At a June 17 fundraising event in San Antonio, Texas, John McCain was asked to give some examples of Barack Obama reaching across the aisle in order to generate bipartisanship. McCain could not come up with a single example.
So, in the spirit of jogging McCain's memory on this issue, I present the following:
Obama's bipartisan efforts while in the Illinois Senate:
- Gained bipartisan support in the Illinois Senate for legislation that reformed both ethics and health care laws.
- Co-chaired the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
- Supported Republican Governor George Ryan's payday loan store regulations.
- Supported Republican Governor George Ryan's predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.
- Sponsored legislation to monitor racial profiling, which received such strong bipartisan support, it passed unanimously.
- Sponsored legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations, which received such strong bipartisan support, it passed unanimously.
Obama's bipartisan efforts while in the U.S. Senate:
- Co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" which had been introduced by Republican Senator John McCain.
- Partnered with Republican Senator Richard Lugar and successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar–Obama" expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.
- Partnered with Republican Senator Tom Coburn, Democratic Senator Tom Carper, and Republican Senator John McCain on the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" which requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. It passed unanimously.
- Sponsored the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act". It received such strong bipartisan support, that it passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Its passage by the House of Representatives was led by Republican Representative Chris Smith. Republican President George W. Bush signed it into law.
- Sponsored the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007" which strengthened public disclosure requirements concerning lobbying activity and funding, placed more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provided for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills. With great bipartisan support, the bill passed the Senate 96-2 (2 not voting), and passed the House 411-8 (13 not voting).
- Co-sponsored, with Republican Senator John McCain, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, Republican Senator Susan Collins, and Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, a bill that would put a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. that contribute to global warming.
- Co-authored, with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a provision requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan. The provision required the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at sites around the world are secure by 2012 from terrorist threats.
Let's hope that the American people have sharper memories than the presumptive Republican nominee.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
While there are a couple of good examples in your list, most are not examples of "reaching across the aisle"... and here is the distinction:
Many of the things you listed contain the words "gained bipartisan support"... that doesn't mean that HE was being bipartisan, it means that OTHERS were being bipartisan.
Example: I present an extremely liberal measure and many republicans vote in favor of it... meaning it has "bipartisan support". It's those Republicans who reached across party lines... not me. (I was being true to my liberal beliefs)
The one fact remains, no matter how you want to spin it. Obama has THE #1 most liberal voting record in all the senate... the fact that occasionally republicans will vote in line with him is a credit to those republicans who are willing to put aside partisanship.
You (or whoever you copy and pasted that list from) is giving him credit for the actions of others.
I suppose that if I agree with you on a political matter... that makes YOU the one who is being bipartisan? Not hardly. Look closer... it was me that reached across the Aisle... you remained seated firmly where you where.
In fact, show me an example where he voted opposite of 97% of the other democratic senators. Showing clearly that he was "cross-aisle"... from his own party's stance.
That's a hard thing to find, because it's record that he votes in-line with his party 97% of the time.
But if a few Republicans also vote in-line with the democrats... it's Obama who has "gained bipartisan support".
Give me a break.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "bipartisanship" as "of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties."
The examples I listed meet this definition.
McCain's legislative record in 2007 showed that he voted in favor of President Bush's position 95% of the time. Does that mean McxCain failed to meet your definition of being bipartisan for that timeframe?
Point of order: You state that "Many of the things you listed contain the words "gained bipartisan support"..." Actually, the only time I used the phrase "Gained bipartisan support" was in the first item in the Illinois Senate list.
Item #1: "Gained bipartisan support"
Item #5: "received such strong bipartisan support"
Item #6: "received such strong bipartisan support"
A note on Item #2: "Co-chaired the bipartisan Joint Committee"... that simply means that there were members of both parties on that committee. It indicates nothing about how those members behaved. The question is, when it came time to vote, did he reach across party lines and stand with the republican members of that committee and risk ridicule from his own democratic colleagues, or did he do his usual, and vote in line with the established democratic stance? Hmmmm I think I only need one guess to answer that.
Lasty, there are four items on your list in which the measure "passed unanimously" (or near unanimously). unanimously? You mean that ALL the Democrats AND Republicans voted for it? Then who was reaching across party lines there? To know, you'd have to look at the nature of the measure in question.
Examples: IF the measure was very conservative in nature, then hats off to the Democrats for reaching across the aisle and supporting it! If it was Liberal in nature then the congratulations goes to the Republicans for putting aside their partisanship. IF it was center aisle material, then it's not bi-partisanship, it's a compromise and neither side is being particularly "big".
Still, if EVERY SINGLE democrat voted in favor of it, how does that make ONE individual stand out as being brave or bold in the decision to do so? It's simple a herd mentality. Just another example of Senator Obama following his herd 97% of the time.
All hail BAAAArack O-BAAAAA-MA King of the Sheep.
***And NO, McCain does not reach across party lines nearly as often as he tries to make you think for the exact same reasons. You forget that I don't support McCain. I love it how when a Democrat can't stand up to scrutiny, the response is always, "But what about McCain?" How about defending the actions of your own candidate, instead of putting on an eight-year old show of, "Mommy, it wasn't me... he did it first."
P.S.
I love how you used Merriam Webster to demonstrate that as long as there was at least one republican in the room, it is, by definition, bi-partisan, and therefore Obama should be congratulated.
It comes down to *How you vote*. Step across the aisle Mr. Obama and embrace your republican brothers and thumb your nose at the democrats just once. THEN I'd say you are reaching across the aisle bravely in the spirit of bi-partisanship.
I agree with you that item #2 of the Illinois Senate list was not a good example. Thank you for pointing that out. I will not delete it, as that might be seen as a late attempt to cover up my error. Keeping it in plain sight will help me learn from such mistakes.
To answer your question about whether my use of the term, "passed unanimously" meant that all the Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of it? Yes, that's what I meant. As far as who reached across whose party lines on the four items that passed unanimously, I don't know. However, the unanimity of agreement by Republicans and Democrats to these bills either sponsored or cosponsored by Obama is a clear indication of bipartisan support. One does not get such backing from other politicians without considerable discussion with the other side of the aisle.
You stated, "I love how you used Merriam Webster to demonstrate that as long as there was at least one republican in the room, it is, by definition, bi-partisan, and therefore Obama should be congratulated." Why did you paraphrase only the first 9 words of the definition of bipartisanship ("of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ..."), leaving out the main part of the definition? The entire definition stated "of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties." It is the "...specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties." verbage that carries the main thrust of the definition, as evidenced by the emphasizing word "specifically".
Do you believe that Obama has to, in your words, "... risk ridicule from his own democratic colleagues ..." or "... thumb (his) nose at the democrats..." to demonstrate bipartisanship? I believe that while sometimes such extremes might be required to show your mettle, but I hope that the majority of bipartisan agreements, no matter what side initially proposed them, fall under the last 9 words of the Merriam-Webster's definition, "... cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties."
lol, why would someone ask McCain to give supporting evidence FOR his enemy?!
I think Thinker misread my argument. His definition of what "bi-partisan" means is fine by me... in fact I agree with that definition.
What I disagree with is the statement near the top of the argument that says that you are giving examples of "reaching across the aisle."
Are there examples of both parties regularly working together on many issues? Of course. Does it mean that everyone involved in those moments are "reaching across party lines"? ... NO.
Reaching across party lines means a willingness to put aside YOUR party's preferences and embrace the opposing view for the greater good.
In plain English: It means going against your own party and voting your heart EVEN IF it means breaking party principles to do so.
Obama only votes in line with his democratic colleagues. In other words, he'll only approach the middle if everyone else is too. He has NO record of doing it alone.
If you can show me a measure that HE voted in favor of that 80-90% of the democrats were against, THEN you'd have an example of a reach across party lines.
Good Luck finding one... it might be there, but it's going to be a tough hunt.
It sounds like, to you, "reaching across party lines' means:
"Coaxing the opposition into coming to your side."
That's convenient... that way you don't have to budge an inch from your original position. Just take the credit when they move to your side.
WOW This is a tough Crowd to get a word in about BIPARTISAN!!! I am going to reach across party lines and vote Indepently!!!! HOW DOES THAT GRAB YOU FOR TRIPARTISAN!!!!
It took me all of one search request to arrive at an example in which Senator Obama voted against the will of the Democratic Party majority. On May 24, 2008 he, along with 9 other Democrats, voted against the $120 billion dollar Iraq war funding package, as it contained no suggested withdrawal deadlines. Thirty-seven Democrats voted in favor of the package. Two Democrats did not vote. Forty-two Republicans voted in favor, 3 against, and 4 did not vote. One Independent voted in favor, and one voted against. It passed 80-14.
Friday34 said that this is a tough crowd. I agree. But that's because only the most intelligent folks comment here.
All hail friday34's tripartisanship! Mathematically speaking, 'tripartisan' is 50% greater than 'bipartisan'. Hmmmm ... might 'quadripartisan' be right around the corner?
How is your example a case of voting in-line with the republican stance, hence "reaching across party lines" if he voted against the very thing they voted for?
Sounds to me that there were 37 Democrats willing to (and did) "reach across the aisle"... but that he absolutely refused to.
How is voting against something favored by the opposing party an example of being bi-partisan or "reaching across party lines."
In fact, it's the exact opposite and you just made my point for me. Thank you.
My response was to your comment, "Obama only votes in line with his democratic colleagues. "
I thought the whole point of this article was examples of voting in line with his republican colleagues... You know, "reaching across the aisle" and all that jazz.
And not just doing it when the herd is doing it too.
So far, you've only showed that even when his own party collectively votes on the right... he still stubbornly stays left.
Seriously, is there an example of Obama voting WITH the republicans while his democrat buddies stayed left? Therefore showing an ability to drop his partisan BS.
I'm trying to help you out here. If you can get one, then you'd have a clear aisle-crossing example. Though it would be only one tiny example for several years in congress. :P
The whole point of this post was to provide examples of Obama's efforts at bipartisanship, since McCain seemed unable to do a Google search. I defined the term 'bipartisanship' (which you agreed with), and provided examples which fit within that definition.
You made the comment, "Obama only votes in line with his democratic colleagues. " I provided an example which refuted that statement.
You state that " So far, you've only showed that even when his own party collectively votes on the right... he still stubbornly stays left." Did you know that Obama supports merit pay for teachers? That position is clearly to the right of traditional Democratic Party philosophy.
The opening sentence of your article seemed to suggest that you'd be giving examples of Obama "Reaching across the aisle to generate bipartisanship." (I noticed you conveniently left that part out in your above post)
How much of the democratic party is against merit pay? If it's the majority while at the same time the majority of Republican's are for it: Then you've found an example of reaching across party lines. Good find. Maybe.
Plus, as Bfoxy said, why would McCain want to come up with selling points for his opponent?
It's like asking Obama to name ten reasons McCain should be the next president... do you think he'd dig deep to promote McCain?
Being that it IS an election year and there are several key issues that will make or break either candidate, let's see if there are any examples of Obama reaching across the aisle and sharing the views of the opposing party in any of the areas deemed important at the moment by the American people:
Disclaimer: This is not a list of what's right or what's wrong... but merely to show if he is "cross-aisle" on any of these issues.
1) The environment (Not cross-aisle)
2) Abortion (Not cross-aisle)
3) War/Defense (Nope)
4) Taxation (Nadda)
5) Border Security (Zippo)
6) Energy Independence (Yes, but still not in line "with" the republican stance... therefore not reaching across the aisle)
7) Healthcare (Not even close!)
8) Education ('Fraid not)
9) Social Security and Medicare (Give me a break)
10) Judges (Well, we'd have to see)
Again... I'm NOT suggesting his views are wrong on any of these topics... but you CANNOT suggest that he is "cross-aisle" on a single one of them.
Go ahead and try.
So you and bfoxy are saying that McCain knew of examples of Obama's bipartisanship, and chose to lie? I'm quite surprised at this condemnation of McCain.
King of the spin...
Actually, he probably couldn't come up with anything... I've been trying to two days and my hands are still empty, even with the help of one of his "supporters"...
I'm sure Obama really appreciated your example of him staying left even when his party moved to the center.
Seriously, is there a topic that he shares the republican stance on? I gave you a list of ten important ones...
Since I'm on a roll, I'll double post for the third time.
The phrase "reach across party lines" or "reach across the aisle" is not a newly coined term and it has a very specific meaning.
What it DOESN"T mean:
1) It doesn't mean that you had lunch one day with a republican.
2) It doesn't mean that you sat on a committee with a republican.
3) It certainly doesn't mean that you sent a birthday card to a republican's kid.
What it DOES mean:
That you share a viewpoint with a republican.
**And it must be noted that the shared viewpoint MUST be a republican viewpoint. If it is a democratic viewpoint that is being shared, then it is the Republican who is reaching across the aisle, not the democrat.
*** It is also a caveat that the sharing of the viewpoint cannot be due to "partisan" peer-pressure. In other words, you can't support the opposing view just because everyone else in your party is too. That's still being VERY partisan.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion over the meaning of 'reach across party lines'. My definition is based upon the components of cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties. Your definition imposes much stricter requirements in order to qualify as 'reaching across party lines'. That is, of course, your right. However, it is equally my right to not reject my meaning and replace it with yours.
I believe that my list supported my definition. You believe that your list supported yours. As an intellectual exercise, it was a great workout. I think it's time to hit the showers!
Unfortunately, we weren't talking about actions of the two major political parties...
We were talking about the "alleged" actions and behavior of an individual.
I used all the hot water.
Political parties, as inanimate objects, have no actions. It is the behavior of Individuals within those parties that results in actionable events.
It's OK about not leaving any hot water. Talking politics gets me so excited I needed a cold shower anyway.
Note to self:
In the future, avoid delusional people...
When all else fails, resort to the ad hominem comment.
Post a Comment