To anyone who says both parties are the same: Fuck. You.

[zipplewrath]

78. No but

I know what you mean, I was paying close attention. He made fairly vague statements about Afghanistan, but definitely left the impression that he was more interested in building up the society there, than extending the war. Ultimately he achieved just the opposite. And I don't think there is really anything in his campaign rhetoric that would have indicated he intended to triple the number of troops. I also don't think anyone would have understood that he would end up being the MORE hawkish one of him and Biden. But when Biden advised him to draw down and move out of the country, he did just the opposite. And ultimately he chose to never leave. (Partly I suspect because he expected Hillary to finish the job).

But that isn't "both parties are the same".

In Iraq, he's got one speech, in which he talked about drawing down in 9 months. But again, I'm not sure you'll find ANYTHING in his campaign that indicated he intended on executing EXACTLY the Bush SOFA, not to mention allowing Sec Def and State to try to negotiate last minute extensions with the Iraqi government. (Amazingly, SecState apparently didn't understand just how badly they wanted us out of there).

That's not "exactly" the same, although one does struggle to describe "meaningful" differences.

And going one step further, both he AND McCain campaigned on "closing" GITMO. I'm not sure you can find ANYTHING in his speeches that indicates his real intent was to keep it open, but move it to the main land, which in the end is what he tried (and failed) to do.

Here, the two CANDIDATES were probably the "same", and really the parties were probably more of the "same" as well since of course democratic legislators of both houses were on board with preventing the closing of GITMO.

The whole "they are the same" expression I always take as a bit of hyperbole. And quite honestly, I find arguing against the hyperbole to be pointless. The only time I find it with value is when, if the hyperbole is removed, there is no point. In this case, taken strictly, I think that is true, without the hyperbole, there is really no way to make it an "honest" statement. There is very little that is "the same" about the two parties.

However, I do understand some people to mean that in substantive ways, both parties can be expected to behave similarly, and as the above example outline, there is some truth to that. They will campaign on one stance, and then "nuance" themselves to a position they never express, and to a great degree is nearly the opposite of what was reasonably expected from their campaign rhetoric. A bit of this of course is our own fault, wanting to believe someone is more than they are. But it is also an intentional feature of campaigns, getting people to project their own hopes and dreams onto the candidate, even if they have no intention of following through. And THAT is truly a case of "both sides do it".