President of US or Just 'The Progressives?'

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
Time will tell. One interesting list, interesting to me since I've seen many here calling for trials of Bush & administration. A start:

Supposing Obama Were a Bipartisan

Supposing Obama Were a Bipartisan
What then?
by Peter Berkowitz
11/17/2008, Volume 014, Issue 09

In August 2004, a then-obscure Illinois state senator delivered a dazzling keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Of special interest, because it departed from the election season's bitter partisanship, was his eloquent insistence on the unity undergirding the nation's great diversity:

There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
As a result of his decisive victory on November 4, Barack Obama will have the opportunity to match deeds to words by governing as president not only of the 53 percent of the electorate who voted for him but of the 47 percent who did not.

It won't be easy. All of his professional and political life, Obama has made his home on the left wing of the Democratic party. And, though to listen to the mainstream media one would think that only John McCain and Sarah Palin played political hardball, Obama's successful campaign was highly partisan, which is natural in the rough and tumble of electioneering, with the highest office in the land on the line.

Nevertheless, when accepting his party's nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, before 80,000 cheering supporters at Denver's Invesco Field, Obama reaffirmed his belief in a common American core beneath respectable partisan differences:

The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America.

Part of America's greatness, Obama rightly observed, is its "promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort." And after the votes had been counted, late on Election Night, in front of a jubilant crowd jammed into Chicago's Grant Park, Obama sounded this theme one more time:
...

...(1)   Obama should defend the integrity and independence of the executive branch that he will soon head by resisting calls from congressional Democrats to pursue criminal investigations of Bush administration officials--the foundations for which were laid by hearings conducted last spring by House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers Jr.--for policy decisions they made about how to wage the war on terror. Obama should also speak out forcefully against efforts by European judges who invoke claims of universal jurisdiction to indict Bush administration officials as war criminals. One sure consequence of the criminalization of national security policy differences is the weakening of the office of the president, which, over the long term, will hurt both parties and the nation. Beyond that, the prosecution and imprisonment of defeated or disfavored officials is typical of dictatorships but is incompatible with the peaceful transfer of power that is a hallmark of democracy.

(2)   Obama should reappoint Robert Gates secretary of defense. By putting the Department of Defense on a steady course after the volatile Rumsfeld years, Gates has earned the respect and admiration of the uniformed military and the Pentagon. In an area where Obama has little experience, reappointing Gates would show that he recognizes that he is a wartime president and that he stands to benefit from a seasoned veteran with a distinguished track record who could lend continuity to national security during a period of transition.

(3)   Obama's first appointment to the Supreme Court should be a judge's judge, a Democrat no doubt, but one who commands the respect of conservative court watchers. By virtue of his knowledge of the law and his judicial temperament and integrity, Merrick Garland, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997, comes to mind.

(4)   Obama should institute a practice of regular consultation with members of Congress, including Republicans, perhaps inviting them to the White House once a month to compare notes and exchange views. On the campaign trail, Obama promised something similar, saying he would "call for a standing, bipartisan Consultative Group of congressional leaders on national security." This is a good start, but meetings with both parties' legislators should not be limited to national security. Such meetings cost little, provide the opportunity to build good will and understanding, and can contribute to setting that new tone in Washington of which candidates every four years speak.

(5)   Obama, who has touted his support for charter schools, should endorse school choice. Certainly in inner cities where public schools have for decades been broken and have proven resistant to reform, Obama should favor efforts to provide low-income parents with the means to send their children to schools where they actually have the chance to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic.

(6)   Obama should clearly state his opposition to reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senators Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer have called for. Conservatives see it as a thinly veiled effort to suppress conservative talk-radio by demanding that stations that feature conservative stars such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh provide the left with equal opportunities to broadcast their views. Even if the measure has little chance of passing, conservatives would appreciate Obama's explicit rejection of it. This is not only because it is aimed at a conservative advantage, but also because as conceived it invites an appalling and unconstitutional regulation of political speech by Congress. It is one thing to require radio and TV stations, which broadcast over public airwaves, to give opposing candidates a fair chance to express their views. It is quite another to put government in the business of determining what sort of programming would balance Hannity and Limbaugh, which, in fairness, would also require government to determine what sort would balance NPR.

(7)   Obama should call on public universities to abolish campus speech codes and vigorously protect students' and faculty members' speech rights. By doing this Obama would score big with conservatives. He would also position progressives where they belong: on the side of free speech, vigorous debate, impartial inquiry, and openness to opposing points of view.

Although nothing in these proposals violates fundamental progressive tenets, all would undoubtedly irritate or anger one Democratic party constituency or another. Nevertheless, by adopting them, Obama would show that he is a man of his word who believes what he has emphatically said about bridging divides and uniting in common efforts by listening to conservatives and enlisting their support.

More than that, adopting these proposals would also serve the public. Coming from a Democrat in the White House, it would send the message to conservatives and progressives alike that, for all their genuine differences of opinion, left and right in America share important interests and fundamental principles and, by working together, can bring about change that both sides can believe in.


Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
 
There is a website at change.gov where you can tell the pres what you expect of him. Hold his feet to the fire. make him be true to his word.

Change.gov

I've been there, watched it scrubbed and changed in just the last 24 hours. 1984 alive.
 
Do you plan to send an email? Why or why not?

I'll be honest, I probably won't because I'd rather not be on a list. but that's my fear and my fault then, rather than anything else.

Bush was 1984 if you ask me, with the warrantless wiretapping and the increase in spying and so on, and conflating peace with war and torture with justice. Et. cetera.
 
Do you plan to send an email? Why or why not?

I'll be honest, I probably won't because I'd rather not be on a list. but that's my fear and my fault then, rather than anything else.

Bush was 1984 if you ask me, with the warrantless wiretapping and the increase in spying and so on, and conflating peace with war and torture with justice. Et. cetera.

Really? Always above board what they were doing, all with agreement from congress. This incoming group, they've been scrubbing their sites, sending the DOJ on those that disagree with them. Be careful what you wish for, whoops, too late.
 
Time will tell. One interesting list, interesting to me since I've seen many here calling for trials of Bush & administration. A start:

Supposing Obama Were a Bipartisan

I think those are some pretty awful ideas, particularly the one about consulting congress and picking conservative judges. Isn't that what got jimmy carter into trouble.

One has to question the partisanship of the writer on the issue of investigations. Certain inquiries may be appropriate.

And why do we trust something named after the guy who gave us Hoovervilles?

finally, where were the great bi-partisan ideas espoused by the institute while Bush played on every division that exists in this country?
 
I think those are some pretty awful ideas, particularly the one about consulting congress and picking conservative judges. Isn't that what got jimmy carter into trouble.

One has to question the partisanship of the writer on the issue of investigations. Certain inquiries may be appropriate.

And why do we trust something named after the guy who gave us Hoovervilles?

finally, where were the great bi-partisan ideas espoused by the institute while Bush played on every division that exists in this country?

Did someone say Hooterville ? :lol:

The People of Hooterville
 
Time will tell. One interesting list, interesting to me since I've seen many here calling for trials of Bush & administration. A start:

Supposing Obama Were a Bipartisan

Bipartisanship is a two way street. If Obama supports conservative agenda are you going to support his? How about his tax package for protection of Limbaugh, withdrawal from Iraq for charter schools, and heath care for not prosecuting Bush for treason. Sound fair? Personally I think cons are getting the better end of the deal...
 
Bipartisanship is a two way street. If Obama supports conservative agenda are you going to support his? How about his tax package for protection of Limbaugh, withdrawal from Iraq for charter schools, and heath care for not prosecuting Bush for treason. Sound fair? Personally I think cons are getting the better end of the deal...

Would I support him? If something were offered that I could agree with. So far all I've seen is Russia threatening, him caving. Then there is his 'stimulus pkg', more of what happened in the spring, before the $700 billion. I'm still hoping for better, but will not be surprised if not forthcoming, after all, it's what he ran on, from what little we can discern from the little he told us.
 
Would I support him? If something were offered that I could agree with. So far all I've seen is Russia threatening, him caving. Then there is his 'stimulus pkg', more of what happened in the spring, before the $700 billion. I'm still hoping for better, but will not be surprised if not forthcoming, after all, it's what he ran on, from what little we can discern from the little he told us.

Your not telling us what you can agree with outside of conservative agenda. If that is all you have to offer then what is the point in his reaching across the isle?
 
Your not telling us what you can agree with outside of conservative agenda. If that is all you have to offer then what is the point in his reaching across the isle?

There was 'reaching'? I failed to catch that. Seems all I've seen are threats of camps and isolation.
 
There was 'reaching'? I failed to catch that. Seems all I've seen are threats of camps and isolation.

Do you have any factual basis for these statements? Or are you just making things up as usual?
 
Would I support him? If something were offered that I could agree with. So far all I've seen is Russia threatening, him caving. Then there is his 'stimulus pkg', more of what happened in the spring, before the $700 billion. I'm still hoping for better, but will not be surprised if not forthcoming, after all, it's what he ran on, from what little we can discern from the little he told us.

Caving? Is that going to be the right wing whine? Last I checked, we still have only one president at a time.

Caving, my butt.... what should he have done... told Russia we're going to bomb them once he's sworn in.

I also need to say, for the upteenth time, that Obama was not elected to continue Bush's policies. He was not elected to run a "conservative" agenda. He was elected to try to clean up the mess. Being bi-partisan means you do not, as the repubs did, only put a bill on the floor if you don't need a single vote for the other party and then tell the other side to shove it if they don't like it. That was SOP for six years of the Bush administration. Could that be done? Yes. But he won't. And, there is, actually, a bigger problem in terms of bi-partisanship. The more moderate repubs lost because those are the areas where they punished the repubs for Bush's failures. All that is left of the repubs in Congress are the radical right wing religious ideologues.

That's a big problem for the Repub party in terms of it's continued viability. But an even bigger one in terms of bi-partisanship.

I think the focus will be on the economy. In terms of social issues, I would strongly suspect that the first social item addressed by the next congress is stem cell research with both dems and repubs voted for but Bush vetoed to pander to the christian right.
 
...(1)   Obama should defend the integrity and independence of the executive branch that he will soon head by resisting calls from congressional Democrats to pursue criminal investigations of Bush administration officials[/quote]

So the Hoover institute is opposed to criminal investigations if they are linked to actors in the Bush Administration?

I see. How interesting.

The Hoover institute believes that if the Republican administration was involved in criminal activities, they should get a pass, then?

So noted.


Obama should also speak out forcefully against efforts by European judges who invoke claims of universal jurisdiction to indict Bush administration officials as war criminals. One sure consequence of the criminalization of national security policy differences is the weakening of the office of the president, which, over the long term, will hurt both parties and the nation. Beyond that, the prosecution and imprisonment of defeated or disfavored officials is typical of dictatorships but is incompatible with the peaceful transfer of power that is a hallmark of democracy.

If the USA has war criminals, it is up to the USA, not Europe, to take them to task. On that point I agree.

(2)   Obama should reappoint Robert Gates secretary of defense. By putting the Department of Defense on a steady course after the volatile Rumsfeld years, Gates has earned the respect and admiration of the uniformed military and the Pentagon. In an area where Obama has little experience, reappointing Gates would show that he recognizes that he is a wartime president and that he stands to benefit from a seasoned veteran with a distinguished track record who could lend continuity to national security during a period of transition.

Given that Obama believed that constructive engagement with Iran is a good thing (and something the neo-cons took Obama to task for during the election) he just might.

Read this:

Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A04

The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.


and this from the same source:

Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled "Iran: Time for a New Approach." At the time, he explained yesterday, "we were looking at a different Iran in many respects" under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran's role in Iraq was "fairly ambivalent," he said. "They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful."


(3)   Obama's first appointment to the Supreme Court should be a judge's judge, a Democrat no doubt, but one who commands the respect of conservative court watchers. By virtue of his knowledge of the law and his judicial temperament and integrity, Merrick Garland, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed by Bill Clinton in 1997, comes to mind.

With the exception of his position on the case involving GITMO detainees (what a wonderfully Orwellian way of saying unindicted prisoners, eh?) I don't know enough about this guy to comment


(4)   Obama should institute a practice of regular consultation with members of Congress, including Republicans, perhaps inviting them to the White House once a month to compare notes and exchange views.

You mean like their boy Bush II did?



(5)   Obama, who has touted his support for charter schools, should endorse school choice. Certainly in inner cities where public schools have for decades been broken and have proven resistant to reform, Obama should favor efforts to provide low-income parents with the means to send their children to schools where they actually have the chance to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic.

But he should do that without providing funding to local schools to pay for this, how, exactly?

(6)   Obama should clearly state his opposition to reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senators Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer have called for. Conservatives see it as a thinly veiled effort to suppress conservative talk-radio by demanding that stations that feature conservative stars such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh provide the left with equal opportunities to broadcast their views. Even if the measure has little chance of passing, conservatives would appreciate Obama's explicit rejection of it. This is not only because it is aimed at a conservative advantage, but also because as conceived it invites an appalling and unconstitutional regulation of political speech by Congress. It is one thing to require radio and TV stations, which broadcast over public airwaves, to give opposing candidates a fair chance to express their views. It is quite another to put government in the business of determining what sort of programming would balance Hannity and Limbaugh, which, in fairness, would also require government to determine what sort would balance NPR.

Sounds right to me. The unfairness of our media has more to do with the monopoly of the major media than its content.


(7)   Obama should call on public universities to abolish campus speech codes and vigorously protect students' and faculty members' speech rights. By doing this Obama would score big with conservatives. He would also position progressives where they belong: on the side of free speech, vigorous debate, impartial inquiry, and openness to opposing points of view.

Totally agree.
 
Talk is cheap. Very cheap. It's what the brockguy actually does that matters..

I want my health care just like his and I want it quickly

My taxes better not go up not one red cent, not one plug nickel.




The day he swears in, it's all happening on his watch.
 
Really? Always above board what they were doing, all with agreement from congress. This incoming group, they've been scrubbing their sites, sending the DOJ on those that disagree with them. Be careful what you wish for, whoops, too late.

Oh, I'd have to disagree pretty strongly with all of that.

Fixing intelligence to go to war, conflating Iraq with 9/11, claiming to 'reach across the aisle' when what that meant under Bush was 'democrats don't have a choice,'

i might be able to agree with you to some extent if you were saying that politicians are more alike than theya re different. but to say that Obama is 1984 and bush was honest and forthcoming is ridiculous.

This probably means we hear politicians totally differently.
 
Time will tell. One interesting list, interesting to me since I've seen many here calling for trials of Bush & administration. A start:

Supposing Obama Were a Bipartisan


Sorry, this was a mandate.

365 Electoral votes.

A 260 to 175 majority in the House.

A 15 to 18 majority in the Senate.

The large majority of Governorships.

A complete rejection of the Bush policies...the very policies you voted for twice, and republicans in congress voted with 90% of the time for 8 years.

Hopefully, Obama is going to work on healthcare, energy independence, tax cuts for the middle class, Iraq, and the economy. If republicans want to tag along, I'm sure they'll have opportunities to chime in. But privitization of social security is off the table, there's not going to be any more road blocks to stem cell research, global warming denialists will be asked to sit in the back of the bus, and judges who want to outlaw abortion are are going to have their resumes put in the circular file.

Unfortunately, all almost all moderates in your party are defeated. You know, the ones who want to limit stem cell research, and deny climate change?

I'm sure republicans will have an opportunity to chime in some ideas about healthcare. And I don't think anybody really wants government-owned hospitals and doctors like in the UK. So, I don't think "socialists", "marxists", or extreme right wingers are going to get much of what they want.
 
Last edited:
If democrats see this as a mandate they can wave control bye-bye in four years.

Don't advocate this. It'll backfire in a huge way.
 
If democrats see this as a mandate they can wave control bye-bye in four years.

Don't advocate this. It'll backfire in a huge way.

Its a mandate to change, and move away from as rapidly as possible, the Bush/Republican policies of the last 8 years.

That's just a simple fact.

No one is claiming its a mandate for Marxism.

The republican ideas of the last 8 years are off the table: from SS privatization, to denying climate change, to roadblocking stem cell research, to corporate deregulation, to staying in Iraq with no timetables.

Do you really think we should be negotiating privatization of social security, or negotiating with republicans about roadblocking stem cell research? I don't think so.

If republicans want to give their input on middle class tax cuts, or on how to withdraw from iraq, that's fine. Bipartisanship is fine. But, there is absolutely no reason to negotiate on the failed bush policies of the last 8 years; the very policies republicans voted with and defended 90% of the time. The country wants to move away from those policies.
 

Forum List

Back
Top