?
Is being unconditionally pro union change?
Is being unconditionally pro abortion, even late term abortion, change?
Is hiring David Plouffe to run a campaign change?

Not accepting public financing was change. He's the first candidate since it's been implemented to decline it (even though he said he was for it).

Seriously, can you name something Obama has DONE that shows he represents change from the same old, same old?



Most of your list, if you compare it to the last 30 years of Republican agenda, yes. They are most certainly change, taxing the rich, yes change, taxing the oil companies, yup that would also be change. And some are just lies, class warfare is creating a larger distance between rich and poor, that has number has grown in the last 8 years, unions have dieing for quite some time. Just because you dont agree with some of those ideas, they are no less change. By change I mean different than before. Would you say that most of your policy examples are currently intact in our govt, if you say no, then if Obama did something different, that would be the definition of change.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Another aspect of this subject I find interesting is that before McCain started using the Change mantra, his supporters here (or at least the anti-Obama people) shamed me for "falling for the empty rhetoric of change". They said Obama's Promises sounded just like George Bush's.

But, interestingly, now that McCain is pushing "Change", they've completely changed their tune, saying that McCain means Change and Obama means more of the same.
I guess it doesn't matter that McCain sounds JUST like Bush!



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I find it even more hilarious that Obama had the slogan: "Change You Can Believe In" and the Republicans are going with "Real Change You Can Believe In". Are you kidding me? It might as well say; "Super Special For-Realzies Change You Can Belive In, Rock, Flag and Eagle."
They completely ripped off the message that Obama and the Democrats have been using for how long? and they didnt think anyone would notice. This in my mind is the biggest hipocracy that has been portrayed by the GOP and it is a serious hit against their credibility. I am very surprised that the media hasnt jumped all over this. They cant have it both ways, and by attempting to do so, they have created a seriously flawed argument.(as noted in my OP)

I mean I understand the saying, If you cant beat them, join them. But how does joining the opposite message and admitting it is the right message, trump the people who have been asking for change since the 2006 elections.

This should be a slap in the face to anyone. It is low down, cheap, win at all costs, manipulative politics. This should be the number one issue being discussed right now. By the GOP now running on change, they are going to have to answer some tough questions. All of which I proposed in the OP. Every journalist, reporter, and American should be asking the GOP these questions. By claiming to change things, when they have been the majority party, they are admitting to their own faults or the faults of a system that they failed to address for 8 years of unabided control.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Does anyone have any insight as to how it is possible to have things both ways. Or can anyone refute the flawed arugment that has been presented by the GOP? The stance of the GOP has been dramatically changed and this change presents some very interesting questions. I would love to hear some insight from any McCain supporters.






top topics



 
1

log in

join