The American people didn't want "bipartisanship" when they elected Obama

[brentspeak]

They wanted strong Democratic leadership. And though there are some small (very small) glimpses that Obama is finally beginning to get it, up until now he has failed to understand that there was a good reason why the American people gave control of Congress to the Democrats in 2008.

And now, because Obama was unwelcomingly accommodating to both the GOP and to corporate interests and chose not to fight for the things he campaigned on (and which the American people were counting on -- like the public option, no insurance mandate, revamping the US' trade deals, getting us out of Afghanistan), the following is what is happening:

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/us/politics/03students.html">Fewer Young Voters See Themselves as Democrats

2) http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/02/1804500/gop-will-take-over-house-political.html">GOP will take over House, political guru Sabato predicts

And no one can claim the "Well, the economy is bad" excuse: the nation was still in the midst of the Great Depression in 1936 when the Democrats expanded their Congressional majorities in that year's elections: the American people saw and liked a President who wasn't interested in either engaging in useless bipartisanship with the GOP or in seeking unholy deals with corporate America and Wall Street.

[babylonsister]

1. Unrec and Pssst! brentspeak!! Wrong again!!!

The New York Times' Latest Bogus Trend Story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x429977

Nice try though. :boring:

And as for anyone predicting anything, it's a crapshoot at this point, and I suspect you know that, too.

Why do you consistently post negative shit anyway? WHY? :spank:

[saltpoint]

2. Unrec'd. Many people were introduced to him when

John Kerry asked him to deliver the keynote address in Boston in 2004. Those who knew already who he was from that point forward remembered him in a far broader context.

In that address anyone listening carefully would have been unable to miss Obama's point that there is no "red America or blue America," but rather "the United States of America."

Give us a sample of polling, brentspeak, in which people express contempt for a bipartisan problem-solving model of public service.

[Hekate]

38. I remember that 2004 Convention speech--Wow! I got the text through DU then, in case ...

... the OP wants to have a look at it. Talk about bipartisan -- young Senator Obama practically defined the term. He was going to heal the partisan divide.

It is amazing how many people were just not listening during the 2008 campaign. Perhaps it was the influence of Bush-toxicity on their ears.

Just found it, but rather than posting the entire speech, here's a link that also links to the video:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html


Hekate

[saltpoint]

51. Hekate, hi, and thank you for posting that link.

It's an awfully useful starting point for Obama's career trajectory.

Your points are right-on, as per usual.

:hi:

[suzie]

49. I have a lot of Republican friends and relatives who voted for Obama.

Somehow, I think that means they were "bipartisan".

[saltpoint]

52. !

Hi, suzie.

Yep. There's some serious bipartisanship a'goin' on!

[msongs]

3. when d emocrats act like republicans....they lose... whatta shock eh? nt

[nevergiveup]

7. Since when has bipartisanship been a trademark for Republicans

Geesh!

[Bluerthanblue]

60. never-

Lincoln worked for unity- but the part of Lincoln wasn't today's republican party.

:shrug:

[johnaries]

4. Yes, they did. They were hoping Obama could unite both parties.

Most of them didn't realize how crazy the Republicans really are.

[brentspeak]

15. NYT poll, Feb 2009: Majority doesn't want Obama to be bipartisan

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/poll-majority-doesnt-want-obama-to-be-bipartisan/

[bvar22]

53. You are correct, brentspeak...K&R

The American People voted for "CHANGE",
not warmed over Republican Lite bullshit.

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."---Harry Truman

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[napi21]

5. I think you're wrong. The Senate CAN'T WORK without at least SOME bipartisanship.

I knw he would hav dfficul getig a majority of Pubs onboard, but I didn't expect & I don''t think Obamadieither, that the ubs would 100% uite & say NO to EVERYHING! I'm really surprised that the Pubs don't seem to have paid aprice for such destructine acts. I guess we'll see for sure in Nov.

[jenmito]

6. Yes, they DID want bipartisanship when they (we) elected Obama...

And only 5% fewer young voters identify as Dems. since July '08 if you read the whole article. And if Obama is so "corporate friendly," why do many of the "corporatists" HATE him?

[brentspeak]

8. Wall Street liked Obama enough to give him more money than they did McCain

Or did you forget?

[saltpoint]

9. Well, brentspeak, good heavens, why didn't you

just speak up about your objections to capitalism? I'm sure Wall Street would have voluntarily dissembled, withdraw all political contributions, and gone en masse to live as Buddhist monks in Bhutan.

Don't be so shy next time.

[brentspeak]

11. ???

[saltpoint]

12. Seriously. Every greedhog on Wall Street would have

folded up shop, withdrawn all influence and contributions, apologized to the entire globe generally and you especially, and the U.S. election would have been blissful and pure.

All you had to do was express yourself, but you held back. And at that point, the country went about its business as usual.

[babylonsister]

10. Is that why they're so enthralled with him now, or don't you know?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=426911


If Obama is such a corporatist, why is this happening?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/116669...

Business groups plan Labor Day blitz against Senate Dems, candidates
By Michael O'Brien - 09/01/10 06:00 AM ET


Business groups plan to go on offense against vulnerable Senate Democrats in their backyards to mark Monday's Labor Day holiday.

Local groups will target Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Rep. Paul Hodes, the Democrat running for Senate in New Hampshire, and Kentucky Senate Democratic candidate Jack Conway in their states over their records on labor-related issues.

Local chapters of groups like the National Federation of Independent Business, state Associated Builders and Contractors and other commerce and retail groups will hold events on Monday targeting the incumbents and candidates, particularly on their stance on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, or "card-check").

The events are part of coordinated efforts by the business groups to put pressure on Democrats on Labor Day, a national holiday traditionally celebrated by the organized-labor community.

The events also serve as a rejoinder to the events unions have planned throughout the long weekend to bolster some of their candidates. Top AFL-CIO officials, for instance, will be in California and Florida, among other places, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka will appear at a labor rally on Monday alongside President Obama and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.

Both business and labor groups are planning to be heavily involved — and to spend heavily — in this fall's crucial midterm elections, especially after a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year removed some restrictions on their spending on behalf of candidates.

[jenmito]

20. That was then. This is now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/business/31sorkin.html

[jenmito]

63. Kick for brentspeak-you must've missed it.

:eyes:

[bornskeptic]

47. McCain took public financing in the general election. Obama did not.

Or did you forget?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. On what do you base that?

Thanks.

[saltpoint]

18. Obama's winning percentage represented a discerniable

uptick in virtually all demographic voting groups.

- - -
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/why_obama_won.php

Excerpt:

... let's take a look at the exit polls. We take the exit polls with a grain of salt but it is the best we have for understanding how segments of the electorate voted (and why). While it is true that McCain underperformed Bush among a number of different subgroups it is more instructive to focus on the groups where Obama over-performed John Kerry's numbers. The following stand out:
• Men (+5)
• Women (+5, and Obama beat McCain by 13 points)
• Blacks (+5)
• Latinos (+14, and Obama beat McCain by 36 points)
• Asians (+6)
• Whites (+2)
• All income groups (+5 to +8)
• Independents (+3)
• Conservatives (+5, this represented a 20% defection of conservatives to the Democratic candidate compared to 15% in 2004)
• All religious groups (+4 to +8)
• Married and unmarried voters (+5)

The fact is that the Obama victory was pervasive and cut across almost all demographic subgroups. However, there are some prominent groups that warrant examination. A glance at the below chart comparing the 2004 results by race with those same results from 2008 shows how the Obama victory was a balance of winning more white voters than John Kerry and doing substantially better with African Americans and Hispanics.

- - -

Note that while black voters are traditionally a strong Democratic voting block, in most regions of the country, Hispanic voters have trended red.

Until 2008 when they voted in significant numbers instead for the Democratic ticket.

Approximately two in ten self-defined conservatives voted for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. So what's your point?

How does this provide evidence of the thesis?

[saltpoint]

24. Manny, put the shovel down and help us clear the walk,

would you?

Read the percentages again if you missed them the first time.

They support widespread endorsement of the Democratic ticket, not coincidentally headed by a man of African-American descent, and the appeal sliced convincingly across all sub-demographic voting groups.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Yes, but where's the evidence that they wanted bipartisanship?

It's clear that they wanted change, and they wanted stuff to get fixed. I don't see any evidence in your data that indicates they wanted "bipartisanship".

[saltpoint]

27. I did not reference 'change' and the survey I cited

only faintly references it at all.

If you can't pull an impression of broad demographic appeal from those percentages, IMO you aren't trying very hard.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Yes, he had broad demographic appeal

But that's different than wanting bipartisanship.

If Obama could have gotten the job done via any means, the Democrats would have had broad support. Now we are toast.

People want economic security, not appeasement.

[saltpoint]

30. Broad demographic appeal frames bipartisan endorsement

by a populace, Manny.

Reagan, as detestable as you and I may think he is (and we're right!), won a landslide percentage of widely disparate voting groups. That is a bipartisan construct any way you slice it.

Consider how close the Carter-Ford election was just four years prior and you an see the seismic shift toward Reagan's "morning in America" sunniness versus Carter's brooding "malaise." There was ample coverage of "Reagan Democrats" in that election.

Bipartisan support is manifest by coalitions of disparate points of view from multiple voting groups toward a winning campaign.

This last cycle, Barack Obama was the beneficiary of that support.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. A bipartisan endorsement is not the same as wanting bipartisanship

Suppose there had been a poll at election time: "Do you prefer bipartisanship or fixing our mess?", do you think "bipartisanship" would have won?

[saltpoint]

32. Christ, Manny.

Don't wade too deep in Stubborn Creek.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Are you less stubborn then I?

I believe that we're equally stubborn - but only one of us is right.

[dionysus]

42. ...and that would be saltpoint manny.

[JNelson6563]

64. I too have to give the nod to saltpoint.

Him and his reasonable, rational approach. Damn you Saltpoint, damn you! :hi:

Julie

[jenmito]

19. "Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama":

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/business/31sorkin.html You're welcome.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. What does that article have to do with the thesis

That people wanted bipartisanship?

[jenmito]

26. Are you purposely ignoring the proof about Wall St. abandoning Obama?

The bipartisanship thing is OBVIOUS. He based his whole campaign on "There are no red states or blue states..." and pointing out Repubs. for Obama at nearly every event he was at.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Perhaps voters didn't give a &*$% about partisanship

and just wanted their problems to be fixed.

As to the bankers - they just want more cash.

[depakid]

39. Frankly, I think it's fucking hilarious

The administration and a bunch of the Senate Dems (and even Barney Frank) not only associated themselves with the banksters and the fraudsters, but worked to weaken (if not eviscerate) reform after reform that came up- while refusing to support responsible progressive proposals from experts like Dean Baker that would have benefitted Main Street and improved several sectors of the economy

The reward for their pandering and protection?

Abandonment in droves- by both Wall Street AND by Main Street.

:rofl:

I mean, how sorry is that!

[bvar22]

54. The Whirlwind Approaches.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[jenmito]

57. Hello?!?! I was just responding to the OP. And YOU chimed in asking for evidence

to back up my response. I figured you were talking about the part about Wall St. turning on Obama, but you claimed you were talking about voting for bipartisanship. It looks like when you're proven wrong, you just keep changing the subject. :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

61. So if we have a misunderstanding, then it's a conspiracy

Lovely.

[jenmito]

62. Wow. Keep digging. You're wrong and you've been proven wrong by everyone here

who you tried to argue against. Sorry-you lose.

[impik]

44. Thay always ignore the facts

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Only 17 Repubs left in Senate after 1936 elections

Four years after FDR took office.

That's what happens when Democrats don't cower like terrified puppies.

[HughMoran]

75. Reminiscing and calling names certainly doesn't help

What are you doing to help make the Democratic Party better?

[bbgrunt]

16. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition (no one does) but

I certainly never expected him to fill his cabinet with Chicago school economists and appoint people like Simpson to a deficit commission, or to make deals with pharma behind closed doors.

[Fire1]

56. I, either. Gotta give you that. n/t

[katandmoon]

17. K&R. Obama has blown it. Big time. If things looked good, he'd get the credit. Well, they don't.

[saltpoint]

21. His approval ratings remain quite competitive, actually,

which I'm sure will disappoint you.

The OP's point appeared to center on whether bipartisan concerns informed voters' choice of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

Not surprisingly, you seized the opportunity to slam Obama, your usual M.O.

Ring up several dozen Dem county chairpersons in your area, katandmoon, and let us know how many of them believe "Obama has blown it. Big time."

What tripe.

[katandmoon]

67. Since you believe in poll numbers, how do you feel about poll numbers giving congress to the repugs

This fall?

[saltpoint]

71. In the Congressional cycle following a presidential

election it's not uncommon for the President's party to lose seats. It's happened many times before.

I would prefer to see Democratic gains, if you must know.

The question is, How do YOU feel about it? Ordered the champagne yet?

You appear predictably enthusiasitc over possible Democratic losses in the mid-terms.

[katandmoon]

73. I'm not enthusiastic at all -- which just goes to show how much your Obamalove blinds you to reality

[saltpoint]

76. I'm nothing if not blind katandmoon.

Why they let me drive on the nations roads remains a great mystery.

[Baltoman991]

77. Obamas blwon

nothing. Any one who professes to be progressive/liberal/democrat and sits day in and day out and continues to blame everything on Obama is not a progressive/liberal/democrat. What they are are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who want Obama to govern the same way Bush did and not a damn one of us liked the way Bush worked.

Yeah yeah, I know you and the rest of the Obama haters will come back saying "he's just like Bush" to which I say bullshit, he's nothing like Bush.

You and the rest of the Obama haters have blown it with your constant hatred of the man. The media eats this kind of shit up yet you so called progressive/liberal/democrats continue to feed the media their material.

I hope to fuck Democrats lose in 2010 and again in 2012 so you fucking folks can piss and whine when Republicans bring the country down worse then they did last time. And I will sit and laugh at each and every one of you who can't get over the fucking primaries.

[Steely_Dan]

33. If The Dems Lose at the Midterms...

...at last some of it is the responsibility will be the president's.

[denimgirly]

35. Bipartisanship? It's more like Right Christmas every day at the White House.

Cant thing of the last progressive decision that was made that didnt involve massive compromises for the right.

[golfguru]

36. what? The country has millions of democrats and millions of repubs

How in the hell can it function without bi-partitionship?

[StreetKnowledge]

40. Tell that to the GOP.

They have the memo that "we must stop THE OBAMA at any cost!!!!" and that strategy is working. The Democrats need to make it clear that if the GOP won't play ball, they'll push them around. They haven't done that, its caused everyone headaches and the GOP, despite being represented by far too many reactionary, dangerous idiots, has frighteningly good chances at taking BOTH houses of Congress.

If the GOP wants war, bring a war. We'd win. They know it. Somebody at the White House, probably that good-for-nothing ignorant lying backstabber piece of dogshit Rahm Emanuel, is trying to keep Obama in the center, which is EXACTLY what the GOP wants him to do. Makes him an easy target.

[depakid]

37. Republicans had a mandate to go sit in Siberia for awhile

Unfortunately, Obama had other ideas and worked tirelessly to engage them and rehabilitate their brand.

The whole spectacle was pathetic (as are the posters here supporting it).

Want to know why the Dems are on the verge of getting rolled?

This is one of MAJOR reasons why.

[boppers]

41. Absolute socialism was a dismal failure, as was absolute communism, capitalism, and other absolutes.

Obama wasn't elected because the people wanted guillotines.

People wanted change. Some Goldilocks pundits will complain it's happening too fast, others will complain it's happening too slow.

Some will think it's just right.

[Exilednight]

46. Study a little bit of history. Absolute communism did work until the white man came along .........

and forced his way of life upon the native population. Aztecs, Incas, and every Native-American nation were fully communist. They were light years ahead in women's rights. They, also, understood environmental conservation, and a number of other issues that we as an "advanced" and "enlightened" society struggle to deal with today.

[Fire1]

72. Nail meet head! Well done!! n/t

[provis99]

80. Jesus advocated communism, too.

Seemed to work out well for his little group of followers.

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts." (Acts 2:44-46 NIV)

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32-35 NIV)

[impik]

43. Nonsense. Obama won because of independents who wanted exactly that

and because it's what he promised to do.

And there isn't even one word of truth in this:


"And no one can claim the "Well, the economy is bad" excuse: the nation was still in the midst of the Great Depression in 1936 when the Democrats expanded their Congressional majorities in that year's elections: the American people saw and liked a President who wasn't interested in either engaging in useless bipartisanship with the GOP or in seeking unholy deals with corporate America and Wall Street".

And the rest of your post is dishonest at best.

[depakid]

48. All indications are that the county disagrees

Whether and how you and others will learn to accept that remains to be seen.

[smalll]

45. No, they didn't want "strong Democratic leadership" -- they wanted to elect

a youthful, charming man, with a certain cool (while at the same time, a certain passion on the stump that we rarely see these days) -- they wanted to vote for the man who, in a vague sense, was the "latest thing" in "winds of change."

He spoke in finely-tuned, virtuoso-level glittering generalities, and everyone read in to those generalities their own ideas and principles. He was, as he once said, the "blank slate."

They weren't voting for "strong Democratic leadership" -- they were voting for the latest, up-to-the-moment will-o'-the-wisp. They were voting for the zeitgeist of the moment, for the hit of the year. Obama was 2008's Tik Tok, its Snooki. Such waves, such fads, are at the same time far less concrete than a desire for certain legislation from Capitol Hill and far more amorphous and multi-rooted than one-dimensional political partisanship: more trivial? Certainly. But at the same time, harder to read. Harder to make absolute, brief pronouncements about concerning the Will of the People.

[Umbral]

50. And apparently, voters got exactly what they wanted and Dems look to sweep this fall's elections!

Bipartisanship my ass.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Funny how Republicans can rule without any appeal to bipartisanship at all.

The run against our party and rule against our party. In power they trample all over the minority party in congress, out of power they obstruct at every opportunity. When they hold the presidency, the administration continues the all out assault. And they get elected back into power, since the 80's, on a regular basis, both in congress and the presidency. When they hold enough power, they push their rightwing agenda through and move the country right.

We, on the other hand, do none of the above.

[flpoljunkie]

74. That's because R's march in lockstep. We're 'not members of an organized party.'

We're Democrats.

[Sheepshank]

58. OP is not on target...for me and mine anyway

we were actually hoping Obama's skills would pull the 2 halves together and get a lot of shit done in short order....given the emergency fo the conomy etc. Turns out, Reps can't try do that 'collaboration' thing. In fact, the (R)'s don't do black very well and had to make sure their constituents saw that act. It was more important to push part agenda than save the country.

[Bluerthanblue]

59. wow- how wrong you are-

read this:

and NOTE the date
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/983/audacious_and_hopeful/

[mix]

65. "Bi-partisanship"? What a quaint idea and a dire political miscalculation. nt

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

66. Depends on your definition of "bipartisanship"

There are legitimate voters out there who cling to the idea that politicians of both parties are capable of putting aside their differences to do what's right for the country. Sounds good in theory, but so does communism. It's got very little to do with the "inside the beltway" version of "bipartisanship", which means Republicans & DLC combined to further corporatist objectives.

[HughMoran]

68. Yes, they wanted Bush III

...and Obama turned out to be a mature adult - shame that.

[Ignis]

69. You're brave to post this in GDP.

:patriot:

[slay]

70. +1

n/t

[Safetykitten]

78. My opinion, Obama has about thirty days to do something stunning.

Massive works projects. Fast track massive high speed rail system, Depression era WPA type stuff. That kind of thing.

Nothing with the following words or phrases:

Bank, tax cut, tax incentive, tax write off, 2012, this is hard and complicated, Wall street, strengthen financial system, new program, new study, new commission, fiscallly responsible thing to do, take a look, take a peek, muse, think about, give some thought, working on it, fighting for you, look at our success....

[KakistocracyHater]

79. a MAJOR reason young voters are turning away is because their classmates

are dying in Iraq & Afghanistan, or just re-upped til they die, go insane, or get too broken to serve. Vietnam Veterans, please help them, you know more than anyone else what they're going thru.