Uniting a polarized country - Will Obama do it?

November 6, 2008
Loose Ends
A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders

>>>>>>In his victory speech, Obama reached out "to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn. I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too."
Then Obama offered the White House chief of staff post to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of the most partisan creatures on the planet. Emanuel is infamous for brandishing a steak knife at a dinner celebrating Clinton's election that he used to stab the table as he named each enemy, proclaiming each "dead."
So how does this work? Obama hears the voices of McCain voters and then "Rahmbo" knives more furniture and pronounces them dead?

And how will independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut fare in the post-partisan Obama era?
Several new reports suggest Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will strip Lieberman, who supported McCain even as he has caucused with Senate Democrats, of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee when they meet today.
>>>>

_____________________________________
During the RNC Convention, for the first time in history a Democrat, 8 years ago on the Democratic Ticket for the US Presidency, spoke in favor of a Republican Candidate on a Republican convention notabene, and reached out across party lines to democrats and independents like us.



That is unheard of in American Politics. Joe Lieberman, a US Senator who caucuses with the Democrats and stands almost in e very single line item in opposition to the policies Palin for instance stands for> Albeit, he himself proved the so called bi-partisanship, McCain is famous for, with his support of McCain/Palin.

In utter neglect of party lines and propaganda, neglect of his own careeer , which is endangered now, he lent his support to the man he feels is best qualified to lead this great country during these challenging times.

Isn't that actual proof for bi-partisan appeal, McCain can bring to the table?

That is what I mean, when I mention talking the talk and walking the walk.
Don't you agree that speeches of unity should not be good enough, but actually be backed up with corresponding action?

Show me the proof that you mean what you say. Show me proof of bi-partisanship and accomplishments. Proof for your ability to tell the truth, even if that hurts in opinion polls. Look at the Clintons, who, as everybody knows, disqualified Obama rightfully and harshly, then for political cynical opportunism turn around in step with party lines, to proclaim during the Democratic Convention that Obama is all of a sudden ready to be President.

Are these the kind of politicians we want to entrust our future with?
Isn't that exactly why we are so sick of Washington?

Isn't it refreshing, when for once a politician like Liebermann throws all caution and party loyalty overboard, and follows his conscience with America and not the Democratic party line in mind? Lieberman, another straight talking, honest and humble man of great reputation is today being attacked and slandered by media and the Democrats in the worst manner. It's ugly and sad to state, that he probably will be finished as a Democratic Politician. Nobody mentions however, that McCain and Liebermann talk, then follow their words up with action. No matter the cost. Country first ist their motto, and once again they backed that up with action and just for that alone deserve respekt.





As a new Citizen I came to objectively see my beloved new country as a highly divided people.

The fact that a true leader should demonstrate tolerance, a bit of self-depreciation and humility, up to even adapting, learning and admitting a mistake (as we all commit those) is also key to earn true respect.

All of the above is manifested in John McCain. I truly believe that he has the ability to transcend party politics and unify this divided populus to a high extent, as opposed to Obama, who hammers his transcending nature home, yet in fact is a left liberal who quite actually polarizes the voter base within the Dems, let alone across party lines.

The fact that he gets up to 90% of the black votes ( evidence, that many blacks vote according to race and not facts) is clear indication for a racist (divisive)dimension which will (has already in PA, KY, WV) result in a nationwide counter effect (e.g latinos, jews, white rural voters) - hence furter divide our people - but this time in addition to political platforms and ideology along racial lines as well.

In that sense, Obama is not only outright dangerous with his foreign policy and economic ideas, he will domestically rip a gorge between ethnic groups. His 20 year association with the black Nazi reverend and other extremists is only aggravating the gap - latest tendencies show that Obama even polarizes the African American Community:

It seems to me very ironic, that the factually single most polarizing candidate in recent decades sells himself so successfully as the "Great Unifier".....

I only hope that the American people at some point look at the candidates pragmatically, logically and unemotionally. Look at the facts and the evidence and then derive their decision.

The man, depicted above is the man who can make it happen.

How to get us all to do a standard due diligence along the lines of a job interview for a top exec instead of the easy jumping on board the emotional bandwagon of America's Rockstar who admittedly has the best marketing machine going in decades, will be the great challenge for John and responsible bloggers and voters such as you and I.

Race no Issue?
Wright Connection Fatally Undermines Obama's Central Theme
by David Limbaugh

Looking at the latest Buzz about Geraldine Ferraro and her remarks to the fact, that Obama would not be in this position, if he wasn't black, then the ensuing harsh reaction of the Obama Campaign, this is a wonderful example once again how reverse racism works.

If a white person dares to point out the obvious (90% of all Blacks in Mississippi voted for Obama after all to name just one fact), and it touches upon race, the Blacks will scream hell.

If a Black congregation (such as Obama's) loudly proclaims to be black and focus on blacks and their issues, it is completely politically correct and of course never racist.

It is my strong opinon that we must do away with racism as well as with reverse racism. This election is in fact very much about race - let us be honest about it. The latino votes as well as the Black votes are irrefutable evidence to that fact. We did have strong women in high positions since 1984(Ferraro), but only very few Blacks. Now thatObama as outspoken Black person enters the arena, he must be equally be prepared to respond to questions regarding race, as any White person must. The extreme reactions of the Obama camp to anything which could remotely hint at bringing the issue up, only proves the widespread reverse racism and discrimination practiced by Black America. Using the race card by the Obama camp comes across as typical, predictable and sadly reflects the been there done that mentality of our black voters, as whenever they run out of factual arguments, they move the discussion to the emotional dimension of Race. I consider it as cheap and dirty campaigning.

It is deplorable how a candidate running on the theme of unifying a country will absolutely not distance himself from a black nazi hate monger. (See Facts about Obama). Obama's speech, defending Pastor Wright leads to division, but certainly not unification. John McCain, staying above the fray of race and gender discussions can for sure.

In this thread Iwould like to discuss, how in fact the wide middleground of "independents and moderates" consisting of dems and reps can come together and be the driving force and not the wings of left and right.

John would to my opinion be the perfect candidate due to this history and track record to truly unify this country. Let us not forget that historically this exact symptom ( a highly divided people) was the downfall of all empires.

A picture speaks 1000 Words....... Polarizing or Unifying? You be the Judge.

I propose that John keeps on working the center of the spectre, maybe even introduce Democratic potential Cabinet members not limited to even the running mate to work towards that goal of reaching across the isle and thus unify a large segment of our society behind an honest leader. Let's discuss.
______________________________

USA Today, September 2008

Our view on bipartisanship:
Who's the better uniter?

McCain has a longer record of bucking his party’s orthodoxy.

Presidents who try to push through major policy changes without the opposing party almost always come to grief. George W. Bush's bid to create

private accounts for Social Security collapsed in 2005 when Democrats rejected it. A decade earlier, Bill Clinton's health care overhaul died for lack of Republican input and support.

Social Security and health care remain unreformed, and whether the next president is Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama, he'll need help from members of the other party to address these and other pressing issues. So it's reasonable to ask whether either of them — both self-styled change agents who tout their ability to cross political lines — have shown they can do this.

McCain, in Congress for

26 years to Obama's four, has the longer record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues. He has bucked his party again and again to do just that — on immigration, federal judges and campaign finance, to name three on which he enraged many Republicans by defying the party position and working with Democrats.

McCain-the-maverick has reverted to party orthodoxy on taxes and other issues this year, which will put him in a bind if elected: Would he stick with those new positions, or compromise with the Democratic Congress he'd likely be working with?

As McCain points out on the campaign trail, Obama has a much thinner record of bucking his own party. With

the exception of tough fights for ethics reforms in the Illinois Senate and in Washington — where he angered Democratic colleagues by insisting on the disclosure of lobbyists who bundle campaign donations — Obama has rarely challenged party dogma on the sort of big, contentious issues he'd face as president.

As a U.S. senator, he has taken liberal Democratic positions on most issues. Studies by Congressional Quarterly show Obama has voted with his party almost 97% of the time, vs. about 85% for McCain.
Where Obama has diverged, it has often been rhetorical and reactive: After securing the nomination, he expressed disagreement with a Supreme Court decision that struck down the death penalty in cases of child rape, and he approved a decision that overturned a strict gun control law in Washington, D.C.

He has signaled support for a modified form of affirmative action (extending it to poorer whites and denying it to better-off African Americans), and he has supported a key Bush initiative that funnels federal dollars to faith-based groups.

Obama's bipartisan accomplishments in Washington have been on significant, but relatively non-controversial, efforts to secure nuclear weapons and establish a federal-spending database. What he lacks is a record of challenging his own party on divisive, difficult issues — the deficit, immigration, energy — that he'd have to reach out to Republicans on if he's elected.

Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most major measures.
None of this is to say Obama couldn't turn into a consensus-building, party-challenging president. Based on their records so far, though, it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that of him than of McCain.