A statement on Obama’s bipartisanship?
|
|
All last week at the DNCC, we heard about how partisan John McCain is and how electing him would be a third Bush term. Duck, a frequent commenter on BD, made this observation:
Looking at Obama’s record, I fail to see any bi-partisanship. But I guess if you say something long enough, some people will believe it.
McCain may have voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, but Obama has the most liberal voting record of any Senator. Then he picks another very liberal Senator as his running mate. Not how I would define bipartisanship, but what do I know? Heck, Obama would not even pick Hillary as a running mate, and she is a little bit to the right of him.
It is convenient that Obama forgets those times when McCain railed against W. The gang of 14 comes to mind. Weren’t there some Democrats in that group? And didn’t McCain at least consider selecting a Democrat as his running mate?
That said McCain equals Republican partisanship, and Obama equals bipartisanship. Makes perfect sense to me!!
on 
JR, I’m glad you brought this post by Duck back up, as it really made me think and I wanted to kick in my $0.02.
As I look at the records of the 2 senators, I see very different pictures. And yet both claim the mantle of bipartisanship. How is that? I think it has to do with how each candidate and their campaigns define bipartisanship.
With McCain it’s relatively simple. He has built his reputation on being a maverick - crossing party lines to vote with the Dems on issues where he really is voting against the majority of his party. Call this the principle before party form of bipartisanship. And historically it really does seem to define McCain’s politics.
With Obama, it’s not as simple. Though he has “broken ranks” with his party on a few issues (Tort Reform), it’s no where near as common with him as it is with McCain. However, in talking to conservatives who have worked with Obama both in the US and IL senates, where his strength seems to lie is in finding common ground. When Obama is working to get something done and hits opposition, he has a history of sitting down with the those opposing and listening to their concerns. Then he’ll try to find the common ground and work out a solution that is satisfactory to all (or at least to enough to get it done). Call this form consensus building for simplicity, and Obama does seem to be quite good at it (though the more bitterly partisan the environment becomes, the harder it is to accomplish).
Both Obama and McCain have also practiced a third form as well, let’s call it opposing partner bipartisanship as that’s pretty self-explanatory. McCain/Feingold and Lugar/Obama are both examples of this.
I think it’s this fundamental divide in language that allows each side to claim bipartisanship and slam the other as a fake.
Of course, in the harsh partisan landscape of a primary, where the base must be courted, both Obama’s and McCain’s voting records have drifted closer to their opposing poles. This allows the McCain camp to call Obama the “most liberal” senator, and Obama to say McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Over the longer term, the pictures look a little different.