No Significant Difference Between McCain And Obama?

The examples below aren't meant to be exhaustive. I realize that there are other issues to consider, that both candidates have changed their positions on some issues and might change positions in the future, etc. And I don't agree with every assertion of every source I'm citing. I do think, though, that the several examples below reflect the fact that John McCain and Barack Obama are significantly different. That conclusion is often disputed by third-party candidates and their supporters, conservatives who are unsatisfied with McCain, liberals who are unsatisfied with Obama, undecided voters who don't know much about the candidates, etc.

John McCain's American Conservative Union lifetime rating is 82.16%, and it was 80% last year. Obama's ratings are 7.67% and 7%. See here.

Americans For Democratic Action, a liberal organization that rates candidates, refers to the "[expletive] big difference" between McCain and Obama.

"On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous. Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy....When the U.S. negotiates with 'terrorists and radicals,' it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake. State sponsors use others as surrogates, but they are just as much terrorists as those who actually carry out the dastardly acts. Legitimacy and international acceptability are qualities terrorists crave, and should therefore not be conferred casually, if at all. Moreover, negotiations--especially those 'without precondition' as Mr. Obama has specifically advocated--consume time, another precious asset that terrorists and rogue leaders prize. Here, President Bush's reference to Hitler was particularly apt: While the diplomats of European democracies played with their umbrellas, the Nazis were rearming and expanding their industrial power....Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea 'without preconditions' is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign. Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy's first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of the Cold War's most dangerous crises. Such realities should cause Obama to become more circumspect, minimizing his off-the-cuff observations about history, grand strategy and diplomacy. In fact, he has done exactly the opposite, exhibiting so many gaps in his knowledge and understanding of world affairs that they have not yet received the attention they deserve. He consistently reveals failings in foreign policy that are far more serious than even his critics had previously imagined." (John Bolton, here and here)

"McCain shot back immediately from a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, accusing Obama of being flat wrong about the surge of troops into Iraq, while he risked his own presidential ambitions to support the surge at the height of its unpopularity last year. At the same time, McCain reversed his position of as late as last week, calling for sending three more brigades to Afghanistan, something Obama has long supported. Obama confronted questions about his own judgment in opposing the surge. Calling the surge a tactic, not a strategy, he said Americans should welcome its gains as an opportunity to end the war, not continue it. He listed many goals that could have been pursued after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, from 'destroying' Osama bin Laden to investing in alternative energy....Obama has struggled in recent weeks to explain his call for an Iraq withdrawal in the face of military gains. His campaign removed from its Web site his strongest criticisms of the troop increases, now acknowledging 'an improved security situation.' With polls now showing that voters give an edge to McCain on handling the Iraq war, despite its deep unpopularity, McCain has leapt to the attack, accusing Obama of refusing to acknowledge facts on the ground. 'Over the last year, Sen. Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq,' McCain said. 'I called for a comprehensive new strategy, a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Sen. Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible. Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong.'...As much as the sharp difference over whether the invasion of Iraq was wise, the debate also illustrated clashing styles of potential presidential leadership. McCain has sought to narrow the campaign's focus to the surge and defines the Iraq war in stark terms of victory and defeat. He emphasizes his experience and courage in taking deeply unpopular stands, whether on the war or on immigration, revealing an almost personalized approach to governing based on his own convictions and biography. 'In wartime, judgment and experience matter,' McCain said. 'In a time of war, the commander in chief doesn't get a learning curve. ...When I tell you I will put our country's interest - your interests - before party, before any special interest, before my own interests, every hour of every day I'm in office, you can believe me because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the security and well-being of the country I love.' In response, Obama followed a pattern that he established when confronting other challenges throughout the campaign, from the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments to questions about his not wearing a flag pin (he wears one now). Obama aggressively confronted both issues, broadly tackling American race relations and the meaning of patriotism. Tuesday, rather than arguing about the surge, Obama vastly broadened his critique of the war, placing it in a larger historical context....Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama offer starkly different choices on the war in Iraq and equally different styles of governing." (San Francisco Chronicle)

"Senator Obama is well liked in Europe: 84 percent of French, 82 percent of Germans and 74 percent of the British have confidence in Obama, while the corresponding numbers for McCain are in the low 30s and 40s, according to Politico.com." (PBS)

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) spoke for McCain Tuesday before the Center for U.S. Global Engagement and said Obama’s foreign policy plan 'troubles' and 'confuses' him. Lieberman said he was unsure whether Obama supports a firm deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, a more flexible goal. 'I wish Sen. Obama would just say the surge has worked,' Lieberman said, 'rather than changing his positions on how and when we should exit Iraq without acknowledging that these changes are understandably based on the facts on the ground.' As Obama stressed shifting resources towards the conflict in Afghanistan, Lieberman stressed the two front’s interdependence, saying what happens in Iraq effects not just Afghanistan but other American interests around the world. 'What Sen. Obama does not seem to understand is that, had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq, the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London,' he said. Lieberman also accused Obama of not taking principled stands, suggesting he 'said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus -- only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org?'" (MSNBC)

"For Russia and Georgia, the conflict in South Ossetia is now a long-simmering war. For Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., it is the first chance for the presidential candidates to demonstrate their response to an international crisis. McCain has called Russia's Vladimir Putin many things, few of them good. He's called Putin 'a totalitarian dictator' and famously said he looked into his eyes and saw three letters 'K, G and B,' a reference to Putin's former employer, the Soviet spy agency. And when hostilities erupted along the Georgia-Russia border, McCain was characteristically bold and quick to act. He spoke by phone to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, then quickly rearranged his schedule to make his statement on the crisis his first event of the day. And he didn't mince words. 'Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory,' he said in a morning statement. Obama also condemned the Russian invasion. But he cast a wider net for advice -- including Hadley, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and his foreign policy advisors. When he spoke, he was characteristically circumspect. 'I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this armed conflict,' Obama said. The candidates' responses reveal a stark difference in governing style, and both seem carefully calibrated to appeal to American voters." (ABC News)

"The differences between the McCain/Palin ticket and the Obama/Biden ticket are clear. While Senator McCain has a very strong record on the life issues, Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever nominated by a major political party. Senator Obama voted multiple times to deny care and protection to children born alive after abortion attempts. He is also co-sponser of an extreme bill, the so-called 'Freedom of Choice Act,' that would make partial-birth abortion legal again and require taxpayer funding of abortions." (National Right To Life)

"The REAL John McCain is not the 'moderate maverick' the pundits like to swoon over. The REAL McCain has spent the last 25 years amassing one of the worst anti-choice voting records in Congress. If elected president, he has pledged to be the anti-choice movement's most faithful ally, carrying their water and enacting their dangerous agenda: 'If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.' [Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008.]...On behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America and our one-million member activists, I am honored to be at this historic convention where delegates will nominate Sen. Barack Obama as the next pro-choice president of the United States. As a former elected official from Montana, I am proud to say that my party — the Democratic Party — is a party of many faiths and backgrounds united behind these core moral values: We support and defend a woman's right to choose safe, legal abortion....The Supreme Court is at an ideological tipping point. The next president will decide Roe's fate. John McCain has spent more than 25 years in Washington voting against women's freedom and has pledged to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade." (NARAL Pro-Choice America, here and here)

"Even before this week, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was clear. For one, McCain joined more than 300 other members of Congress in signing a 'friend of the court' brief, in District of Columbia v. Heller, urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Second Amendment and against D.C.'s handgun ban. Obama refused to sign the Heller brief, and supports reinstituting the Clinton gun and magazine ban. He also supports Ted Kennedy's bill to ban semi-automatic handguns in the guise of 'micro-stamping,' and supports banning inexpensive handguns as 'junk guns.' But now that each candidate has chosen his running mate, the difference is even clearer than before. And when it comes to guns, the two prospective vice-presidents are as far apart as the states from which they hail." (National Rifle Association)

"'Let the record show that John McCain and Barack Obama are polar opposites on partial-birth abortion, parental notification of abortion, marriage protection on the ballot, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren, gay adoptions, gun-owner rights, activist judges, and raising taxes,' said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. 'No one should base their vote on personality or mere feelings. Our carefully-researched report card shows you exactly where Obama and McCain stand on issues of importance to voters, their families, and our nation's future.'" (Campaign For Children And Families)

"Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, on Thursday told the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Caucus that her husband wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and reverse the rule on homosexuals in the military. In her speech, she also compared homosexual advocacy groups with the civil rights movement, referring to events 'from Selma to Stonewall' as a progression of justice. Cybercast News Service reports that Michelle Obama began her speech by praising the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws. Because of the decision, she said, 'same-sex couples would never again be persecuted through the use of criminal law.'...Michelle Obama said her husband supports 'a world where federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships' and he advocates equal treatment for 'any relationship recognized under state law.' 'That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage,' Obama said to the DNC’s Gay and Lesbian Caucus. A position paper on the Barack Obama campaign’s website says the candidate wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and also states that a homosexual marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another state. The repeal of the federal law could mean that the more than 40 states that have statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage would be required to recognize a homosexual marriage license from another state as a legally binding contract. The Obama campaign’s position paper also states Obama’s desire to enact legislation that would ensure the '1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized union.' Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University, told Cybercast News Service it is likely this statement references the federal definition provision that, if so modified, would extend Social Security and other government benefits to same-sex couples. This, Wardle said, could effectively nationalize same-sex marriages....Sen. Obama’s opponent, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. He joined Obama in opposing a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, saying he believed states should decide on the matter. McCain supported a 2006 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution in his home state of Arizona, but the amendment failed in the November election." (Catholic News Agency)

"John McCain won the Republican nomination not simply promising to make the tax cuts permanent and veto any new tax increase, but to fight to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and to expense all business investment....Today 194 Republican members of the House and 42 GOP Senators including John McCain have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and promised to oppose and vote against any and all tax hikes. As a result there has not been a tax hike in Washington since Bill Clinton's tax hike of 1993. This is the longest period of American history without a national tax increase. The last eight years have seen at least one tax cut enacted each year--15 in total. Now the Sword of Damocles hangs over American taxpayers--the largest tax hike in history looms in the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax rate reductions. Add to that the competing threats of both Hillary Clinton and Obama to add other tax hikes to their opening bid of two trillion dollars in higher taxes by ending the Bush tax cuts. Walter Mondale was not that bold." (Grover Norquist)

Americans For Tax Reform gives John McCain an 80% rating for 2006 and an 82.7% lifetime rating. Barack Obama has 15% and 7.5%.

Club For Growth's 2007 Congressional Scorecard gives McCain a 94% rating and Obama a 0% rating.

The Council For Citizens Against Government Waste has given John McCain a 100% rating for 2007 and an 88% lifetime rating. Barack Obama is at 10% and 18%. See the "2007 Senate Scorecard" here.