Last week, a NY Times editorial commented on McCain's speech where he seemingly vowed to not be GW 2.0, but the Times is rightfully skeptical.

It should not be an extraordinary moment when a candidate for president declares allegiance to the Constitution, promises to not ignore or flagrantly violate laws, talks about ending a long and draining war and vows transparency in the Oval Office.

Such is the sorry state of affairs after seven years of Republican lawmakers’ marching in mute lockstep with President Bush into one policy disaster after another.
<..>
Still, we were gratified to hear Mr. McCain acknowledge the many abuses and failures of the Bush presidency and pledge to not repeat them. Now we need some sign that other powerful Republicans agree with their candidate — and we need to hear much more from him about how he will keep his promises.
<..>
Is he willing to find and fix all the ways that Mr. Bush has undermined the Constitution and abridged civil liberties? Or is he just promising to do better?

Mr. McCain’s record is not encouraging.

It is shameful that the items McCain mentioned as things he will do to bring about change are simply corrections to prior abuses by this administration or actions that should've been taken over the last eight years by any reasonable, responsive president. Whoever becomes the Dem nominee better make sure to consistently drive home the McCain = Bush message. You can already see that McCain is trying to make headway at moving away from this liability, but he has done so much aligning with Bush positions and sucking up to Bush supporters since running for president that it will be exceedingly difficult for him to suddenly shed this baggage in a matter of months.

The Times finishes its editorial with the ultimate question, is McCain's "party, which refused to question Mr. Bush for seven long years, really the one to change direction"?

Pretty easy question to answer.