demagogue on 3/9/2008 at 18:53
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Anytime the McCain campaign (including Joe Lieberman) tells you that there is no evidence that Obama has ever reached across party lines THEY ARE LYING
Well, the context of my point was more like whether he's established a reputation for being able break party lines when he needs to and the pressure is on, and how the spirit of partisanship plays out.
Both of those you mention passed unanimously or close to it ... so the pressure wasn't there (unanimous != bi-partisan). I want to know what will happen when he becomes Pres. He did have a special relationship with R Sen Lugan; he's an intelligent guy... There are things there, I'm not saying there aren't ... I wasn't talking about his record per se, but his work style, or how the sociology of politics played out (it's one thing to co-sponsor unanimous bills; it's another to "work together" on pressure-cooker deals and be willing to give). Not that McCain is as strong in this suit as his reputation either.
I'll just go back to the exact same point I qualified my previous post before: GW Bush was known to be a big bipartisan player as Texas governor, but all that got thrown out the window when he became President in a big way; he's been one of the most partisan. You would have had to do some digging during the 2000 election to predict it.
I just feel like I'm not confident what kind of President Obama will be on the partisanship front, in his spirit and work style, and what I've read of his record hasn't given me much more confidence either way. There's a lot of rhetoric out there, though, so you have to take somewhat of a leap either way. You can never be absolutely sure until the deed is already done. Maybe he'll be a fantastic relief from the bitterness of over-partisanship ... That's not the absolute first thing you read about his reputation, although it could be true; but it is the first thing you read about from McCain since esp the 1994 Rep Revolution where the core of his own party moved away from him.
edit: Also, don't get me wrong. So far I'm siding more with Obama than McCain overall. I just have question-marks hanging for both of them, and this is one I have hanging over Obama.
heywood on 3/9/2008 at 19:49
You can't be serious. The first example was sponsored or co-sponsored by 47 Democrat and Republican Senators; that's about half the Senate! It passed unanimously. And the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation bill was sponsored or co-sponsored by 27 Senators, about half Democrat and half Republican. It's easy to be bi-partisan on non-controversial issues for which both sides agree. Show me an example where Obama stood his ground against his party's leadership and I'll consider changing my mind about him.
rachel on 3/9/2008 at 21:23
Quote Posted by Starrfall
(edit: although I understand demo to be saying Obama is not a bipartisan PLAYER, not that Obama isn't a bipartisan player)
I keep reading that sentence and I don't get it. I keep seeing the same thing said twice. Can you clarify?
Sorry, I'm braindead tired and in serious need of sleep
Starrfall on 3/9/2008 at 21:35
It does say the same thing, it's just supposed to sound different in your head. ;) Basically that while he works with both sides he hasn't become one of the "big names" in the senate, such that there are any.
BEAR on 3/9/2008 at 21:39
And for the record: Using GWB's terrible reign as somehow a case against Obama is one of the more laughable things I've ever heard.
Bush didn't do the horrible job he's done because he was inexperienced or unskilled, its because he is part of an arrogant group of neocons who have been trying to do this shit for years. You dont start a war like iraq out of inexperience, you do it by being completely full of shit.
Anyone who voted for Bush at this point really cant claim any kind of sense of judgment.
Somehow saying that Obama and Bush have more in common than McCain and bush is insane. Like starfall says, the McCain of yesteryear is not the McCain of today by all standards of measurement. Maybe McCain is saying what he is just to get the election and to maintain the support of his base, I don't know, but you have to go by something and his recent position on the issues are not that of a maverick nor are they bi-partisan.
SD on 3/9/2008 at 23:38
For a while, i was actually worried there, but I think this whole Palin affair has put another nail into the coffin of the McCain campaign.
Obama is at least going to hold the Kerry states, and take Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico for a 269-269 tie. Then he just needs one of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana or Montana for an outright majority.
heretic on 4/9/2008 at 00:27
Quote Posted by SD
For a while, i was actually worried there, but I think this whole Palin affair has put another nail into the coffin of the McCain campaign.
Obama is at least going to hold the Kerry states, and take Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico for a 269-269 tie. Then he just needs one of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana or Montana for an outright majority.
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
FFS, Palin's big speech has yet to even occur (which may well make or break her) and you're allready declaring victory.
fett on 4/9/2008 at 01:09
Quote Posted by BEAR
And for the record: Using GWB's terrible reign as somehow a case against Obama is one of the more laughable things I've ever heard.
Bush didn't do the horrible job he's done because he was inexperienced or unskilled, its because he is part of an arrogant group of neocons who have been trying to do this shit for years. You dont start a war like iraq out of inexperience, you do it by being completely full of shit.
Marry me.
