Of what value is bipartisanship during the Bush years?
The current fight between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama is: who has a stronger record of working with members of the opposing political party in Congress — working across the aisle. The claim is that McCain has a better record of working with the Democrats than Obama has with Republicans.
My initial reaction to this: duh! McCain has been in the Senate for a bazillion years! And Obama is a newbie. How can you even begin to compare their bipartisan records?
They also say that McCain is a “maverick” for “only” voting with members of his own party 83 percent of the time.
First of all, let’s look at the definition of ‘maverick’: “… an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.” Um …
Oops. Wrong definition. At least I think it is … Here we go: “… a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.” Hmm … still doesn’t sound like the right one, but we’ll go with it for the sake of argument.
So, McCain has a ‘B’ average when it comes to voting with his own party. And that makes him a maverick? By that definition couldn’t we all be known as mavericks just from the decisions we make every day?
“Honey, we’ve watched an action movie every week for the past month. Can’t we rent a comedy tonight?”
“Oh, you’re such a maverick!”
Yeah.
But the main point question is: When did these “piles” of opposition votes take place in McCain’s career? Because if the majority took place during the GW administration, it would seem to me that that simply indicates McCain does, indeed, have a soul.
Mark Morford sums up the Bush years pretty well in his column today. Below is just an excerpt, but I think it helps illustrate my point:
There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.
McCain voted against his own party (every once in a while) over legislation that has led to the current mess that is our country? Wow. Give the man a prize!
Why wouldn’t Obama vote with the Democrats? Over the course of Obama’s term in the Senate, the Republicans were introducing legislation aimed at boosting their blood for treasure efforts in Iraq, chipping away at women’s rights, cutting funding for Medicaid and Medicare while increasing those tax breaks so the rich could get richer, and so on. Meanwhile, Democrats were trying to gain support to increase funding for children’s health care coverage, protect our civil liberties, increase fuel-efficiency and find a fair and compassionate solution to our nation’s immigration issues.
In an article published in The Hill, Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said of Obama’s record: “’Given how brief his time in the U.S. Senate is, it’s really surprising how many bad votes he’s managed to accumulate.’”
I see. So which votes were “bad,” Mr. Conant? Was it his ‘yea’ vote to provide an additional $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives? Or maybe his ‘yea’ vote reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program? Oh, no, wait! It must be Obama’s ‘yea’ vote on the GI Bill providing educational funding and extended unemployment compensation for members of the Armed Forces!
Yes, Sen. Obama did vote with his party 97 percent of the time during his tenure in the Senate (2005-2008). And thank God for that. It may not make the junior senator from Illinois a maverick, but it sure as hell makes him a man worthy of our vote for president in 2008.
