Bipartisanship

[hjmick]

Doing great now, its very hard to remember what everyone I talk to believes or doesnt believe.

You have missed history this time if you did not vote for Obama.

He will go down as one of the great presidents

I truly hope you are right and he does turn out to be a great President, I'd even settle for good, and I'll be especially happy if the governing party leaves the Constitution alone. I'll keep an open mind for now.

I disagree with you, however, about missing history. One does not need to vote for the winner in order to witness and be a part of history. Anyone who votes is a part of history. I simply do not agree with Obama's ideals. That being said, it is no less a historic event in my eyes. One I was certain would happen in my lifetime. Just as Bush was my President, and Clinton before him, Obama will be as well. Even if I don't agree with some of the things he may or may not do.

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush was never my president , he cheated to take office.

Obama had to get so many damn votes they couldnt steal it.

This is history and you failed to recognise a great president in time to help him take his place.

This man is a FIRST CLASS INTELLECT and a FIRST CLASS TEMPERMENT.

He is going to be amazing.

 

[WillowTree]

Bush was never my president , he cheated to take office.

Obama had to get so many damn votes they couldnt steal it.

This is history and you failed to recognise a great president in time to help him take his place.

This man is a FIRST CLASS INTELLECT and a FIRST CLASS TEMPERMENT.

He is going to be amazing.

for your sake I hope YOUR president works out for you. I'll wait for mine. And I'll give yours what you gave mine. Can't ask for more than that . Fair?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Bush was never my president , he cheated to take office.

Obama had to get so many damn votes they couldnt steal it.

This is history and you failed to recognise a great president in time to help him take his place.

This man is a FIRST CLASS INTELLECT and a FIRST CLASS TEMPERMENT.

He is going to be amazing.

I hope Obama is a great president, but I would be fine with a good one. However, I think we all can allow him to prove it or not instead of writing him off as the worst president in history. He has some great qualities: educated, intelligent, inspiring. Hopefully these qualities will be assets in his term as president.

I would love to see him work with McCain on alternative energy. I want them to protect ANWR, to get us off fossil fuels, and to live up to their promises of job creation in alternate energy and more fuel efficient cars.

McCain was against off-shore drilling until this summer, and were we to drill in ANWR, all of the already approved land, and off-shore the oil would only be a drop in the bucket compared with what the US currently uses. Is it worth it? Drilling causes environmental impact and the more oil we drill the more we promote our addiction to oil. I would prefer to see the US move away from the idea of drilling for oil and put more effort and work into alternative energy instead.

 

[hjmick]

Bush was never my president , he cheated to take office.

Obama had to get so many damn votes they couldnt steal it.

This is history and you failed to recognise a great president in time to help him take his place.

This man is a FIRST CLASS INTELLECT and a FIRST CLASS TEMPERMENT.

He is going to be amazing.

As we have before and will more than likely do again, we will have to agree to disagree. I recognized in '04 that Obama would be the future of the Democratic party, I even went so far as to tell my wife that she was looking at the next Democratic President. I knew then he would rise to the top. But I don't vote for who I think will win, I vote my conscience. This year, neither McCain nor Obama were men I wanted in office. I do not believe that precludes me from being a part of history.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As we have before and will more than likely do again, we will have to agree to disagree. I recognized in '04 that Obama would be the future of the Democratic party, I even went so far as to tell my wife that she was looking at the next Democratic President. I knew then he would rise to the top. But I don't vote for who I think will win, I vote my conscience. This year, neither McCain nor Obama were men I wanted in office. I do not believe that precludes me from being a part of history.

Absolutely. I voted for who I thought could win, but I would rather have voted for Nader or the Greens. I just didn't want to relive the 2000 elections. But those 3rd party and Independent candidates have some great ideas and we really should hear from them about how to solve the problems we face.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

for your sake I hope YOUR president works out for you. I'll wait for mine. And I'll give yours what you gave mine. Can't ask for more than that . Fair?

That's not really growing or progressing as a human being. Instead, don't you think it would be far more constructive and mature to stand on higher ground instead of lowering yourself to the level of the people you believe wronged you?

 

[hjmick]

Absolutely. I voted for who I thought could win, but I would rather have voted for Nader or the Greens. I just didn't want to relive the 2000 elections. But those 3rd party and Independent candidates have some great ideas and we really should hear from them about how to solve the problems we face.

It's what I consider one of the luxuries of living in California. I am a registered Republican, but solely for the purpose of primary elections. While I lean left of center socially, I do hold a (true) conservative belief of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, the constitution, and so on. The last time this state went red was Reagan. That being the case, I have had the luxury of voting my conscience. Were I to be living in a state where every vote truly counts, my decision might be more difficult.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It's what I consider one of the luxuries of living in California. I am a registered Republican, but solely for the purpose of primary elections. While I lean left of center socially, I do hold a (true) conservative belief of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, the constitution, and so on. The last time this state went red was Reagan. That being the case, I have had the luxury of voting my conscience. Were I to be living in a state where every vote truly counts, my decision might be more difficult.

I live in Colorado and being in a battleground state I felt I needed to make my vote effective.

 

[hjmick]

I live in Colorado and being in a battleground state I felt I needed to make my vote effective.

I completely understand. As I said, if I were in a similar situation, I'm not convinced I wouldn't abandon my conscience as well. You'll get no condemnation from me. I respect your choice.

 

[Truthmatters]

As we have before and will more than likely do again, we will have to agree to disagree. I recognized in '04 that Obama would be the future of the Democratic party, I even went so far as to tell my wife that she was looking at the next Democratic President. I knew then he would rise to the top. But I don't vote for who I think will win, I vote my conscience. This year, neither McCain nor Obama were men I wanted in office. I do not believe that precludes me from being a part of history.

No your just on the wrong side of it.

You will better understand when Obama starts really hitting his stride.

This man has greatness in his soul.

 

[N4mddissent]

Other than lip service, what indications has Obama ever given that he is willing or even capable of working in a bipartisan manner? The Democrats have spent eight years being divisive and spiteful, Obama has never reached across any aisle, and now they call for "bipartisanship efforts?" The Pelosi/Reid definition of "bipartisanship" can be best summed up as, "We won, you lost, too bad."

Would bipartisanship be nice? You bet. Would bipartisanship go a long way in fixing what's wrong? It's the only way. Will we actually see any bipartisanship in the next four years? Only time will tell.

Didn't he work with Luger on an arms reduction bill?

 

[N4mddissent]

Thursday, June 28, 2007



WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) today announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee accepted their request to provide funding to implement the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative. The Appropriations Committee expressed support for the initiative and provided $48 million for Lugar-Obama, $36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies. This is the culmination of an 18 month effort to authorize and fund the Lugar-Obama initiative.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, the Lugar-Obama initiative enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.

Link

 

[Caligirl]

Thanks for reiterating post #13 on this thread.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Here's an idea for a bipartisan issue that has been really divisive (this isn't my idea, and I don't remember where I read/heard it):

Gay Marriage

Instead of marriage being recognized/endorsed by the government, why not make marriage solely a religious matter that is not recognized/endorsed by the state. Instead, give civil unions that same benefits/legality that marriage receives and have the government recognize civil unions only. That way the church is kept out of the state, marriage isn't redefined, everyone enjoys equal rights, and the government has nothing to do with marriage?

Does anyone have any thoughts about that idea?

To me it makes a lot of sense.

 

[hjmick]

Didn't he work with Luger on an arms reduction bill?

Thursday, June 28, 2007



WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) today announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee accepted their request to provide funding to implement the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative. The Appropriations Committee expressed support for the initiative and provided $48 million for Lugar-Obama, $36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies. This is the culmination of an 18 month effort to authorize and fund the Lugar-Obama initiative.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, the Lugar-Obama initiative enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.

Link

You were the second person to mention this, so, being the kind of guy I am, I decided to take another look. You are indeed correct, there are a couple of instances of Obama co-authoring bills with Republicans, though not quite as frequently as one would like to see when claiming the bipartisan mantle, at least not for my taste. Furthermore, his voting record is pretty much straight down party the party line. In my meaningless opinion, this does not lend itself to claiming bipartisanship. So what stands out the most is, in his oh-so-short Senate career, is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. While I have no love for McCain, at least he has political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with the party base. Obama hasn't been involved in any transformative battles where he might piss off any of the party's interest groups. If we have only his past voting record upon which to base an opinion, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship. I hope I am proven wrong. For all our sakes.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You were the second person to mention this, so, being the kind of guy I am, I decided to take another look. You are indeed correct, there are a couple of instances of Obama co-authoring bills with Republicans, though not quite as frequently as one would like to see when claiming the bipartisan mantle, at least not for my taste. Furthermore, his voting record is pretty much straight down party the party line. In my meaningless opinion, this does not lend itself to claiming bipartisanship. So what stands out the most is, in his oh-so-short Senate career, is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. While I have no love for McCain, at least he has political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with the party base. Obama hasn't been involved in any transformative battles where he might piss off any of the party's interest groups. If we have only his past voting record upon which to base an opinion, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship. I hope I am proven wrong. For all our sakes.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism, but for every conservative to assume the worst only hurts an inspirational or transcendent leader and the hope for change. As long as we all hope, and vote hope instead of fear, better change will happen. Eventually. Even if it isn't with Obama. But let's at least support the President and give change and hope a chance now.

 

[hjmick]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism, but for every conservative to assume the worst only hurts an inspirational or transcendent leader and the hope for change. As long as we all hope, and vote hope instead of fear, better change will happen. Eventually. Even if it isn't with Obama. But let's at least support the President and give change and hope a chance now.

I have every intention of supporting our President, just as I did Bush and Clinton before him, and so on. I do, however, reserve the right to speak out when I think him wrong, just as I did with Bush, and Clinton, and every President before. We all should.

 

[N4mddissent]

You were the second person to mention this, so, being the kind of guy I am, I decided to take another look. You are indeed correct, there are a couple of instances of Obama co-authoring bills with Republicans, though not quite as frequently as one would like to see when claiming the bipartisan mantle, at least not for my taste. Furthermore, his voting record is pretty much straight down party the party line. In my meaningless opinion, this does not lend itself to claiming bipartisanship. So what stands out the most is, in his oh-so-short Senate career, is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. While I have no love for McCain, at least he has political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with the party base. Obama hasn't been involved in any transformative battles where he might piss off any of the party's interest groups. If we have only his past voting record upon which to base an opinion, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship. I hope I am proven wrong. For all our sakes.

That's fine. I'm not out to try to change your mind, because while I believe Obama will do well (otherwise I would not have voted for him), it is now time to allow him to perform in his job for four years. I intend to use a critical eye in evaluating that performance and so find out if the faith I put in him with my vote was justified. And invite you to do the same. It's up to him to convince you and me now that he was the best choice. I was just answering the question that you asked about when he had ever reached across the isle since you seemed to be working under the assumption he had not.

 

[N4mddissent]

Here's an idea for a bipartisan issue that has been really divisive (this isn't my idea, and I don't remember where I read/heard it):

Gay Marriage

Instead of marriage being recognized/endorsed by the government, why not make marriage solely a religious matter that is not recognized/endorsed by the state. Instead, give civil unions that same benefits/legality that marriage receives and have the government recognize civil unions only. That way the church is kept out of the state, marriage isn't redefined, everyone enjoys equal rights, and the government has nothing to do with marriage?

Does anyone have any thoughts about that idea?

To me it makes a lot of sense.

I have advocated the exact same thing. Civil unions for all. Let marriage be whatever your theological preference defines it as.