Obama's campaign has largely been about bringing everyone together, and to building consensus. Exactly what does that mean to you in a practical sense. I'd be interested in knowing what other's are expecting in this regard if Obama ends up being President.

I see it as being a "uniter, not divider" as George W Bush once promissed.

I can't remember a time in my life where America was more divided. Someone needs to bring us together, and I don't see it happening under Hillary or McCain.

For me, that means honoring the process, first and foremost.

We have a President, a Congress and the courts for a reason; namely, to prevent any one force from imposing it's will over the people in an arbitrary way.

And you think an extreme leftist, can do that?

I agree, Bush touted that attribute, but it didn't happen. It didn't happen under Clinton either, but I don't recall him promising such an occurrence.

Have we gone too far afield to become more united? Is too much media getting in the way? Does the over zealous press make it impossible for politicians to meet half way without having it used against them?

In a practical sense, what would President Obama have to do in order to have consensus and a more united America?

"We have a President, a Congress and the courts for a reason; namely, to prevent any one force from imposing it's will over the people in an arbitrary way."

A good point. Would a Democrat dominate Congress and a liberal President provide us with safety on that issue.

Hugo Chavez is an extreme leftist. Obama is not. So let's get that straight up front. Applying misleading labels like that just makes you look dumb and desperate, as usual.

But, I do think Obama stands a better chance than either Hillary or McCain to bring people together.

Play nice, Vitalogy.

Chavez is a communist, Obama is an extreme leftist.

I didn't use the term "extreme" or "leftist". I referred to Obama as a liberal. If Vitalogy wants to consider him a conservative, he'll just have to go ahead and do so. I wonder who he looks up to as a lilberal if Obama is too far right for him.

Deane_johnson writes:
Obama's campaign has largely been about bringing everyone together, and to building consensus. Exactly what does that mean to you in a practical sense. I'd be interested in knowing what other's are expecting in this regard if Obama ends up being President.

Fixing the national problems that both Democrats and Repbulicans (and everyone else) wants to see fixed, instead of continuing to ignore them. Doesn't mean everyone will be happy at first with the result - but one way or another, the problems will be addressed. That's the hope, anyway.

Health Care is near the top of most people's lists. Obama's plan seems to be more acceptable to non-Democrats given that it does not require everyone to participate.

Andrew

Any President who could solve our health care issues in an acceptable manor could go out of office a hero.

Deane, I always play nice unless I see someone making false claims.

Last time I checked, Venezuela is not classified as a communist country, which means Hugo Chavez can't be described as a communist. He is a leftist though, which means by default Obama can not be considered a leftist because they do not share the same political beliefs. Obama is a Liberal, yes, but a leftist? No.

Let's use both McCain and Obama as examples because at this point they are both the presumptive nominees IMHO.

What they have to both do at there respective conventions and post conventions is to start to outline where there platforms stand and more importantly who there cabinets are going to consist of. Both of these nominees need to reach across the aisle and have major cabinet positions hopefully more than just one being appointed to those on the other side of the aisle.

I am dreaming with the following wish but this would be a impressive scenario. That is for either a McCain or Obama choose a VP canidate who is either independent of the party and or the other party. Yeah I know I am a dreamer but sometimes reality is stranger than your dreams.

Another thing that must be done regardless of who is the next president is that under all circumstances the next president needs to work real hard at not being polarizing amongst the American populace and world community to a lessor extent.

"Obama is a Liberal, yes, but a leftist? No."

I hate to have you have to actually read these posts, but s liberal is exactly what I called him. I even spelled it right.

Deane, I'm addressing Nwokie, not you...

Chaves has called himself a communist, Obama has espoused the views of a leftist liberal. He wants massive wealth redistribution, he wants to bring everyone together, as long as that means those that disagree with him, drop their opinions and accept his.

Is there any evidence anywhere that the liberal view of coming together is anything other than everyone accepting the liberal viewpoint? Seriously, has anyone ever seen anything different. I there any evidence the liberals in Congress think any differently? Has anyone ever seen any compromise out of Nancy Polosi or Harry Reid.

Now, if we add the same ideology in the White House, what will bring the American people together? Do they all drop their ideals and become liberals? Is that what we call coming together?

I was looking for some answers with this thread. There don't seem to be many.

"Deane, I'm addressing Nwokie, not you..."

Sorry.

Nwokie writes:
he wants to bring everyone together, as long as that means those that disagree with him, drop their opinions and accept his.

So did you vote for that Commie George W. Bush then? That's exactly what he tried to do, too.

Bush is for wealth redistribution, too - just the other way (borrowing from the Chinese to pay for "tax cuts" for the wealthy).

Andrew

Andrew, I thought we were talking about the future.
Some of you guys here are worse about dwelling on Bush than others are about dwelling on Clinton.

Should we just have threads bashing Bush, or is it possible to discuss the future? I know that when we try to get specifics on what liberals think the future should bring, the going gets pretty well bogged down.

"Is there any evidence anywhere that the liberal view of coming together is anything other than everyone accepting the liberal viewpoint?"

The liberal viewpoint is finding common ground. The current conservative viewpoint is "my way or the highway and if it ain't my highway then nothing at all." This is why both Bush and Congress are rated very low. The GOP won't let anything happen unless it's 100% their way.

"Has anyone ever seen any compromise out of Nancy Polosi or Harry Reid."

Has anyone seen any compromise out of Bush et al?

"Now, if we add the same ideology in the White House, what will bring the American people together?"

Having a president that has the respect of Americans on both side of the aisle, and the rest of the world would be a start.

You mean McCain right, just about everyone respects him.

Deane_johnson writes:
Andrew, I thought we were talking about the future.

Not bashing Bush at all, just talking about Nwokie's disingenuousness : criticizing Obama for things Bush has done, when presumably Nwokie voted for Bush twice. It's disingenuous to criticize candidate for an action that wouldn't really influence your vote. Bush isn't a communist because "he wants to bring everyone together, as long as that means those that disagree with him, drop their opinions and accept his" and neither is Obama.

Andrew

Deane it looks like the first place that needs unity is the Senate and Congress. No easy task. What that looks like and how it manifests itself is the unknown.

I truly believe both McCain and Obama believe they can do this. What they have to do is convince us voters they can do it.

"bring us together"...

Your money---Their pockets

" In a practical sense, what would President Obama have to do in order to have consensus and a more united America? "

He would have to succeed. I know that sounds trite or obvious, but that's where I am at. He would have to succeed it getting legislation passed that FIXES tangible problems. It should be and will be fought in the courts and in congress ( not in that order ). Hash it all out. Let our respective representatives make their points, and whomever has the most votes wins. I am just fine with legitimate debates that I come out on the losing side of. But fillibustering and obstructing important items - just for the sake of silencing opposing views ( just because it's embarrassing ) - has GOT to stop.

A good first step towards this would be a lack of abusing executive priviledge. ( Do you guys have any idea how often this has been used in The Bush Administration? And for what reasons? It's absolutely textbook power grabbing. That is NOT right ). In fact, something akin to renoucning it - again, when the only reason a President uses it is to avoid public scorn - would be kind of good.

Part of what Obama is offering is a stated willingness to listen and consider - not just as a formality either. Serious compromises will need to be made on both sides in order to get things done. I don't really want every elected leader to be a Democrat. That would lead to an absolute fisaco to have ideas go unchallenged. And I also believe that if Obama presents a solution, and it is debated on the floor, new ideas or even better ideas could spring forth towards a solution.

How he handles a crisis will determine how successful he is. Constant fumbling or cronisim will not be tolerated by me. In fact, I will honestly say that if Obama blows it in just about any fashion, I will be the second to say it and demand that it stop. And by " demand " I mean doing things within my powers to voice opposition. Herb, of course, will be the first.

Which brings me to my last point; I have been VERY thirsty for some accountablity. I have to trust that with the kind of campaign Obama has run, with his platforms, that he is going to deliver on this promise of accountablity and transparency. No more secret and hidden bullshit. If he fucks up, then he'd better fucking say so so we can then deal with the real problem instead of spending all our time and energy getting him to see that he has, in fact, fucked up.

And if he still doesn't do it, then I will vote against him in the next election.

Hell, I may even RUN against him. I plan on holding Obama to a VERY high standard when it comes to issues that I feel are important to me. I want no more hiding, lying and outright violations of our constitution. I don't want to see his press secretary lie for him for 3 years and go on to write a book about how hard it was to do so. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics ( I fucking know what IS is, you asshole. If you don't know what is being asked of you during a legal depostion, then you are a liar and will be judged for that - and so I have ).

Finally, again - ahem - I want a LEADER. Someone who can take the reigns and SHOW us new possiblities that can inspire us to work harder for ourselves and get rewarded for it. Look, I am a Democrat, social programs matter to me. If I saw my tax dollars being used effectively towards those kinds of programs that matter to me, I will pay for them. EVERY question asked - but in the end, gladly.

Any follow up, Deane? As you know, I LOVE questions like yours. It's not because I think I have all the answers. It's because that typing them out helps me define what will make a person successful. Having it rolling about in my head all day doesn't always work for me. I like to think that it does - but I'm lying to myself when I think that.

I'm not going to fix my spelling errors.

CJ, the deadlock in Congress has been going on for a long time. It happened heavily during the Reagan years. The Democrats in Congress were so dead set on trying to stop Reagan's conservative program they would do anything to try to block him. That set a precedent that goes on today.

When the Democrats in Congress went even more radical by electing Nancy Polosi as speaker and prodded along with pressure from George Soros and MoveOn.org, Bush has no choice but to block them with everyting he's got to work with.

With a heavily Democratic Congress, a person like Obama isn't going to be held in check in the least. It's going to be full throttle liberalism. The Republicans will have no choice but to throw up every obstruction they can just to keep the playing field somewhere near level.

Electing McCain would bring about much more compromise than electing Obama, mark my words.

Deane_johnson writes:
CJ, the deadlock in Congress has been going on for a long time. It happened heavily during the Reagan years. The Democrats in Congress were so dead set on trying to stop Reagan's conservative program they would do anything to try to block him. That set a precedent that goes on today.

You conveniently forgot to mention that Republicans took partisanship a much higher level when they took over Congress in 1995. Let's remember, they tried to shut the government down to force Clinton to accept their agenda. They prevented many of Clinton's judicial nominees from ever getting out of committee and getting an up-or-down vote. And they shut the Democrats completely out of the lawmaking process.

Andrew

I'm not forgetting anything. It started in the Reagan era. That's what set the precedent. Now it goes on non-stop.

" CJ, the deadlock in Congress has been going on for a long time. It happened heavily during the Reagan years."

I do not care one bit when it started. Why should I? We're talking about what what I want in a President now, right?

" Electing McCain would bring about much more compromise than electing Obama, mark my words."

I disagree. I also to not believe that we will get a chance to see your words maked or otherwise.

Why don't you explain how McCain is SO different than Bush. Because if he isn't, I can't think of one reason to vote for him. But hey - I'm all eyes.

You're right, but the President is only part of the equation. The Congress is a big factor. The Congress is what causes the President to do certain things.

Sorry - I added a question after you posted.

I'll put it this way; If what you fear actually comes to pass, I'll eat my hat and support your guy next time. I think we deserve a shot at my guy this time though.

"Why don't you explain how McCain is SO different than Bush."

For one thing, McCain is lots smarter than Bush. McCain is much better connected.

"I think we deserve a shot at my guy this time though."

The Presidency is a bit to critical to give a guy "a shot". Let's try to be as sure as we can.

I was being diplomatic. If you really think I am taking this all lightly then we can just stop now.

And how would McCain's intelligence shape his policies? For a guy who is so much smarter than Bush, why dosn't he distance himself from those policies that exhibit Bush's lack of intelligence?

Recently, McCain has shown that he's not much smarter than Bush as he doesn't know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni. He seems old and confused and not all that in touch with reality. Plus, he supports Bush's tax cuts, which are partly to blame for our recession, and Bush's Iraq war. He wants to stay for 100 years. I want out within the year.

" He seems old and confused and not all that in touch with reality."

I agree that he seemed that way then. It didn't exactly make him look sharp. But you know, I hate it when an isolated incident is blown way out of proportion. Perhaps you have a valid assessment, Vitalogy. I give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. If say, someone did that kind of stuff on a regular basis ( Sorry, but there is no better example than Bush ) then yes, I would question some mental acuity. I'll also note though that his reaction - his physical stance and tone of voice - when he was corrected and then restated his position didn't exactly sound convincing. I think that is kind of telling to where he might be mentally sometimes. Reagan had that probelm too. Actually, they are quite similar in that kind of category. Then it comes out - AFTER his term, of course - that he would regularly sleep through briefings and take naps during the parts of the day when, you know, he should probably be awake.

The other stuff you list, Vitalogy - well - I really have a harder time swallowing or finding much benefit of the doubt on those. It's not an issue for some people. It is to me. A big enough one to not want a 3-peat.

So Deane, I'll grant you that McCain is smarter than Bush. I asked for a difference and you showed me one. I think Obama is smarter than McCain. I know that's not what I asked. But since we are talking about it - that is my belief. I think he is actually smarter. Not just smoother - smarter. I believe he has a better world view too.

Obama can't walk on water. You know how I know that? Because he himself has said that. He's more self aware. I can give you examples or you can just admit that you know what I am talking about. That goes a long way for me too.

I'll say this for and about McCain; If he didn't exhibit a penchant to bend to pressure from his party, he might be more appealing to me. But he's all about rallying his party.

I'm interested in the guy who wants to rally The Nation. Even if he fails - and I don't think he will - Obama is trying to rally the Nation at a time when it needs to be rallied. And if you don't think it needs to be rallied, then I don't really have the inclination to explain that to anyone right now. Maybe later if need be. Because, you know, I have all the answers.

*KOFF*

Kick ass thread guys.

I think McCain is smarter than Bush, but I also think he needs some help. Not much help right now, but some help.

That's not a show stopper with me. Really. The core of a person's mind is enduring and surprising. Slipping up on words or some date, or something is extremely minor. That's what we all get lackeys for. No worries.

He's old though. Old right now.

Not sure we need another Reagan, and that's very likely where McCain could end up over two terms.

If we pick right, I think it's better to know it's two solid terms, than likely a one term deal.

I've a lot of complex thought over us coming together on things.

The obstructionist behavior, starting at about Reagan, is problematic for a lot of reasons, but the biggest one for me is really the undoing of New Deal type ideas and policies.

It's also where corporate bias in politics and media really started to take off.

We are due for a correction in this. It's balanced too far that direction and I really don't see the longer term value in that for anybody but the larger corporations.

Coming together then really means having some of that correction happen. Set aside ideologies and we are left with our daily lives as people. In this we are all equal, right?

(well, a few of us have entitlements of one kind or another, so factor those out, leaving everybody else, ok?)

As just Americans then, we really need to take some steps down that road and address those daily life things together, applying ideologies as tools, not policy.

Policy happens with debate and deliberation and that's why I wrote that we need to honor the process as fully as we can. We might not always like the result, but it's really in our best interests to make sure that process is running good and is solid.

Put very simply, if we let divisive issues trump our core common interests, we are gonna be exploited over that, and I believe that's a big part of what got us here.

Not gonna be popular opinion, but that was what got started about the Reagan time. Powerful interests have played us this way and that way and we've generally given up many gains as a result.

Those powerful interests made more that way, but it's really a zero sum game there. Once the line between profit earned by adding value -vs- profit from pure exploitation has been crossed, we are essentially selling our future for dollars on the books today.

Deane, you were worried about what an all Democratic legislature might do. Extreme liberalism, largely unchecked! Scary stuff --and not just for you, BTW. I worry to, though I believe some of you will find that hard to believe.

When the GOP finally got to call the shots, it was not pretty in general. So we know where that goes. Will the Democrats do the same thing? Will we get to make lists of them corrupt as hell, like we do GOP members right now?

I don't know.

My gut says some level of it could happen. My gut also says it's not gonna reach the level we've seen recently. I've only got one thing to support that with, and it's a key difference between the parties.

On the GOP side, it's a clear heiarachy. The party is very strong and there are not many that step out of line, and when they do, it's generally for their gain and that's tolerated so long as no real damage is done to whatever the party as a whole is working on.

The Democrats will squabble! And with that will come more of a minority voice. It will also generate good ideas in that good ideas can come from more places and will be heard more times.

Not all Democrats play on the same page either, and they tend to leverage people powered politics more than the GOP leaning people do. That's a general statement, not an absolute one ok? Just an observation seen over the last 10 years.

On both parties, there is an establishment that's largely corporate, for lack of a better way to put it. That bias is everywhere, media, politics, etc...

Instead of citizens we are called consumers, just by way of many examples.

One thing going on with the Democratic party, that I think will prevent a total left leaning steam roll from happening, is a clear split between older school established Democrats and a newer and younger school breed.

In the current context that is very much Obama -vs- Clinton. The differences are stark! Truth is, we've just watched Clinton pull most of the political crap so often cited here as corrupt, gaming the system, serving special interests, etc...

The idea that they all suck is very supportable!

IMHO, that's set to change up some.

Where we have one of those changes, we move forward for a time and it's a really great thing. I also think, after it happens, everybody gets used to it, starts to game the system and we stagnate, just as we are right now.

Way too many set pieces on all sides. Where that occurs, we lose generally.

The new schoolers, which I have been following closely, want more and better Democrats. They've run primary challenges to older school established players. They are people oriented and tend to respect local politics as well as national ones.

These are all really great things for us nationally as they inhibit mass party movements of the kind we've seen recently.

Another really great element here is that the GOP needs a serious rebuild. The new schoolers on that side are just now starting to come out. The huge party unity prevented this, leading to many set pieces and a stale game --and corruption as being so set meant few checks on human greed, etc...

An all Dem legislature will provide a strong incentive for building on the GOP side, leading to a clash of new schoolers in both parties not too long from now, and that will bring some progress in general that we've been denied from simple apathy.

My intent here is to say, we are likely to see a correction. One is needed frankly. So we will go left for a bit, and given the right pull we've seen, it's not gonna be the end of the world. We got through the strong right pull, so we will get through a left one.

To highlight Obama specifically in this, he very well might encourage these kinds of things to occur more than either of the other two will.

The reason is that he really isn't part of either established cycle!

When I look at both McCain and Clinton, I see either conservative-corporate or liberal-corporate, and both will cross those lines for a dollar easily. They've done it, will do it, and plan on doing it.

It could very well be that instead of swinging this way and that way, lurching around drunk with either one kind of power or another, we end up just starting off in another direction --with that direction being toward us, not either power structure --or the power structure, I don't know if it's a plurality or a singularity, I just know it's there and exploiting us too much.

In the longer term, I have significant worries over that power and what it's done. This is greater than liberal -vs- conservative. It's about losing the American in all of that.

We are not making things here, that's a huge problem. We are not tolerating one another here, that's a huge problem. We don't care about one another here, that's a problem. We are not educating our kids, that's a problem.

Seems to me, all of these problems carry a common theme and that's failure to recognize and act on our shared citizen ship and needs as people --as Americans.

Obama is the first one, in a long time, to really speak to that. I think his lack of experience speaks to it too in that having a lot of experience really means being owned in some fashion and that carries the torch forward that got us here in the first place.

I really don't think that's gonna do anything for us, but make a percentage of us feel better about it, and that percentage will just be a different one than we had feeling good before!

Divisive and weak. That's all we get from that.

We may well see Obama mix it up in his cabinet. Hope that's true. We may see him slap both parties into actually doing stuff that matters too.

If he really is serving us --all of us, that's gonna happen as none of us have it right, and we all have our self interest. That's supposed to be checked by the process and it isn't.

Man, lots to say...

Coming together then means taking the fact that we are all Americans and have to compete globally as a baseline and starting there. Means we take care of our own and get our house in order so people are employed, healthy, educated, etc...

From there, we then work on the other stuff and it progresses slowly over time as it should.