This thread has been all too interesting, so far! I suppose the impression I’ve gotten over here in Seoul has been admittedly limited to a rather small sample of US citizens.
Perhaps it IS overly cynical to view Obama’s successes as mere hype before an inevitable shit-storm of something awful and unforeseen bringing down his campaign in the face of McCain. Like one poster said before, some of us have pretty much gotten used to being let down.
To Frylock about my name: “Crocodiles and Boulevards” is a reference to Bruno Schultz’s incredible stories. Originally titled “Cinnamon Shoppes,” Schultz’s short stories were posthumously combined into a single work called “The Street of Crocodiles.” If you enjoy magic realism and unrelenting poetic (almost over the top) imagery, then that novel will probably knock your socks off. Schultz’s life as a writer was short due to the Nazi occupation of Poland, and I can only wonder at what he might have written had he not been a victim.
For what it’s worth, this article in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), nicely symbolizes the kind of skepticism that I think is appropriate without being cynical:
The only way that ‘post-partisanship’ politics can work is if A) people stop caring about issues, or B) government has far less power, so no one cares what they do, or C) you have gridlock, in which case very little gets done, but what does get done represents the best bipartisan compromise.
EVERY politician talks about ‘healing’, and ‘bipartisanship’. Because when you’re the leader, ‘bipartisanship’ generally means “Do things my way”, or at least “Move partially in my direction.”
Do you really think everyone is going to ‘come together’ to vote for, say, tax increases on the wealthy or on business? Or for stronger union laws? The Christian Right badly wants to outlaw abortion. Do you think Obama is likely to do that in the spirit of inclusiveness and bipartisanship? Or to even budge an inch on his positions?
The article was right to mention Bill Clinton. He campaigned on a populist, anti-Washington, end-of-partisanship message. And the minute he was in the White House, he installed a very left-wing cabinet, put his wife in charge of radically restructuring health care along Democratic lines, and in general tried to behave as a left-wing Democrat. The result was a wipeout in the house in 1994, and the loss of his ability to do anything without serious compromise. Only then did he attempt to be a centrist - because he had no other choice. And so you got welfare reform, which was a very good thing.
No one should doubt this for a second - if Obama is elected, and the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate, there will not be a shred of ‘bipartisanship’. There will be a mad rush to enact everything liberals want. The right will scream bloody murder, and it won’t matter. The fact of a triple-majority will be used to justify these actions, with Obama and the Dems claiming a ‘mandate’ to do exactly what they please.
Partisan divisions will get worse, not better. At least until the mid-term elections.
Obama has not performed as a bipartisan politician, btw. There have been plenty of bipartisan votes in the Senate, where Democrats or Republicans voted with the other side in the spirit of compromise. Obama has taken part in almost none of them.
The National Journal publishes a composite score of politician’s votes that various liberal and conservative groups support.
Look at that and tell me which candidate is the ‘moderate’, ‘centrist’ candidate who’s most likely to deal fairly with both sides and try to reach a common consensus.
I’m just paranoid we’re putting forward someone who’s unelectable and they (the evil ones) know this and are encouraging it. I hope I’m wrong and Americans really are ready for bold change but in my gut I feel Hillary can beat a Republican and Obama will lose at the last minute and we’ll be Republican for another 4-8 years.
I don’t know. What I do know is that everyone came together under Barack Obama’s leadership in passing the toughest Death Penalty reform in the history of Illinois. And let me be perfectly clear – no one wanted it. Not the Republicans. Not the Police. Not the Prosecutors. Not even the Demcrats! No one.
You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up this absurd claim. And I posted evidence immediately above that disputes it.
Again with the baseless and incorrect allegations. Every quote I’ve ever come across from Republican legislators who’ve worked with Obama says exactly the opposite. For crying out loud, you’re completely ignoring one of the biggest pieces of legislation he got passed, the “The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006”, that he co-sponsored with one of the Rightiest Righties on the other side of the aisle, Tom Coburn!
It’s completely irrelevant the degree to which Obama is considered a “Liberal”. Yeah, he’s a Democrat, so he’s a liberal. That means absolutely nothing when discussing whether or not he has a history of working with, and will continue to work with Republicans to get sensible legislation passed.
Sam - I respect your opinion highly, I often read your posts with admiration, but you are acting like this is the first time people have seen those numbers in a comparison between two candidates. Every presidential election I have been a part of in my short 30-somthing years on this earth has shown stats on who is the most liberal and who is the most conservative, whose record is more centrist whose isn’t. Obama will swing once he gets into office, he will not do everyting he says he will, hell if he does 30% of what he purports I’ll be happy. But show me a democratic president/candidate in the last 20 years who has not swung away from the center?
Republicans and conservatives have a right to fear an Obama Candidate - because people show up in throngs to his rallys - I wonder why that is? I’ve never seen a republican rally with the quantities of people Obama draws. And come election time, the pubs know it. They won’t draw the crowds that will be forming behind a united Obama.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I don’t know. What I do know is that everyone came together under Barack Obama’s leadership in passing the toughest Death Penalty reform in the history of Illinois. And let me be perfectly clear – no one wanted it. Not the Republicans. Not the Police. Not the Prosecutors. Not even the Demcrats! No one.
[quote]
Your post has NOTHING to do with Obama being a ‘centrist’ or ‘bipartisan’. What your post shows is that Obama was able to ram through a liberal program that even Democrats didn’t want because they feared it would make them look too liberal.
No one is disputing that Obama is a gifted politician. Clearly he is. The question is whether he will use his gifts to find consensus and compromise and govern in a way that pleases both the left and right, or whether he will use those gifts to ram through the things that YOU want.
Are you kidding? It’s far from an ‘absurd claim’. It’s conventional wisdom, backed up by about two centuries of evidence in how government operates.
George W. Bush promised to be a compromise candidate. One of his big attractions was his purported ability to reach across the aisle and get things done. He promised a new era of inclusiveness in Washington.
How’d that work out for you?
Really? Here, go to Project Vote Smart and look at the votes yourself. Then come back and tell me where the numbers I posted were ‘baseless and incorrect’.
And you picked one of the truly bipartisan issues - there are ‘good government’ politicians in equal measure on both sides of the aisle. That bill doesn’t gore any sacred liberal or conservative oxes. It’s a populist measure.
Now, if you could show me where he compromised on abortion, or on issues dear to his labor constituents, or on gun control, or any other big liberal issues, you’d have a better point.
Well, I’d argue that his voting record is a better place to look than his rhetoric or anecdotes from other politicians. And I’m not seeing a lot of compromise. For example, when the ‘Gang of 14’ came together in the spirit of compromise to break the deadlock over judges, Obama was nowhere to be seen. He has a 100% record in both Illinois and the federal government in voting on the side of labor. He has taken gun control positions that are actually to the left of his own party.
If you want some real ammunition to show that Obama is really willing to compromise in the spirit of bipartisanship, here’s something you can do: Go to Project Votesmart, and look at each Yes vote he cast - and see if any of them were sponsored by a majority of Republicans (in other words, he voted for a Republican Bill). Now look at his NO votes, and see if any of them were sponsored by a majority of Democrats. I haven’t done this, so I have no idea how that analysis will come out in the wash. But if you can show that he went against his party on significant issues, I’ll buy that he’s a ‘compromise’ candidate. If he votes lock-step with his party, then I’m not buying it.
All that information is on the Votesmart site. If you click on any bill, at the bottom you’ll find a list of sponsors.
Another way you could show his bipartisanship would be to tally up all the bills that had a a minority of Democrats voting with Republicans (there are lots of them), and see how many included Obama. Again, I haven’t done this, and I don’t have time today (I’m flying away on a business meeting in a few hours), but the results of that kind of analysis would go a long way towards convincing skeptics of Obama’s bipartisan bona fides.
Forgive me if I don’t trust the words of yet another politician promising to change the way Washington works.
Your post has NOTHING to do with Obama being a ‘centrist’ or ‘bipartisan’. What your post shows is that Obama was able to ram through a liberal program that even Democrats didn’t want because they feared it would make them look too liberal.
No one is disputing that Obama is a gifted politician. Clearly he is. The question is whether he will use his gifts to find consensus and compromise and govern in a way that pleases both the left and right, or whether he will use those gifts to ram through the things that YOU want.
Are you kidding? It’s far from an ‘absurd claim’. It’s conventional wisdom, backed up by about two centuries of evidence in how government operates.
George W. Bush promised to be a compromise candidate. One of his big attractions was his purported ability to reach across the aisle and get things done. He promised a new era of inclusiveness in Washington.
How’d that work out for you?
Really? Here, go to Project Vote Smart and look at the votes yourself. Then come back and tell me where the numbers I posted were ‘baseless and incorrect’.
And you picked one of the truly bipartisan issues - there are ‘good government’ politicians in equal measure on both sides of the aisle. That bill doesn’t gore any sacred liberal or conservative oxes. It’s a populist measure.
Now, if you could show me where he compromised on abortion, or on issues dear to his labor constituents, or on gun control, or any other big liberal issues, you’d have a better point.
Well, I’d argue that his voting record is a better place to look than his rhetoric or anecdotes from other politicians. And I’m not seeing a lot of compromise. For example, when the ‘Gang of 14’ came together in the spirit of compromise to break the deadlock over judges, Obama was nowhere to be seen. He has a 100% record in both Illinois and the federal government in voting on the side of labor. He has taken gun control positions that are actually to the left of his own party.
If you want some real ammunition to show that Obama is really willing to compromise in the spirit of bipartisanship, here’s something you can do: Go to Project Votesmart, and look at each Yes vote he cast - and see if any of them were sponsored by a majority of Republicans (in other words, he voted for a Republican Bill). Now look at his NO votes, and see if any of them were sponsored by a majority of Democrats. I haven’t done this, so I have no idea how that analysis will come out in the wash. But if you can show that he went against his party on significant issues, I’ll buy that he’s a ‘compromise’ candidate. If he votes lock-step with his party, then I’m not buying it.
All that information is on the Votesmart site. If you click on any bill, at the bottom you’ll find a list of sponsors.
Another way you could show his bipartisanship would be to tally up all the bills that had a a minority of Democrats voting with Republicans (there are lots of them), and see how many included Obama. Again, I haven’t done this, and I don’t have time today (I’m flying away on a business meeting in a few hours), but the results of that kind of analysis would go a long way towards convincing skeptics of Obama’s bipartisan bona fides.
Forgive me if I don’t trust the words of yet another politician promising to change the way Washington works.
Update: Never mind - I was looking for a vote spreadsheet I could take on the plane with me, and found This list of Obama’s votes. It shows how he voted, how his party voted, and how the Republicans voted.
I only had time to go back through a couple hundred votes (back to 03/07). I did not find one single instance of Obama voting with Republicans against the majority of his party. Not once.
Look, all I’m saying is that the image people are painting of Obama as a centrist, get-along politician who is perfectly willing to cross the aisle in a spirit of compromise and bipartisanship is clearly hogwash. Or at least, his voting record does not support this at all. If he was truly interested in compromise, don’t you think he would have occasionally veered away from his own political dogma? John McCain sure has. The ‘Gang of 14’ did. Lots of politicians can lay claim to being truly bipartisan. Hell, even George Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on Education, increased funding for Aids in Africa against the wishes of his own party, and sided with Democrats on steel tariffs against the wishes of his own party.
I see absolutely zero evidence that Obama is willing to budge one iota on his beliefs. Nor do I think he should have to - I think bipartisanship is highly overrated. Nonetheless, the people deserve to know who their candidates are and what they will do once in office. It seems to me that Obama’s new ‘centrist’ image is clearly calculated to deflect the fact that as a legislator he has consistently voted liberal. And I understand that Obama supporters are going to play this game to the best of their ability to help their man get elected. I don’t blame them.
But I’m not drinking the Kool-aid. Anyone who believes a politician’s rhetoric in an election year, especially when that rhetoric is contradicted by their own record, is a sucker. The bottom line for me is that I believe that if Obama is elected your country will take a sharp turn to the left. It won’t be bipartisan and centrist at all. I believe the hard evidence we have supports this.
There may be other good reasons to vote for Obama. I’ve heard some conservatives make good arguments for why it’s not a bad idea for Obama to be president. But centrism and a new era of bipartisanship isn’t one of them.
As an aside, this sly implication that one’s debate opponents are suicidal cultists is so last year; could we get rid of it? If you look at the company you keep by continuing the analogy, I think you’ll be glad to jettison it.
I don’t think Obama positions himself as a centrist at all. He positions himself as someone who gets people to agree with him about how to solve problems. That’s a different political beast entirely. And the fact that many Republicans (or folks who tend to vote Republican) are planning on voting for him is evidence that his approach is working.
Where have you seen himself proclaiming centrist policies? I think he’s persuasive, not compromising.
Of course it has nothing to do with him being ‘centrist’, I wasn’t responding to a claim of such. But it most certainly does show that he is ‘bipartisan’ in that he was able to get both sides together to agree on legislation. That’s the definition of bi-partisanship, your characterization of it being “rammed through” notwithstanding.
Proven. On multiple bills. You’ve been given cite after cite, and yet you keep insisting it’s not true. That you won’t accept the truth belies your bias.
Wrong. It’s an absurd claim because you have provided not one lick of evidence that that’s how Barack Obama will operate in Washington. I, and several other people all over this board, have provided copious evidence to the contrary. You keep repeating this allegation in spite of all the evidence, which tells me you aren’t interested in the truth.
Dear, I called George W. Bush on his lies about being a uniter from the very beginning of the debate process in 2000. I had evidence of his history of lying about being a uniter in Texas and I never for one moment believed he would live up to that lie based on his record. That others fell for it without researching the truth about him is one of the unfortunate consequences of that election cycle.
What we have here is the exact opposite; a candidate making a claim that is fully supported by the evidence and his history. You can’t even compare the two.
You failed to grasp my point. I don’t care how accurate those numbers are. I acknowledge that Senator Obama is a liberal Democrat. What I dispute is that he won’t work on bipartisan issues, that he’ll shove liberal legislation down everyone’s throat or any other tortured accusation you want to portray about his ability to work across the aisle.
Oh, I see, he’s only capable of working with opponents if it’s an issue both sides agree on. For evidence of the contrary, see above, ie, his Death Penalty legislation in Illinois. You know, the one you dismissed out of hand.
No I wouldn’t, because that’s not the point I’m making. I’m merely disputing your allegation that “Obama has not performed as a bipartisan politician.” He has. Just because you don’t like the issues he’s so far chosen to find consensus on, doesn’t make your allegation true.
Nonsense. That doesn’t prove or disprove bipartisanship at all. All it shows is that he voted on those particular bills based on his conscience as a liberal. He IS a liberal Democrat. I keep saying that, but you keep ignoring that. That doesn’t prove that he is unwilling to work with Republicans to bring compromise. He is. And he has. I’ve shown you that. It’s indisputable.
Hear for yourself what Republican Senator Kirk Dillard has to say about Obama’s ability to work with Republicans. And he believed it so much he was willing to not only go on the record with it, but to agree to be IN a commercial supporting him for election. How many Republicans have you ever heard of who’ve actually participated in an ad for a Democrat running for office? He worked with the guy. If anyone should know, it would be a co-worker. I’ll take his assessment of Obama’s bipartisanship over yours any day.
For those who don’t want to click the link to play a video, here’s the transcribed remarks of Republican Senator Kirk Dillard on behalf of Barack Obama:
Personally, I’ve had enough fucking compromise from the Democrats. I want conservatives to be completely relieved of power and disenfranchised from the process for a while. They’ve done enough damage. They need to be benched so people of conscience can clean up their mess. I hope Obama does NOT become a centrist. I want nothing but bright pink Socialist legislation being rammed through Congress and signed into law for the next 4 years. The right deserves no say in anything, as far as I’m concerned. Social conservatism, in particular, is a degenerate, primativist, destructive movement which needs to be permanently retired. I’m not voting for centrism. I’m voting for good old fashioned, bleeding heart liberalism. It’s time to put conscience and decency back into the process.
That’s an honest position to take. Nothing wrong with that. I feel pretty much the same way about my opinions and who I support. I pick the person who believes in the things I do, and then support him, hoping that he (or she) will work to implement those things. Usually I’m disappointed. But why in hell would I want to vote for someone who says right out of the gate that he’s willing to compromise in what he believes?
Shayna: You may not be arguing that Obama is centrist, but a lot of other people sure are. How far do you think he’d get with this campaign slogan:
“OBAMA: He’ll convince Republicans that liberalism is right.”
That’s not exactly the message that’s being put out, is it? All over this forum there are people saying that Obama is a centrist, that he’s willing to work with Republicans to achieve common ground, yada yada. That’s not what he’s about. He’s a charismatic politician who is going to go to Washington and attempt to charm, cajole, and otherwise convince the government to move to the left. Right?
But you can bet that that’s not how Obama will run, especially in a general election. We’re going to hear how centrist and accomodating he is, and how he believes that Republicans have all kinds of good ideas (he’s just never voted for one), and all the rest. Because that’s the only way he’s going to be elected.
I’m glad we can agree right up front that any posing about being a centrist will be smoke and mirrors.
FWIW, I have argued that he is a political centrist on some issues, and insofar as the current spectrum makes any sense (which is very little). No one, including you, has challenged the content of those posts. And you’ve had several opportunities. So I assume you concede that on some issues he is a centrist. On other issues, like ethics reform, I don’t think it makes sense to call him center or left (but if you want to call him left for that, you’re welcome to do so).
As for “post-partisanship,” it’s impossibility depends on how you define it. Partisanship will never go away, but it can certainly be lessened–perhaps dramatically. To argue otherwise is to be ignorant of the historical flux of partisanship.
Sam Stone, I agree that bipartisanship is only reasonable to the Democrats or the Republicans when it favors their respective party. As much as you believe that Obama is too liberal, I fear he will not be liberal enough.
It is interesting the number of Republicans for Huckabee. He is a social conservative but not a traditional fiscal conservative. Maybe this shift in the GOP reflects the economic needs of Republican voters and indicates more common ground than people might think.
Sam, I’ve been saying this for a while now but I don’t mind hearing myself say it again …
The mood of this country has been swung hard right for a long time now, so long that most Americans don’t even really know what “liberal” and “conservative” mean any more. (It was entertaining to see how fast Shodan ran away from discussing just that elsewhere.)
America has tried that which has called itself conservative and found that it failed to deliver what they thought it promised. We have more government intrusion into our private lives more and an economy at risk of freefall. More Federal interference in state business. The promise of fiscal responsibility was a joke. We are in a war with no exit strategy.
America is ready to have someone respond to a charge of being a liberal by asking what they mean by that? Being against sending people into wars for no good cause? Being against torture? Disliking the policies of George Bush? Wanting action on Global Climate Change? Respecting privacy rights? Respecting religious freedoms? Respecting freedom of speech even if it means the freedom to say what I don’t want to hear? Believing that as citizens we have an obligation to do more than look out for our own selfish interests alone?
For too long the Right has defined “liberal” in the minds of the average American because the only liberals with the 'nads to call themselves that were those of the far Left. The time is right for the word “liberal” to reclaim the center ground.
Will Obama be the man to do that? I don’t know. I hope that he is indeed smart enough to say that some would call those positions liberal and if so then maybe he is liberal … but that he thinks those labels have outlived their usefulness. He’d call them American values. Centrist values. And many who prefer to call themselves “conservative” may even agree with him some.
He’s made a ton of money off of his book, and lives in a 1.6 million dollar home. Perhaps he could have done better as a lawyer, but he is doing pretty damn good. It’s difficult to see how someone who actually gives a shit about the poor/disadvantaged can drop that sort of cash on a home.
He turned down six figure salaries to take a $10K a year as a community organizer. So what if he made money off his books? He didn’t know where he was going to end up when he first made that decision to forgo the fast track.
1.6 mil for a house isn’t that much for a US Senator, by the way. I fail to see why that makes him incapable of giving a shit about the poor.
1.6 mil is a hell of a lot for a community organizer.
And yes, I’m cynical enough to think that Obama saw community organizing as a path towards political power. He sure as hell wouldn’t have as much support as he does now if he had gone into corporate law. If you were Barack Obama in 1991, what path would you take that would get you more political power faster than what he did?