Also, try clearing out your cache every once in a while.

I make no claims to be a lawyer but…

As for the ideas in the article that you linked, Isn’t it comparing apples to oranges? The statement can just be rephrased to say that McCain VOTED THE SAME as Bush(not with) 95% of the time in all of the issues that reached resolution. We aren’t keeping track of the ageements or lack of agreements on issues that did not reach resolution. As for your argument about “voting with” Bush, it is sort of null and void if you include this statement (from the article you quoted) :

So what about Obama? In 2006, the last year he was present for at least 95 percent of the votes on issues in which Bush took a clear position, OBAMA VOTED WITH THE PRESIDENT NEARLY HALF THE TIME. (His total Bush presidential agreement tally is 40 percent.)

The point is, the description of McCain as a “Maverick” is just not true. I just went through his voting records AGAIN, and most of the time in the last couple of years he agrees with his party. That is not being a free thinker. Maybe 4 years ago we would have seen him in a different light. In fact I would even go so far as to say that perhaps then he was a “maverick”. The last couple of years, not so much. Now I understand the nickname “McSame” (Although, I don’t think one could say that I am the name caller around here)

What is that saying…If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….??? (Referring to McCain)

Now, I am to assume that since you quoted Michael Smerconish, you may be interested in this article that he wrote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/11/hunting_binladen/index.html

I have been sniffing around in a circle and now I feel a bit dizzy but could it really be that we are having a grown-up argument with no reference to dog pee?

I’ll probably be doing an actual post on it sometime. It’s a very interesting statistic from a civics/constitutional law perspective; the Senate and the President occupy different branches of government, so it’s not like saying that McCain voted with Sam Brownback some percentage of the time; Bush was never a part of the Senate. The statistic is inherently flawed, because it’s somewhat nonsensical to talk about a Senator and a President voting together any percentage of the time.

Can someone please explain how voting 90% with the current administration gives someone the title of “maverick”?

According to Random House, the definition of Maverick: “a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.”

Is agreeing 90% of the time taking an independent stand from his associates?