Obama has power to unite us all

[dirk digler]

I will keep my Obama threads to a bare minimum, I promise, but I thought this commentary was right on.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/07/roland.martin/index.html

Obama has power to unite us all

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- You may find a bunch of political operatives who will suggest that they always believed a black man named Barack Obama would blow away his competitors in Iowa and would destroy the inevitability of a former first lady who is a member of the U.S. Senate.

If that's the case, just walk away because they are lying.

I was there on that frigid February day in Springfield, Illinois, when Obama, standing in the shadows of the old Capitol where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous "House Divided" speech, announced his candidacy for president. While the senator's soaring rhetoric was warmly received, it was assumed that, if he could just survive the first two states, maybe he wouldn't embarrass himself.

But the game has changed, and all of a sudden, there is a sense that Obama could win this thing.

Yet even after getting dusted by nine points in Iowa and watching Obama walk away with more female voters than herself, Hillary Clinton continues to assert that it will be impossible for Obama to get elected in November against a Republican challenger.

When I asked Obama about that in an interview for my radio show on WVON in Chicago and for CNN, he couldn't help but laugh.

"Look at what happened in Iowa," the senator said. "We had Republicans who crossed over to vote for me. We had more independents caucusing for me than anybody. That's the reason why the polls show I'm the only Democrat that beats every Republican.

"What I think they are suggesting is that being engaged in this brutal brawl with the Republicans, that that's somehow the recipe for Democrats to win. I disagree. The strategy is to pick off Republicans and independents by having a positive agenda for change."

He added, "You can't say someone's not electable when they keep on winning elections."

But there is something else going on here. Obama is the first candidate of his generation truly to be an agent of change who inspires, motivates and ignites the passion in a large segment of Americans who had ignored politics because it was unseemly and didn't move people to action.

My e-mail inbox and my talk show lines filled up with people who say that listening to Obama empowers them to get involved, that he is able to connect with them on an emotional and spiritual level that is reminiscent of John and Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Sure, for a significant segment, Ronald Reagan represented that kind of hope in 1980.

Gary Hart had the potential to do that, until his personal issues derailed his campaign for the 1988 election. And Bill Clinton touched the hearts and minds of the baby boomers in 1992.

But this appears to be something different. Obama seeks to serve as a bridge between the divisions in America that exist between young and old, haves and have-nots, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.

It's reminiscent of Lincoln's speech and King's book, "Why We Can't Wait," a compilation of his letters from the Birmingham jail.

At the end of the day, Obama is trying to speak to the core of America that says we can overcome all the barriers that exist between us if we simply are willing to trust in one another.

Now he takes his campaign to New Hampshire, another predominantly white state, where there are a ton of independents who could vault him to the top of the field. Will these New Englanders buy the hope of Obama and send him to South Carolina with another victory? Will African-Americans who fear whites won't vote for Obama now see his Iowa win as validation that those fears are unfounded?

Simply put, will America be willing to walk away from what some say is a sure thing of a Clinton in the White House and embrace a man who says we can do all things if we just believe enough in ourselves?

It all might sound like New Age mumbo jumbo. But the more Obama speaks and the more goose bumps that are raised, the more he makes the eight years Bill Clinton spent in the White House seem like ancient history and an Obama White House as the dawn of a new day for America.

[Cochise]

A significant part of his surge, maybe most of it, is likeability and trust, not positions and issues, in the face of an opponent bereft of trust or likeability. In that respect, he can pull voters who don't really care about issues.

I don't see any substance in this article at all. It's all stump speech and nothing else. "He wants to unite us all". "He cares about the average person." "He wants us all to forget our differences and work together."

What does any of that stuff mean? It's politicalspeak.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Sounds like the liberal for CNN has goosebumps.

Ummm. I don't see civil war in this country. What the hell is he talking about 'uniting us'.

I think the guy really turns on the 'affirmitive action,racial heroism liberal crowd'.

All symbolism over substance. I would take a veteran politician over a inexperienced guy. Look at Bush. he was an outsider too.

[dirk digler]

A significant part of his surge, maybe most of it, is likeability and trust, not positions and issues, in the face of an opponent bereft of trust or likeability. In that respect, he can pull voters who don't really care about issues.

I don't see any substance in this article at all. It's all stump speech and nothing else. "He wants to unite us all". "He cares about the average person." "He wants us all to forget our differences and work together."

What does any of that stuff mean? It's politicalspeak.

If you want issues then go to his website he has them all listed there so he is not hiding anything.

The point of the commentary is that he is appealing to alot of people including Republicans and Independents because he brings a message of hope and change and that he inspires people.

Maybe you skipped over this part:

But there is something else going on here. Obama is the first candidate of his generation truly to be an agent of change who inspires, motivates and ignites the passion in a large segment of Americans who had ignored politics because it was unseemly and didn't move people to action.

My e-mail inbox and my talk show lines filled up with people who say that listening to Obama empowers them to get involved, that he is able to connect with them on an emotional and spiritual level that is reminiscent of John and Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Sure, for a significant segment, Ronald Reagan represented that kind of hope in 1980.

[dirk digler]

Ummm. I don't see civil war in this country. What the hell is he talking about 'uniting us'.
.

Ever heard of Red and Blue States? It gets mentioned quite often and IMO is divisive

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Those divisions are philosophical.

And wont be erased especially by a black prez.

[Nightfyre]

especially by a black prez.
... ? ...

[noa]

All symbolism over substance. I would take a veteran politician over a inexperienced guy. Look at Bush. he was an outsider too.

Bush portrayed himself as an outsider, but his Dad had been head of the CIA and was VP and then Prez. Bush had spent time in the White House and had been around campaigns. He was also governor of the biggest state in the country. And he chose to surround himself with some of the most politically experienced people in the country in Cheney and Rumsfeld. All that experience with Washington didn't turn out so well for them.
I think its a negative when a candidate has spent a lot of time in Washington.

Kind of like how he created the illusion that you could share a beer with him cause he's just a normal guy like you, when in fact he is an ivy league grad born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

[HolmeZz]

... ? ...

MarlboroChief.

[noa]

Those divisions are philosophical.

And wont be erased especially by a black prez.

I think Obama's point is that red states and blue states aren't divided by philosophy, this is just an illusion. Of course, America has serious philosophical divides, but it is not as simple as saying "Red Staters believe this and Blue Staters believe that."

[HolmeZz]

All symbolism over substance. I would take a veteran politician over a inexperienced guy. Look at Bush. he was an outsider too.

We need that good honkey experience, i.e. Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[billay]

He will unite us! We'll all unite aginst him when taxes are raised, he continues with a bad foreign policy, and is exposed as the lobbyist best friend.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

... ? ...

You think that will bring the south together with the north?

I just wonder if a Mexican American running for prez would get all the same good will as Obama is getting.

I doubt it. It's just me but there is undercurrent of sympathy for most Blacks in politics due to the guilt trip politics by liberals. If you don't vote for Obama then you're racist. LOL.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

I think Obama's point is that red states and blue states aren't divided by philosophy, this is just an illusion. Of course, America has serious philosophical divides, but it is not as simple as saying "Red Staters believe this and Blue Staters believe that."

then you and Obama don't get it.

Southerners are way more conservative. Go visit the south.

[Nightfyre]

You think that will bring the south together with the north?

I just wonder if a Mexican American running for prez would get all the same good will as Obama is getting.

I doubt it. It's just me but there is undercurrent of sympathy for most Blacks in politics due to the guilt trip politics by liberals. If you don't vote for Obama then you're racist. LOL.
I'm no Obama supporter, but at this point, everyone I talk to fails to mention his race. Maybe its the fact that I interact with a much younger crowd, but race is not at all an issue. What makes you a racist is presuming that a black person cannot unite America, not that you won't vote for Obama. So really, I think you're right when you say it's just you.

[HolmeZz]

You think that will bring the south together with the north?

I just wonder if a Mexican American running for prez would get all the same good will as Obama is getting.

I doubt it. It's just me but there is undercurrent of sympathy for most Blacks in politics due to the guilt trip politics by liberals. If you don't vote for Obama then you're racist. LOL.

Not voting for/supporting Obama isn't racist. Insinuating his candidacy is nothing more than sympathy-based is. If that's what you think, I don't see how you could see any black candidate as viable. They're all just the result of white guilt, right?

[Sully]

If you don't vote for Obama then you're racist. LOL.
Have you actually heard this? Even once?

[Cochise]

If you want issues then go to his website he has them all listed there so he is not hiding anything.

The point of the commentary is that he is appealing to alot of people including Republicans and Independents because he brings a message of hope and change and that he inspires people.

Maybe you skipped over this part:

It's just political speak. Is he going to unite America behind affirmative action? Is he going to unite America on raising taxes? Is he going to united America behind nationalizing health care?

Will he unite people by opposing vouchers for education? Is America going to rally behind his guest worker program and his path to citizenship for illegal aliens? Or unite people on gay marriage, which is rejected by voters everywhere it's put on the ballot?

Will America unite behind him for supporting a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, and on a ban on manufacture of handguns while he was in Illinois?


Now, is it just me, or does he sound on the issues like plenty of other liberals in Washington? Do they unite everyone?

No. He has more charisma than them. But what else?

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Not voting for/supporting Obama isn't racist. Insinuating his candidacy is nothing more than sympathy-based is. If that's what you think, I don't see how you could see any black candidate as viable. They're all just the result of white guilt, right?


It is sympathy based. And it is racial. Oprah is partial proof.

[HolmeZz]

It is sympathy based. And it is racial. Oprah is partial proof.

I guess Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Huckabee was purely racial too.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

It's just political speak. Is he going to unite America behind affirmative action? Is he going to unite America on raising taxes? Is he going to united America behind nationalizing health care?

Will he unite people by opposing vouchers for education? Is America going to rally behind his guest worker program and his path to citizenship for illegal aliens? Or unite people on gay marriage, which is rejected by voters everywhere it's put on the ballot?

Will America unite behind him for supporting a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, and on a ban on manufacture of handguns while he was in Illinois?


Now, is it just me, or does he sound on the issues like plenty of other liberals in Washington? Do they unite everyone?

No. He has more charisma than them. But what else?

exactly. A lot people are interested in ideas. Half aren't and instead influenced by looks.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

I guess Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Huckabee was purely racial too.

maybe

[Cochise]

I guess Chuck Norris' endorsement of Mike Huckabee was purely racial too.

I'm not arguing for that guy, but you are the king of the non sequitur today...

[HolmeZz]

I'm not arguing for that guy, but you are the king of the non sequitur today...

I'm not surprised you'd see it that way, seeing as I kicked your ass in the other topic.

[/non sequitur]

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

I'm not arguing for that guy, but you are the king of the non sequitur today...

Another attack.

You're doing real well winning over people.

[Cochise]

I'm not surprised you'd see it that way, seeing as I kicked your ass in the other topic.

[/non sequitur]

ROFL ROFL

[Cochise]

Another attack.

You're doing real well winning over people.

I'm not trying to persuade people to anything. I'm just observing and commenting.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

ROFL ROFL
ROFL ROFL ROFL

3 beats 2

[dirk digler]

It's just political speak. Is he going to unite America behind affirmative action? Is he going to unite America on raising taxes? Is he going to united America behind nationalizing health care?

Will he unite people by opposing vouchers for education? Is America going to rally behind his guest worker program and his path to citizenship for illegal aliens? Or unite people on gay marriage, which is rejected by voters everywhere it's put on the ballot?

Will America unite behind him for supporting a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, and on a ban on manufacture of handguns while he was in Illinois?


Now, is it just me, or does he sound on the issues like plenty of other liberals in Washington? Do they unite everyone?

No. He has more charisma than them. But what else?

Of course some of it is political speak and I am not denying that is not.

Maybe he has the "IT" factor? :hmmm:

[Cochise]

Of course some of it is political speak and I am not denying that is not.

Maybe he has the "IT" factor? :hmmm:

I'm just saying, I feel like there are many, many people who don't know much or anything about his policy views. He's not getting attacked right now from either side (maybe it's coming). He's getting no critical attention thus far. Heck we just had an article here the other day discussing whether or not he can play basketball. :rolleyes:

But by the time we get to the general, it won't be that way. People will have to decide if this nice guy with many of the same old liberal ideas that Kerry came with is what they want. I think that could be a theme of the GOP campaign - is he any different on policy than Kerry or Clinton really?

He's not going to magically unite people. Everyone who has a problem with liberalism will probably still have a problem with it. Partisanship is here, it's not going anywhere, and it's a good thing.

[HonestChieffan]

anothe soft soap piece on this guy....he wont unite me i can tell you that. never and no damn way

[HolmeZz]

anothe soft soap piece on this guy....he wont unite me i can tell you that. never and no damn way

now where'd i put my good lynchin rope

[BucEyedPea]

No person in charge of govt is Moses or God. None can unite all. Sorry but it's naive. Can he reduce some hate? Probably.

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

LOL.

Are you trying to prove my point?

[dirk digler]

I'm just saying, I feel like there are many, many people who don't know much or anything about his policy views. He's not getting attacked right now from either side (maybe it's coming).

But by the time we get to the general, it won't be that way. People will have to decide if this nice guy with many of the same old liberal ideas that Kerry came with is what they want. I think that could be a theme of the GOP campaign - is he any different on policy than Kerry or Clinton really?

He's not going to magically unite people. Everyone who has a problem with liberalism will probably still have a problem with it. Partisanship is here, it's not going anywhere, and it's a good thing.

I personally believe Obama can and will unite people on several issues including fixing SS and health care. The majority of people in the US want health care fixed or make it more affordable. I think he can use his communication skills and his charisma to get things done.

No doubt he has some liberal positions but that is not why Kerry didn't get elected. He lost because he had zero personality. And let's be honest alot of people vote on who they like personally not issues. We can argue all day long about whether that is right or not but Bush didn't get elected because his policies were wonderful it was because he was a good ole boy unlike stiff, snotty Gore.

I disagree with you about partisanship. That is the reason we are in this mess to begin with because our representatives can't get along enough to get the people's work done. I am tired of them doing nothing and that has to change.

[Cochise]

He has to be an Obama supporter masquerading as a detractor, to try to slur all detractors by association. By putting a plant in our midst to say ridiculous things and display racial resentment where none exists, whomever this is hopes to germinate the very racial sympathy being spoken about.

[noa]

No person in charge of govt is Moses or God. None can unite all. Sorry but it's naive. Can he reduce some hate? Probably.

I don't think the point is to unite us all. We are not that naive. The point is to focus on the common beliefs so we can actually make progress on them rather than buying into the fiction that southerners believe this and northerners believe that and getting logjammed into not making any progress because of stupid party distinctions. Yes, southerners are more conservative, but does that mean they don't ever want to agree with northerners on a single thing?

Now, Obama is not claiming that he will only advance policies that both reps and dems will buy into, which is the point Cochise has been making. He clearly has a liberal Dem agenda. Still, it would be nice to be able to make some progress on the issues we agree about rather than constantly hearing partisan rhetoric like "Dems want to take your guns and want to make it so you can marry your dog," on one side or "Reps want to take all your civil liberties and bring about the rapture" on the other. This type of rhetoric is what I've grown used to thanks to our current political atmosphere, so it would be refreshing to have a president who doesn't encourage that type of stuff.

Of course, his lack of partisan hatred alone is not enough to support the man, so I would not expect any Republican to jump on board because he can make them feel good.

[Cochise]

No doubt he has some liberal positions but that is not why Kerry didn't get elected. He lost because he had zero personality. And let's be honest alot of people vote on who they like personally not issues.

This is a core idea of liberalism in American politics - that even though these two candidates probably don't differ much on the issues, the only reason liberalism ever loses is because of packaging. Kerry was not liberalism in the right wrapper, so he lost. Obama is in a nicer package so he can win. The idea is that liberalism always wins unless people are not intelligent enough to chose it or someone dupes them. No one disagrees unless they are stupid or dishonest. So you have to treat people like infants, give them something pleasing to look at and warm and fuzzy so they can hug it and smile and be happy.

[StcChief]

I think Obama's point is that red states and blue states aren't divided by philosophy, this is just an illusion. Of course, America has serious philosophical divides, but it is not as simple as saying "Red Staters believe this and Blue Staters believe that."

it's still NOT STATES it's Counties/Precincts...

[BucEyedPea]

I don't think the point is to unite us all. We are not that naive. The point is to focus on the common beliefs so we can actually make progress on them rather than buying into the false fiction that southerners believe this and northerners believe that and getting logjammed into not making any progress because of stupid party distinctions. Yes, southerners are more conservative, but does that mean they don't ever want to agree with northerners on a single thing?

Now, Obama is not claiming that he will only advance policies that both reps and dems will buy into, which is the point Cochise has been making. He clearly has a liberal Dem agenda. Still, it would be nice to be able to make some progress on the issues we agree about rather than constantly hearing partisan rhetoric like "Dems want to take your guns and want to make it so you can marry your dog," on one side or "Reps want to take all your civil liberties and bring about the rapture" on the other. This type of rhetoric is what I've grown used to thanks to our current political atmosphere, so it would be refreshing to have a president who doesn't encourage that type of stuff.

Of course, his lack of partisan hatred alone is not enough to support the man, so I would not expect any Republican to jump on board because he can make them feel good.

Personally, I like him. I just think his platform is extreme and he's an interventionist to boot. I know Paul's views are considered the same...but Paul isn't even running on all of his. He only plans on bringing the budget back to 2000. I can live with that.

[ClevelandBronco]

...Obama has power to unite us all...

Not us all.

[BucEyedPea]

I personally believe Obama can and will unite people on several issues including fixing SS and health care. The majority of people in the US want health care fixed or make it more affordable. I think he can use his communication skills and his charisma to get things done.
I find it unbelievable in this day and age, after all the govt failures in trying to fix things to make them better, ( especially including HC such as mandates and creating HMOs) which has made them worse that people think govt can fix all these things. The govt created the health care crisis. People in this camp, who want govt solutions to this, as well as the rest of life ( day care provisions, free college educations) won't be any happier when they get the fix being offered. Granted govt is needed to undo what they did, but that NEVER happens. It won't happen with Obama. It's more of the same on steroids at least domestically. It's in the same camp as each time there is a tax increase spending then increases. Blind faith.

No doubt he has some liberal positions but that is not why Kerry didn't get elected.
Some? Oh man he has a LOT more than just "some." I'm surprised at how many more he has as I've learned today.

I disagree with you about partisanship. That is the reason we are in this mess to begin with because our representatives can't get along enough to get the people's work done. I am tired of them doing nothing and that has to change.
I disagree. We're in this mess because of lack of partisanship which at least existed in the 1990's. There was NO partisanship on going into Iraq. In fact the House and Senate completely abdicated its Consitutional duty to investigate the intel and debate the issue—not rubber stamp it. That's the people's work right there. How many American's are dead now?

The Democrats are just as responsible and a part of the problem because they were afraid to make a stand—many of them anyways. Most liberals hated Bush before Iraq anyway. If he didn't do Iraq they'd be squabbling too.
Yet Bush has delivered some Democrat things like prescription drugs.

Bottom line: all revenue bills originate in the People's House—not the White House.

[BucEyedPea]

BTW, per this there has been a radical shift in the Independent vote in NH. 49% plan on voting in the GOP primary up form 44% ( Jan 5-6) and up from 37% ( Dec 20-30). Not only that but Independents in NH are STRONGLY against the War in Iraq. Wonder how that will affect "Hundred's year War" McCain's lead there.

Independents can be conservative or liberal...and NH is still a pretty conservative state. Wonder how it will all come out?



http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018392.html

[noa]

BTW, per this there has been a radical shift in the Independent vote in NH. 49% plan on voting in the GOP primary up form 44% ( Jan 5-6) and up from 37% ( Dec 20-30). Not only that but Independents in NH are STRONGLY against the War in Iraq. Wonder how that will affect "Hundred's year War" McCain's lead there.

Independents can be conservative or liberal...and NH is still a pretty conservative state. Wonder how it will all come out?



http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018392.html

Even though independents are against the war, I was reading how McCain is doing a good job of winning them over by talking with them at length about his support. NYT had a story about an event where McCain talked to one independent voter for 10 minutes of back and forth on Iraq in front of the whole audience, and by the end, the guy was in his camp.

[BucEyedPea]

Did he sing: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?"

I think some have changed to Paul too, but it's hard to say how many.

[BigRedChief]

anothe soft soap piece on this guy....he wont unite me i can tell you that. never and no damn wayLook at this crowds. He has to give a speech twice. Once to the people inside and then to the people waiting outside in the cold that couldn't get into the venue. Look at their faces. You can see it. He's the man. He will be the next president of the United States.

[patteeu]

GWB had the power to unite us all, if only his detractors would have been willing to be united. Obama has the same power.

[BucEyedPea]

We are the world! We are the people!

There comes a time
When we head a certain call
When the world must come together as ONE
There are people dying
And it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all

We can't go on
Pretneding day by day
That someone, somewhere will soon make a change
We are all a part of
God's great big family
And the truth, you know love is all we need

[Chorus]
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

[BigRedChief]

GWB had the power to unite us all, if only his detractors would have been willing to be united. Obama has the same power.
I don't think so. He was a divider. A polarizer.

Take Iraq. He wanted to make a move now and not wait till the U.S. had a bigger and better coalition. He had to do it his way because he was certain that it was a just cause and the rest of the country's that didn't see that be damned and they would come around when we showed them.

[patteeu]

I don't think so. He was a divider. A polarizer.

Take Iraq. He wanted to make a move now and not wait till the U.S. had a bigger and better coalition. He had to do it his way because he was certain that it was a just cause and the rest of the country's that didn't see that be damned and they would come around when we showed them.

The opposition had already decided to eschew unity before Bush invaded Iraq by playing the blame game over 9/11, among other things. When it comes to our foreign policy, the President has a duty to lead even if his opposition isn't interested in being unified.

[Dr.Fine]

GWB had the power to unite us all, if only his detractors would have been willing to be united. Obama has the same power.

surely you jest-polarization was a high-art-form for Rove-get real dude.

[patteeu]

surely you jest-polarization was a high-art-form for Rove-get real dude.

No, I'm serious. Bush entered office with just as much intention and just as much potential to be a uniter as Obama. Just between you and me, I think it was one of Bush's flaws in the early days. Bush worked well with democrats in Texas, but Washington is a different animal. It's takes two to unite. The democrats never forgave him for preventing Al Gore from stealing the election.

[HolmeZz]

surely you jest-polarization was a high-art-form for Rove-get real dude.

UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER

[alnorth]

I disagree with you about partisanship. That is the reason we are in this mess to begin with because our representatives can't get along enough to get the people's work done. I am tired of them doing nothing and that has to change.

I would be the first to welcome a lack of partisanship and everyone getting along, no bickering, just getting down to implementing solutions to our problems...

... as soon as the liberal ideology surrenders and is defeated forever.

To Obama, Clinton, and the media, bipartisanship and everyone working together to fix the country's problems are just code-words meaning conservatives surrendering to defeat. As soon as the conservatives stand up for their beliefs and argue why the liberal solutions are the wrong direction to go, the left accuses them of partisanship. To them, their way is just common sense and the blindingly-obvious solution. Arguing for liberal left-wing solutions is not being partisan, its "trying to work together" to use government to fix all of our problems, while conservatives are just being uncooperative and partisan when they trot out their silly theories.

[patteeu]

I would be the first to welcome a lack of partisanship and everyone getting along, no bickering, just getting down to implementing solutions to our problems...

... as soon as the liberal ideology surrenders and is defeated forever.

To Obama, Clinton, and the media, bipartisanship and everyone working together to fix the country's problems are just code-words meaning conservatives surrendering to defeat. As soon as the conservatives stand up for their beliefs and argue why the liberal solutions are the wrong direction to go, the left accuses them of partisanship. To them, their way is just common sense and the blindingly-obvious solution. Arguing for liberal left-wing solutions is not being partisan, its "trying to work together" to use government to fix all of our problems, while conservatives are just being uncooperative and partisan when they trot out their silly theories.

Hear, hear!

It's obvious to lefties that Bush is a divider not a uniter because, after winning the election, he had the temerity to try to implement policies favored by his constituents in a few cases and in others cases, seriously pissed his own constituents off by attempting to collaborate with the opposition on legislation that dealt with issues like education and prescription drugs. All they can see in the results of these collaborations is that they didn't get the whole loaf.

I have no doubt that Obama will be seeking to implement policies of the left. I for one, don't expect to be any more united by that than the left was by Bush.

[BigRedChief]

Hear, hear!

It's obvious to lefties that Bush is a divider not a uniter because, after winning the election, he had the temerity to try to implement policies favored by his constituents in a few cases and in others cases, seriously pissed his own constituents off by attempting to collaborate with the opposition on legislation that dealt with issues like education and prescription drugs. All they can see in the results of these collaborations is that they didn't get the whole loaf.

I have no doubt that Obama will be seeking to implement policies of the left. I for one, don't expect to be any more united by that than the left was by Bush.
Why do you still hold onto this falsehood that Bush was a good president? He outspent and wasted more money than a Dem could ever dream of spending and wasting. History will record that he was one of the worst presidents of all time.:harumph:

[Baby Lee]

If you don't vote for Obama then you're racist. LOL.
Have you actually heard this? Even once?
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan, and edited by HolmeZz
anothe soft soap piece on this guy....he wont unite me i can tell you that. never and no damn way

now where'd i put my good lynchin rope
Just sayin'

[Cochise]

'Uniting' is campaign speak. I don't forsee a day in politics where everyone in Washington is going to hold hands and dance in a big circle and hug each other all day. It's not even realistic to claim you can do it.

Partisanship is good, anyway. It keeps both sides in check. I doubt I even want the government united.

[patteeu]

Why do you still hold onto this falsehood that Bush was a good president? He outspent and wasted more money than a Dem could ever dream of spending and wasting. History will record that he was one of the worst presidents of all time.:harumph:

Bush wasn't a good president because he was a big spender in his attempt to be a uniter and a so-called compassionate conservative. He was a good president because he set the country on a bold (and I think proper) foreign policy course after 9/11 and because he refused to let the country accept defeat in Iraq. And because it appears that he made two good appointments to the Supreme Court.

I don't think you can know how history will judge the man at this point.

[alnorth]

Why do you still hold onto this falsehood that Bush was a good president? He outspent and wasted more money than a Dem could ever dream of spending and wasting. History will record that he was one of the worst presidents of all time.:harumph:

Speaking only for myself, Bush was one of the biggest disappointments I've ever had regarding politics. He was certainly no conservative.

[Chief Henry]

The opposition had already decided to eschew unity before Bush invaded Iraq by playing the blame game over 9/11, among other things. When it comes to our foreign policy, the President has a duty to lead even if his opposition isn't interested in being unified.


Truer words have never been spoken :toast:

[Chief Henry]

Bush wasn't a good president because he was a big spender in his attempt to be a uniter and a so-called compassionate conservative. He was a good president because he set the country on a bold (and I think proper) foreign policy course after 9/11 and because he refused to let the country accept defeat in Iraq. And because it appears that he made two good appointments to the Supreme Court.

I don't think you can know how history will judge the man at this point.


I think you could also put into his negative's column that he was pushing for the John McCain amnesty bill for the illigal immigrants. Like you mention'd earlier. President Bush was a good president for being able to lower tax's twice and his apoointments to the supreme court along with a foreign policy that took the fight to terrorism. President Bush
early in his administration tried to reach across the isle with the
"no child left behind" education bill that Democrat Teddy the bloated
one Kennedy wrote. President Bush tried to do something with Social Security with the Dems and that didn't go anywhere. President Bush did try to work with the Dems but there hatred of him from the
Gore vs Bush Presidential campaign kept Dems foaming at the mouth.

[BigRedChief]

Bush wasn't a good president because he was a big spender in his attempt to be a uniter and a so-called compassionate conservative. He was a good president because he set the country on a bold (and I think proper) foreign policy course after 9/11 and because he refused to let the country accept defeat in Iraq. And because it appears that he made two good appointments to the Supreme Court.

I don't think you can know how history will judge the man at this point.
I'm just stating my opinion. History, 30 - 50 years from now will make a judgement.

How will history judge Bush better? He had control of the senate, the house of representives, the presidency and two new appointments to the Supreme Court. But it was the dems fault he failed?:hmmm:

I agree his actions after 9/11 were the high point of his presidency. But he beacame a divider at that point. Your either with us or against us didn't sit well with some countries. Sounded like my way or the highway.

And he will forever and ever be remembered as the President (and commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S.A.) when told that America was under attack continued to read a book about a goat for 7 mintues.

[StcChief]

The opposition had already decided to eschew unity before Bush invaded Iraq by playing the blame game over 9/11, among other things. When it comes to our foreign policy, the President has a duty to lead even if his opposition isn't interested in being unified.

the Dems and detractors bite their lip and acted like they wanted unity over terror when it really de-railed what they wanted....

Blame game and wanting defeat in Iraq to further blame Bush...

they have nothing but their own interests in mind and not the country or the people that elected them.... look at all they haven't done in 8 years.

[patteeu]

I'm just stating my opinion. History, 30 - 50 years from now will make a judgement.

How will history judge Bush better? He had control of the senate, the house of representives, the presidency and two new appointments to the Supreme Court. But it was the dems fault he failed?:hmmm:

I agree his actions after 9/11 were the high point of his presidency. But he beacame a divider at that point. Your either with us or against us didn't sit well with some countries. Sounded like my way or the highway.

30-50 years from now, the only thing Bush will be judged on will be the results of the course he set us on in international affairs. None of Bush's domestic programs will matter at all, including his deficits and his position on immigration. His "with us or against us" comment didn't make him a divider because it was directed externally. In fact, the country hasn't been as unified as it was in the wake of those comments in a really long time. That was a high point of unity. Notice the use of the word "us" as in Americans, not Republicans.

And he will forever and ever be remembered as the President (and commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S.A.) when told that America was under attack continued to read a book about a goat for 7 mintues.

No he won't. That's preposterous.

[patteeu]

the Dems and detractors bite their lip and acted like they wanted unity over terror when it really de-railed what they wanted....

Blame game and wanting defeat in Iraq to further blame Bush...

they have nothing but their own interests in mind and not the country or the people that elected them.... look at all they haven't done in 8 years.

I think that at the very beginning, there was some real unity, but it didn't take long at all for what you describe to begin.