David Brooks offered a fruitful variation on the "What, if anything, has Barack accomplished (I have a free thirty seconds)" question - why has he ducked the big bipartisan pushes of the last few years?
Where was Barack when the Gang of 14 teamed up to move judges through the Senate? McCain was there!
Where was Barack when the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was stumbling through the Senate? McCain was there!
Where was Obama when roughly 20 Democratic Senators joined the Republicans in trying to update FISA? McCain was there!
The reality is that McCain has practiced the sort of bipartisanship Obama has merely preached, and has the political scars to prove it. Do we want the guy who does a great job of talking the talk, or the guy who has walked the walk for years?
Patterico adds:
It’s a good point. Reaching across the aisle isn’t all sweetness and light, and a couple of the specific examples offered have really upset Republicans — me included. But if what’s really important to people is a candidate who has proved he can do it — even when it’s tough — McCain is the obvious choice.
Again, I don’t consider these actions by McCain to be strengths. But if bipartisanship really is your thing, then you should.
This is the $100,000 dollar question. If claiming to be a moderate means anything, then it should mean that one is open to voting for moderate candidates regardless of the party they arise from. If it simply results in you picking the Democrat or Republican you like best depending upon which party you'd rather support, then you are not a moderate in any meaningful way.
Looking at the current slate of candidates and announcing that Barack Obama is the choice of moderate bipartisanism is nothing short of ludicrous.
No comments:
Post a Comment