Obama..... weak senator, partisan or dealmaker? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 07-02-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Pan, if you go to The Library of Congress you can easily search for the bills that Obama has co-sponsored. Many, many of them have Republican co-sponsors. I started to compile a list, but it because tedious becuse there are so many.

Here are two WaPo articles that talk about his performance in the IL state legislature. Again, solid records of bi-partisan work, including one bill that was passed unanimously.

This one is anecdotal.
This one is "news".

Here's a quote from Republican State Senator from IL, on the Fox website, of all places:

“People on both sides of the aisle would find him to be someone who would reach across to find out why people think the way they do,” said William Mahar, a former Republican state senator. “He wouldn’t talk just to people who agreed with him.”

In short, I think that your perception of Obama as a legislative unilateralist is unfounded.

Ok, so I looked to give you the benefit of the doubt. I went to the Lib. Of Congress and looked at all 6 bills sponsored by Obama. There was a resolution for Rosa Parks to get a commemorative stamp, resolutions for Carl Stokes, Percy Julian, and so on.

But nowhere could I find a true Bipartisan sponsored or co-sponsored bill. Now, either he has not been that powerful of a senator or he is not interested in working with the GOP to find compromises that work for the betterment of the country. Which one is it and how is either beneficial to the people should this man be elected president?

Now, personally, that to me was one of W's biggest problems when he had the majority, he refused to work with the minority party and compromise to find what was truly BEST for the country not just him or his party. Of course, the Neo-Cons would beg to differ with me there....

McCain shows he can and will work with the opposition party, who will be the majority party. I'd rather have a president that works with Congress and keeps Congress in check than have another president with a blank check.

ratbastid · 07-02-2008, 10:37 AM

That's one of those self-trolling thread titles, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ok, so I looked to give you the benefit of the doubt. I went to the Lib. Of Congress and looked at all 6 bills sponsored by Obama.

A quick search shows 126. Until you read the other 120, this thread is partisan spam. There are some fluff "honor the service of X" resolutions, but lots on meaty policy issues.

Willravel · 07-02-2008, 10:49 AM

Let's look at Obama's bills and resuloutions. Okay his last, H.CON.RES.34 .... oh wait, there's Richard Lugar (R) cosponsoring. Well, I'm sure the next one, H.CON.RES.100, must... oh, there's Hagel (R).

Maybe you don't think Lugar and Hagel are Republican enough? Or maybe the legislation wasn't really interesting. Maybe, then you'd be interested in the aptly named "Health Care for Hybrids" bill, which features cosponsors Brownback, Coleman, Graham, Lugar (maybe he loves Obama?), and Sessions? That's pretty damned bipartisan.

Here's the thing: if I were a Senator I'd be bipartian on things that I actually believed in. I'm not going to compromise on something I think will be detrimental to my constituents or my country. You'd not catch me compromising on funding the war or on domestic spying, for example, and I could earn the reputation of being partisan.

Maybe you can explain your understanding of the word "partisan".

Redlemon · 07-02-2008, 10:54 AM

This topic was covered on NPR Morning Edition: Measuring McCain And Obama's Bipartisan Efforts : NPR.

Quote:

Morning Edition, July 2, 2008 · If there's one thing the two presidential candidates have in common, it's that they claim to be leaders in creating a new kind of politics.

Both have cast themselves as politicians who are willing to work across the aisle. Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain points to his long record of doing just that in the Senate, while Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama showcases his rhetorical ability to bring people together.

Obama has made this bridging of partisan divisions the touchstone of his campaign. "My goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate, where we're always trying to score cheap political points, and actually get things done," he has said.

Obama presents himself as a post-partisan political leader. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, he said that he just wants to do what works for the American people.

"Both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground," he said.

But McCain does not buy Obama's claims. Last month in Louisiana, McCain said that for all Obama's fine words, he has never challenged his own party to bring change to Washington.

"Both Sen. Obama and I promise we will end Washington's stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn't," he said. "Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven't seen Sen. Obama do the same."

McCain's Work 'Across The Aisle'

McCain has made a career of taking heat from his own party for working with liberal Democrats, such as Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform or Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on immigration. These bipartisan efforts are both the source of his maverick reputation and the cause of his ongoing problems with his own party's conservative base.

One of McCain's closest allies in the Senate, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, says McCain's willingness to work across the aisle on these hot-button issues is one of his strongest qualifications.

"On all these issues that are tough and controversial, John has been out front when it comes time to ask who will do the hard things as the next president. The best way to answer that question is to ask who has done the hard things before he became president," Graham said.

Whenever there's a bipartisan scrum of moderate Democratic and Republican senators working toward a compromise on judicial filibusters, or with other groups dealing with torture, tobacco regulation or global warming, McCain can usually be found right in the middle. The same is not true for Obama.

Obama's Bipartisan Work

When asked for examples of when he has broken with the Democratic Party to reach across the aisle, Obama cites legal reform. "When I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left," he said.

Obama also points to his willingness to consider merit pay for teachers. "I've gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this — that we should be experimenting with charter schools," he said. "We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers."

His campaign often refers reporters to Tom Coburn, the conservative Republican senator from Oklahoma who co-sponsored an ethics reform bill with Obama. Coburn backs McCain, but he had this to say about Obama:

"He has admirable qualities. He does reach out. And he has a good staff, and we've worked together on a couple of things, and it's been a pleasure to work with him."

The only caveat, Coburn said, is that the nature of the ethics reform bill that he and Obama sponsored was easy and popular. After all, it passed the Senate 98-2.

"It's easy to work across the aisle on consensus items. It's when you demonstrate that you'll stand in between — in no man's land between the two trenches of the Democratic and Republican base, and you'll take the heat," he said. "We haven't seen that from Barack. As much as I like him, he's not ever rejected anything of his party to be able to stand in the middle."

But another Republican senator takes it for granted that Obama has earned his bipartisan spurs. Gordon Smith (OR), who is running for re-election, is running an ad in which he basks in Obama's post-partisan glow.

"Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?" the commercial says. "Barack Obama. He joined with Gordon and broke through a 20-year deadlock to pass new laws, which increased gas mileage for automobiles. Gov. Ted Kologoski praised their bipartisan partnership."

Measuring The Candidates' Bipartisan Efforts

Comparing Obama and McCain on bipartisanship is a little like comparing apples and oranges. Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, and he voted with his party 97 percent of the time.

McCain — who has been in the Senate since 1987 — voted with his party just 83 percent of the time.

If the criteria are who has stuck his neck out on difficult issues and paid the price for doing it, McCain has done it over Obama. But Mike Murphy, a former McCain strategist, says that doesn't mean Obama doesn't aspire to the same thing.

"I think McCain is the guy who has done the things in a post-partisan way that have cost him tough political pain," Murphy said. "I think Barack Obama is the guy who says he wants to do it — and I believe him, by the way — but has never really left the wounds on the floor. That doesn't mean Barack is incapable of it, or doesn't even mean that he doesn't want to do it. He just hasn't. McCain has."

So the question is, would it be easier for a President Obama to act on his post-partisan instincts, or for a President McCain to re-enact his Senate record of working across the aisle?

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, who has written extensively about partisan gridlock in Washington, thinks it might be hard for both men to achieve their goals, but for very different reasons.

If Obama is elected, Ornstein says that the left wing of the Democratic Party will be "sky high."

"If Democrats sweep — and believing that they don't need anybody else and that this is a new New Deal — the question for Obama is going to be much more whether he has the backbone to stand up to his own base, not whether he has the willingness to work the other side of the aisle," he said.

And a McCain presidency would have the opposite problem, Ornstein says. Instead of an overeager, resurgent Democratic majority, a diminished, demoralized Republican minority may not be in the mood for any compromise at all.

"This time, Republicans are not going to start with any level of trust that John McCain will hold out for their interests," he said. "Frankly, you cannot make a tango with two working for a president, unless he can keep his own party, along with people on the other side."

Campaign Clues

Before one of these candidates gets a chance to make his post-partisan vision a reality, voters can judge the candidates on how they run their campaigns.

Both have promised to practice a new kind of politics without demonizing their opponents. But so far, the candidates or their surrogates have been attacking each other's character, mental competence and military record.

Each candidate has described the other's positions as stupid, delusional or confused, and it's only July.

For two candidates who each claim to represent something new and different, they are running campaigns that look a lot like politics as usual.

Tully Mars · 07-02-2008, 11:01 AM

You now I joined here mainly to talk politics and current events. Threads like this keep me focused on current events.

host · 07-02-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's one of those self-trolling thread titles, isn't it?

A quick search shows 126. Until you read the other 120, this thread is partisan spam. There are some fluff "honor the service of X" resolutions, but lots on meaty policy issues.

ratbastid, I've never observed you posting criticism of the way a thread critical of Bush or republicans is TITLED, you seem dismissive of any criticiam of Obama, legitimate, or less so. Don't you think it would be better to actually discuss issues raised, point by point? You haven't even attempted to do that, so why not start with a reply to this post:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...33#post2479933

It should be easy for you, if you are correct, to skewer any of the arguments critical of Obama, no matter how the thread they are posted in, is titled? Shouldn't it? Or...is that not the problem?

You've gone after me personally, you use the tactic of lumping all threads critical of Obama, as "trolling", but you have not argued the actual points that I have rasied? Why is that? Are they too strongly supported, or are you confident that simply marginalizing the messenger is a better strategy than debating the points raised?

ratbastid · 07-02-2008, 11:15 AM

I'm not interested, host. And the more: "Hot dogs: nitrate-laden poison or ass-widening deathsticks?" thread topics I read, the less interested I get.

There's no discussion here. Don't kid yourself. People have their Positions, and those Positions spout off from time to time. You and I aren't exceptions. Seems like the best I can do is stand on the sideline and point out the futility of it. This thread, in particular, seems HIGHLY futile.

roachboy · 07-02-2008, 11:16 AM

well, folks, we can either try to find a way to make this a viable thread, or we can continue like this, in which case i'll shut it down.

personally, i've found it both tactically inevitable and politically depressing the spectacle of the past days of obama's campaign running toward the center.

that is all.

Willravel · 07-02-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

And the more: "Hot dogs: nitrate-laden poison or ass-widening deathsticks?" thread topics I read, the less interested I get.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...44#post2479944

pan6467 · 07-02-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's one of those self-trolling thread titles, isn't it?

A quick search shows 126. Until you read the other 120, this thread is partisan spam. There are some fluff "honor the service of X" resolutions, but lots on meaty policy issues.

I meant one twenty six..... the number pads on this K/B don't work well.

I will admit I didn't look deeply into many, just ones that actually looked like they had some type of substance to them.

The president to me has to be a uniter and one who listens to both the majority, the minority, the wealthy, the poor, all he can.... then try to find ways to better all people's lives regardless of his political agendas.

I see this more in McCain than I do in Obama. I see McCain having proposed some strong legislation that was meant to help the many and not the few. I do not see that in Obama. I see Obama pushing forth agendas that will hurt millions and further polarize this country. He will be the Dems. W and maybe worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

This topic was covered on NPR Morning Edition: Measuring McCain And Obama's Bipartisan Efforts : NPR.

BTW Thank you very much for this...... I found it extremely interesting and a damn good read. Thank you.

roachboy · 07-02-2008, 11:41 AM

i don't think w was w before 9/11/2001, even though it's kinda hard to imagine his administration without that huge gift from the gods that watch over neoconservatism that were those attacks. while i don't subscribe entirely to the cowboy george as total idiot school, i do think he was a kind of cipher with a dangerous bunch of people on his team---lately i have been a bit preoccupied with the cheney/addington nexus as i think them genuinely dangerous for their legal philosophy---but (again) i don't know how things would have played out without 9/11/2001 to shuffle the deck.

the point is that i don't see how at this phase of the game you can really make much of any evaluations of what obama might be like in office. i think that things will start to become a bit clearer after august and the nomination, once you start to get an idea of the configuration around obama, what it'll look like.

right now, it seems that mostly what's at stake is whether you or i or anyone else finds obama-the-signifier appealing or not.
that's what's being fashioned, and not much more than that.

The_Jazz · 07-02-2008, 11:42 AM

Thread retitled with Pan's permission.

Redlemon · 07-02-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

BTW Thank you very much for this...... I found it extremely interesting and a damn good read. Thank you.

There's a stat that they didn't include in that article. They say that McCain has reached across the aisle more often. They say that Obama has only been there a short time. They don't say what McCain's first years were like.

pan6467 · 07-02-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i don't think w was w before 9/11/2001, even though it's kinda hard to imagine his administration without that huge gift from the gods that watch over neoconservatism that were those attacks. while i don't subscribe entirely to the cowboy george as total idiot school, i do think he was a kind of cipher with a dangerous bunch of people on his team---lately i have been a bit preoccupied with the cheney/addington nexus as i think them genuinely dangerous for their legal philosophy---but (again) i don't know how things would have played out without 9/11/2001 to shuffle the deck.

the point is that i don't see how at this phase of the game you can really make much of any evaluations of what obama might be like in office. i think that things will start to become a bit clearer after august and the nomination, once you start to get an idea of the configuration around obama, what it'll look like.

right now, it seems that mostly what's at stake is whether you or i or anyone else finds obama-the-signifier appealing or not.
that's what's being fashioned, and not much more than that.

Good point. I think his platform will be interesting, he can't go to far left with it but he can't go to close to being moderate either.

I also listen to what Pelosi and Dem leaders of Congress are saying and what they expect to get pushed through. Some of those things being said are NOT what I believe to be in the best interest of this country.

As for W, I think we would have ended where we are one way or another. The people he has surrounded himself with and his own personality would have found reasons for a "Patriot Act", war in Iraq, and so on. But again, this is just guesswork, we will never know what would have happened without that fateful day in September happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

There's a stat that they didn't include in that article. They say that McCain has reached across the aisle more often. They say that Obama has only been there a short time. They don't say what McCain's first years were like.

I have often heard that Congress men/women in their first term or two may not be as listened to or as strong as those who have been there longer. Just as any job, so this makes sense.

But then that would beg the question, if Obama wasn't given much to work with in the Senate, what true qualifications does he have?

What was he like in Ill.? Of course, I remember Bush's first election run and how those in Texas said he was a uniter and worked with both parties to better the state......didn't prove to be very true as President though.

dc_dux · 07-02-2008, 12:17 PM

Should an “experienced” candidate be judged by his flip flops?

The old McCain....sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship
The new McCain...would now vote against his own McCain/Kennedy bill comprehensive immigration reform and only supports tougher border enforcement first

The old McCain.... Roe v Wade should not be overturned
The new McCain...would appoint judges who would likely overturn Roe if given the opportunity

The old McCain ...opposed to constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
The new McCain...supports amendment to deny all spousal rights under law to domestic partners

The old MCCain....stated torture is wrong, holding detainees indefinitely is wrong
The new McCain... now says torture by the CIA is acceptable....recent USSC decision on detainee rights to habeas was a terrible ruling

The old McCain...proposed comprehensive campaign reform and supported comprehensive lobbyist reform
The new McCain...violated the McCain/Feingold act with his funding during the primaries, voted against tough lobbyist reform and surrounds himself with lobbyists

See a trend here...the old McCain was the so-called “maverick”
The new McCain is pandering to the conservative base.

samcol · 07-02-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Should an “experienced” candidate be judged by his flip flops?

The old McCain....sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship
The new McCain...would now vote against his own McCain/Kennedy bill comprehensive immigration reform and only supports tougher border enforcement first

The old McCain.... Roe v Wade should not be overturned
The new McCain...would appoint judges who would likely overturn Roe

The old McCain ...opposed to constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
The new McCain...supports amendment to deny all spousal rights under law to domestic partners

The old MCCain....stated torture is wrong, holding detainees indefinitely is wrong
The new McCain... now says torture by the CIA is acceptable....recent USSC decision on detainee rights to habeas was a terrible ruling

The old McCain...proposed comprehensive campaign reform and supported comprehensive lobbyist reform
The new McCain...violated the McCain/Feingold act with his funding during the primaries, voted against tough lobbyist reform and surrounds himself with lobbyists

See a trend here...the old McCain was the so-called “maverick”
The new McCain is pandering to the conservative base.

McCain should be the definition of 'flip flop." He's been on the both sides of almost every issue.

boatin · 07-02-2008, 09:36 PM

I listened to that NPR story this morning and found myself wondering two things (that have already been mentioned):
-what was McCain's record in his first 3 years?
-who has the most chance to have a bi-partisan presidency?

The first question could/should have been answered by the news story. The second question is obviously one of the important questions of the campaign. My feeling is the answer will be whichever one could get the white house with the fewest debts owed to supporters.

And my biased few is that McCain doesn't have a prayer of getting there as his old maverick self. And that Obama has a (thin) chance. I'm hoping for some Republican cabinet members and some good old fashioned Lincoln style debates in the cabinet room.

But I'm not holding my breath!

host · 07-02-2008, 10:39 PM

pan, I am fortunate because a political pundit who writes much like I would, if I had his talent for it, says what I want to say, for me. He lays it out for you, if you're willing to focus on it and think about it. It's a coherent, well supported, ongoing argument....and, it's the exact opposite of yours. Who can you present who can turn what I view, coming from you..... as an emotionally charged, mostly incoherent rant, if for no other reason, because it stands opposite the facts....the recent history of the dynamic between the two parties and their candidates....into something that can be read and "stands up", like the following examples, do?

The argument here is that the voters have reacted positively to the exact opposite of the "bipartisanship, centerism" you are promoting. The main problem is that there is no major party organization, just a tiny number of politicians on the other side, to try to reach any accord with. Democrats who do what you advocate, get clobbered at the polls.

No matter what Obama does, you and your new right wing buddies will find fault with it....here is a description of the record of that, going back six years:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...isa/index.html

UPDATE:...If anyone has any evidence at all that: (a) Obama would be less likely to win if he continued to oppose telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping; (b) his chances to win increase by being perceived as someone who flagrantly changes positions for political gain; and/or (c) he is more likely to win by embracing Bush/Cheney policies, please alert me to such evidence. I would really like to see it, because I don't believe any such evidence exists.

How did those tactics work out for John Kerry in 2004? How did it work out for the Democrats in 2002 when they were sure that, by agreeing to Bush's demand for authorization to attack Iraq, they would be able to avoid being called "weak on national security" http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/...rticle-in.html and then win the election on domestic issues? Ask Max Cleland -- who voted for the AUMF and then had ads run against him with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- how well that approach works. If, tomorrow, Obama comes out and says that he's open to the use of waterboarding, is Andrew going to cheer for that as a shrewd, pragmatic move to take the issue "off the table" and move to the Center so he can win?

Repudiating their own base and moving to the so-called Center isn't some sleek, exotic strategy that the Obama campaign invented this year. It's what Democrats are always told to do and what they always do (other than in 2006, when the perception was that -- finally -- there was a real difference between them and the GOP because of the Iraq War). How has that advice worked out historically for Democrats?

pan....there is no "pleasing" your new "side"...you now indicate that this is true, in you own posts! You don't live far from Muncie, aka "Middletown". Muncie today would be much better off if a candidate like Upton Sinclair or Huey Long was running, instead of Obama....but...oh yeah!!! You're voting for John McCain...the candidate brought to you by the good folks...the ten percent of Americans who already control 70 percent of all of the wealth in the country.... where is the logic, in that?

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ran/index.html

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...8/05/13/obama/

....But what's most striking about the reaction is how explicit this strain of neocons has become about the fact that being "pro-Israel" is their overriding political concern. It also reveals, yet again, that there is no issue that permits less free debate than ones related to Israel.

Barack Obama runs around proclaiming his devotion to this other country; virtually wraps himself in its flag; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us...s/13obama.html vows to shun its enemies (who are not our enemies); is forced ritualistically to "express[] -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel" to the likes of Israel-centric war supporters like Jeffrey Goldberg and Marty Peretz; tells Palestinians to their faces that -- to use his words -- "if you're waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional"; affirms every one-sided piety applied to Israel-related issues; has compiled large numbers of prominent Jewish supporters for whom Israel is a top, if not the top, issue; and still . . . the dominant narrative among neocons and in the establishment media is that, deep down in his heart, he may be insufficiently devoted to Israel to be President of the United States. Has there ever been another country to which American politicians were required to pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty the way they are, now, with Israel? ......

...Since then, Klein has escalated the provocative rhetoric, writing several days ago: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...gone_wild.html .....

Why the rush now to bomb Iran, a country that poses some threat to Israel but none -- for the moment -- to the United States . . . unless we go ahead, attack it, and the mullahs unleash Hezbollah terrorists against us? Do you really believe the mullahs would stage a nuclear attack on Israel, destroying the third most holy site in Islam and killing untold numbers of Muslims? I am not ruling out the use of force against Iran -- it may come to that -- but you folks seem to embrace it gleefully.

...In fact, Rubin's entire column is devoted to the explicit claim that Obama is insufficiently devoted to Israel's interests and, therefore, many American Jews are rightly skeptical of his fitness to be the American President:

The Obama defenders are irked that not all Jews accept at face value Obama's expressions of devotion to Israel and commitment to her security. . . . Many Jewish Obama doubters are convinced that Israel faces a true existential threat unlike any in 35 years. . . . The Obama skeptics do not for a moment believe that Obama, in the face of domestic and international pressure similar to what Nixon faced, would rise to the occasion at a critical moment in Israel's history and "tell them to send everything that can fly" . . . .

AND IF any further proof were needed, Obama's actions with regard to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, the measure to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, should settle the question of Obama's intestinal fortitude when it comes to Israel. . . . Once his nomination was secured, Obama told those assembled at the AIPAC convention that he supported classification of the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, a move he well understood was important to Israel's security and to AIPAC's members. Yet under just a smidgen of political pressure during the primary race, he had not been able to muster the will to support a modest measure which inured to Israel's benefit.

Indeed the temptation to believe in Obama's bland promises of support for Israel is a tempting one for liberal Jews. If they can convince themselves that he will be "fine on Israel," no conflict arises between their liberal impulses and their concern for Israel. The urge to believe is a powerful thing, especially when the alternative is an intellectual or moral quandary. . . .

BUT SOME Jews are incapable of deluding themselves that Obama would be the most resolute candidate in defending Israel. . . . And that is why these obstinate Obama skeptics, some even after a lifetime of Democratic voting, will not pull the lever for him. For them some things rank higher than even the top items on the liberal political agenda. The risk is, in their minds, too great that when Israel needs help the most, Obama will buckle and Israel will be crushed.....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ter/index.html
Sunday June 29, 2008 07:48 EDT
The baseless, and failed, "move to the center" cliche

(updated below - Update II)

Republican Nancy Johnson of Connecticut was first elected to Congress in 1982, and proceeded to win re-election 11 consecutive times, often quite easily. In 2004, she defeated her Democratic challenger by 22 points. The district is historically Republican, and split its vote 49-49 for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

In 2006, Rep. Johnson was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the "false choice between war and civil liberties." Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy's opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, such as this one:

Watch it:

The result? Johnson was crushed:

Rep. Nancy Johnson, a 12-term Republican who ran a tough-on-terror campaign and touted her co-authorship of the Medicare prescription drug legislation, lost her re-election bid Tuesday to anti-war Democrat Chris Murphy.

Murphy had 56 percent to Johnson's 44 percent with 12 percent of the precincts voting. Johnson was the longest serving representative in Congress in state history.

Johnson's final margin of defeat was 12 points. Despite continuing to represent a tough, split district, Rep. Murphy -- as he runs for re-election for the first time -- recently voted against passage of the FISA/telecom amnesty bill, obviously unafraid that such Terrorism fear-mongering works any longer.

That pattern has repeated itself over and over. In the 2006 midterm election, Karl Rove repeatedly made clear that the GOP strategy rested on making two National Security issues front and center in the midterm campaign: Democrats' opposition to warrantless eavesdropping and their opposition to "enhanced interrogation techniques" against Terrorists. Not only did the Democrats swat away those tactics, taking away control of both houses of Congress in 2006, but more unusually, not a single Democratic incumbent in either the House or Senate -- not one -- lost an election.

With Rove's National Security, Terrorist-fear-mongering campaign, huge numbers of GOP incumbents were removed from office and replaced with Democratic newcomers. Voters were simply impervious to claims that Democrats should be denied power because their opposition to eavesdropping and torture made them Soft on Terror. Earlier this year, Bill Foster made opposition to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign -- and emphatically opposed both warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity -- and then won a special election to replace Denny Hastert in his bright red Illinois district.

As the 2008 election approaches, the Democrats' position has strengthened further still. In fact, in attempting to determine the best targets for the $325,000 we have raised so far to target Bush-enabling Democrats in Congress, the most difficult obstacle by far has been to find even a single Democratic incumbent who is vulnerable. Not only does it appear that they all are likely to be re-elected, it's actually difficult to identify ones who have any real chance of losing. That's how weakened the GOP brand is and how vehemently the country has rejected their ideology and politics -- in every realm, including national security.

* * * * *

So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.

Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.

One could argue that national security plays a larger role in presidential elections than in Congressional races, and that very well may be. But was John Kerry's narrow 2004 loss to George Bush due to the perception that Kerry -- who ran as fast as he could towards the mythical Center -- was Soft on Terrorism? Or was it due to the understandable belief that his rush to the Center meant that he stood for nothing, that he was afraid of his own views -- the real hallmark, the very definition, of weakness?

By the time of the 2004 election, huge numbers of Americans already turned against Bush's position on the War and ceased trusting him even in the realm of National Security. Thus, the defining claim of Bush's 2004 acceptance speech at the GOP Convention -- the central distinction he drew between himself and Kerry -- was not that his National Security views were right, but rather, was this:

This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism -- and you know where I stand. . . . In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand.

Bush's ability to project "Strength" came not from advocacy of specific policies, but from his claim to stand by his beliefs even when they were politically unpopular.

For that reason, isn't the perception that Obama is abandoning his own core beliefs -- or, worse, that he has none -- a much greater political danger than a failure to move to the so-called "Center" by suddenly adopting Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies? As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain. That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is "Weak" than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions.

What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.

And in 2002, huge numbers of Congressional Democrats voted to authorize the attack on Iraq based on this same premise that doing so would enable them to avoid looking Weak on National Security. The GOP then based its whole 2002 campaign on attacking Democrats as Weak on National Security and the Democrats were crushed -- because, having accepted rather than debated the GOP premises, there was no way to challenge GOP National Security arguments. What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views. A Washington Post article last week on Obama's move to the center included this insight:

"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book "The Uprising." "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."

The central problem is that if Democrats embrace the GOP framework of National Security -- that "Strength" means what the GOP says it means -- then that framework gets enforced and perpetuated, and it's a framework within which Democrats can't possibly win, because Republicans will always "out-Strength" Democrats within that framework. It's only by challenging and disputing the underlying premises can Democrats change the way that "strength" and "weakness" are understood.

The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because -- for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves -- there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should "move to the center" and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak -- because it is weak. It's the definition of weakness.

The most distinctive and potent -- one could even say exciting -- aspect of Obama's campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose -- and should lose -- debates over who is "stronger" and more "patriotic" and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama's adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington's national security "conventional wisdom," emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views -- the very attributes that define "strength."

The advice he's getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center, that he should cease to insist on a re-examination of National Security premises and instead live within the GOP framework. That's likely to lead to many things, but a perception of strength isn't one of them. One of the very few things in the universe with a worse track record than America's dominant Foreign Policy Community is the central religious belief of the Democratic consultant class and Beltway punditry that Democrats, to be successful, must shed their own beliefs and "move to the Center."

If you get what you want pan, democrats will look weak, and act weak, and they will be defeated. That's politics....it isn't "c'mon people now, smile on your brother....", because it isn't a "smile on your brother" kinda world. Dontcha know....we already got the two right wing parties dominating our politics, that you seem to yearn for....in you vision of a perfect world!

07-02-2008, 11:01 AM	#5 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	You now I joined here mainly to talk politics and current events. Threads like this keep me focused on current events. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

07-02-2008, 11:16 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, folks, we can either try to find a way to make this a viable thread, or we can continue like this, in which case i'll shut it down. personally, i've found it both tactically inevitable and politically depressing the spectacle of the past days of obama's campaign running toward the center. that is all. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-02-2008 at 11:20 AM..

07-02-2008, 11:41 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i don't think w was w before 9/11/2001, even though it's kinda hard to imagine his administration without that huge gift from the gods that watch over neoconservatism that were those attacks. while i don't subscribe entirely to the cowboy george as total idiot school, i do think he was a kind of cipher with a dangerous bunch of people on his team---lately i have been a bit preoccupied with the cheney/addington nexus as i think them genuinely dangerous for their legal philosophy---but (again) i don't know how things would have played out without 9/11/2001 to shuffle the deck. the point is that i don't see how at this phase of the game you can really make much of any evaluations of what obama might be like in office. i think that things will start to become a bit clearer after august and the nomination, once you start to get an idea of the configuration around obama, what it'll look like. right now, it seems that mostly what's at stake is whether you or i or anyone else finds obama-the-signifier appealing or not. that's what's being fashioned, and not much more than that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-02-2008, 11:42 AM	#12 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Thread retitled with Pan's permission. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

07-02-2008, 12:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Should an “experienced” candidate be judged by his flip flops? The old McCain....sponsored comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship The new McCain...would now vote against his own McCain/Kennedy bill comprehensive immigration reform and only supports tougher border enforcement first The old McCain.... Roe v Wade should not be overturned The new McCain...would appoint judges who would likely overturn Roe if given the opportunity The old McCain ...opposed to constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage The new McCain...supports amendment to deny all spousal rights under law to domestic partners The old MCCain....stated torture is wrong, holding detainees indefinitely is wrong The new McCain... now says torture by the CIA is acceptable....recent USSC decision on detainee rights to habeas was a terrible ruling The old McCain...proposed comprehensive campaign reform and supported comprehensive lobbyist reform The new McCain...violated the McCain/Feingold act with his funding during the primaries, voted against tough lobbyist reform and surrounds himself with lobbyists See a trend here...the old McCain was the so-called “maverick” The new McCain is pandering to the conservative base. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-02-2008 at 12:22 PM..

07-02-2008, 10:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Let's look at Obama's bills and resuloutions. Okay his last, H.CON.RES.34 .... oh wait, there's Richard Lugar (R) cosponsoring. Well, I'm sure the next one, H.CON.RES.100, must... oh, there's Hagel (R). Maybe you don't think Lugar and Hagel are Republican enough? Or maybe the legislation wasn't really interesting. Maybe, then you'd be interested in the aptly named "Health Care for Hybrids" bill, which features cosponsors Brownback, Coleman, Graham, Lugar (maybe he loves Obama?), and Sessions? That's pretty damned bipartisan. Here's the thing: if I were a Senator I'd be bipartian on things that I actually believed in. I'm not going to compromise on something I think will be detrimental to my constituents or my country. You'd not catch me compromising on funding the war or on domestic spying, for example, and I could earn the reputation of being partisan. Maybe you can explain your understanding of the word "partisan".

07-02-2008, 11:15 AM	#7 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm not interested, host. And the more: "Hot dogs: nitrate-laden poison or ass-widening deathsticks?" thread topics I read, the less interested I get. There's no discussion here. Don't kid yourself. People have their Positions, and those Positions spout off from time to time. You and I aren't exceptions. Seems like the best I can do is stand on the sideline and point out the futility of it. This thread, in particular, seems HIGHLY futile.

07-02-2008, 09:36 PM	#17 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	I listened to that NPR story this morning and found myself wondering two things (that have already been mentioned): -what was McCain's record in his first 3 years? -who has the most chance to have a bi-partisan presidency? The first question could/should have been answered by the news story. The second question is obviously one of the important questions of the campaign. My feeling is the answer will be whichever one could get the white house with the fewest debts owed to supporters. And my biased few is that McCain doesn't have a prayer of getting there as his old maverick self. And that Obama has a (thin) chance. I'm hoping for some Republican cabinet members and some good old fashioned Lincoln style debates in the cabinet room. But I'm not holding my breath!