Obama, bipartisanism, Christian left, marmots
mcc
glitchRegistered User, ClubPA regular
glitchRegistered User, ClubPA regular
Okay, so over the last few years, we've been hearing the word "bipartisanism" used a lot by both the far-right Republicans and the "centrist" DLC wing of the Democrats. The word seems to mostly be used to describe situations where the DLCers roll over and give the Republicans everything they want. If you have perceived this happening as well, you'd probably agree this isn't really bipartisanism. "Bipartisanism", by a reasonable definition, would be something like avoiding conflict by seeking common ground, attempting to solve a common problem despite doing so from different viewpoints. The "bipartisanship" of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, is about avoiding conflict by simply excluding opposing viewpoints from the decisionmaking process.
Aside from questions of whether this forced "unity" is democratic, it's simply bad political strategy. In the long run, attempting to seem centrist through constant surrender to the "other side" doesn't work at impressing anyone, since people aligned the other "side" will keep on voting for their own side, whereas people normally aligned with your own "side" will eventually realize you're not doing anything for them and drift away.
If you want to know what real bipartisanism looks like, I think, This is how you do it:
Alternate proposed discussion topic: Barack Obama's ability, seen here on display, to combine his personal Christianity with progressive politics and tolerance, and somehow sometimes even appear to do so in a way that right-wing Christians don't wind up hating him.
Aside from questions of whether this forced "unity" is democratic, it's simply bad political strategy. In the long run, attempting to seem centrist through constant surrender to the "other side" doesn't work at impressing anyone, since people aligned the other "side" will keep on voting for their own side, whereas people normally aligned with your own "side" will eventually realize you're not doing anything for them and drift away.
If you want to know what real bipartisanism looks like, I think, This is how you do it:
Obama urges unity against AIDS
Illinois Sen. Barak Obama spoke frankly about sexuality to a conservative church audience in Southern California during a conference on AIDS.
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
Associated Press
LAKE FOREST, Calif. - Potential presidential candidate Barack Obama stood before one of the country's largest evangelical churches Friday for a frank discussion of sexuality and spirituality that included the declaration that condoms should be made more widely available to fight AIDS.
The summit came on World AIDS Day and the 25th anniversary of the discovery of the disease.
The Democratic senator's appearance at the Saddleback megachurch was a source of dispute among evangelical leaders, with some of the most conservative saying that a politician who supports abortion rights should not have been allowed to speak at such a prominent church.
Obama urged unity despite political differences to fight the disease that has killed 25 million people since the first case was reported in 1981. Some 40 million currently are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
''We are all sick because of AIDS,'' Obama said. ``We are all challenged by this crisis.''
In a show of political unity, Obama took an AIDS test with a potential White House rival on the Republican side -- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. Brownback draws his support from the conservative evangelical community, but Obama has been urging liberals not to allow Republicans to proclaim their party the party of Christians.
After addressing Brownback as his friend and applauding his efforts on issues like AIDS, Obama said: ``There is one thing I've got to say, Sam, though: This is my house, too. This is God's house. So I just want to be clear.''
In another show of bipartisanship, the Illinois senator said President Bush doesn't get enough credit for committing $15 million against HIV and AIDS over five years.
He called the dispute over condoms a ``false argument.''
''I also believe we can't ignore the fact that abstinence and fidelity, although the ideal, may not always be the reality, that we're dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions, and that if condoms and potentially things like microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, then they should be made more widely available,'' Obama said. ``That's my belief.''
Alternate proposed discussion topic: Barack Obama's ability, seen here on display, to combine his personal Christianity with progressive politics and tolerance, and somehow sometimes even appear to do so in a way that right-wing Christians don't wind up hating him.
mcc on
0
Posts
Otherwise...yeah, I
Depending on what is meant by some parts of that, I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of that-- but the point is, it's the kind of thing you don't have to agree with to work with it.
'combat' also means "preventing aid agencies from passing out actual preventative measures or discussing reproductive rights with poor women at all". The money probably went straight to a large consignment of bibles.
Seeing as they bascially yanked funding from any family planning clinic overseas that whispered the words abortion or condoms I fail to see how 15 millino was well spent
Now, that's spread out over quite a lot of years and when you compare it to how much we were spending on AIDS before we suddenly decided to lump projected multi-year spending into a single big "15 billion" number, it's not THAT big of an increase-- the whole thing was basically just a PR stunt to distract from the fact that Bush was trying to cut funding to the UN's global AIDS fund (and succeeded). Since he started throwing around the "15 billion" number, he's been requesting like 2 billion a year in foreign AIDS program funding (and then closer to 3 in 2005), whereas the budgets before that point were allocating more like 1.5 billion a year. But it is an increase in spending.
The problem, of course, was that big chunks of that money was tied to requirements not only to spend certain amounts of budget on abstinence education, but not to endorse certain kinds of programs at all-- while Obama takes the compromise position of encouraging fighting AIDS by both discouraging promiscuity and making promiscuity safe, he brushes over the fact that in order to keep the Bush money you in many ways were required to do only the first. From the perspective of some observers-- such as Brazil, which rejected the money-- the result is that the money is really a payoff to not fight AIDS.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So adorable I could just puke.
He was better when he was underground?
Hand me my nose ring!
Yeah, ever since Hot Topic started selling Obama wristbands he just hasn't done anything for me, either.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Supposing he runs for President, this is a solid move, and I think a pretty good politcal stance to take -
If he can even faintly garner the support of the fundamentalist right, he can attack the very base of the republican party. At best, he's working the swing voters, which is roughly 30% of the voting base. And of that 30% more than half of are educated women living in suburbs (read: Soccer Moms), and usually identify as at least partially conservative.
Really, a smooth move on his part. To his base, he didn't cave to the fundies in heart of thier lair. To the right, he's softend his image some, even if a few demonize him as a coat-hanger wielding abortion maniac.
While doing graduate work in theology I've heard lots of buzz about it, and I think I've seen enough to make a prediction: if it manages to get off the ground, it'll just turn into a perfect replica of the Christian Right, but reflected across the political axis. We'll have yet another nominally religious organization that really exists only to put some churchy trappings on a political agenda. People who don't go along will become "enemies of God". I get plenty of that from conservatives, and I'm really not looking forward to catching the same abuse from liberals/progressives, too. I really wish that people on both sides of the aisle would just get their blasted state out of my Church--is that really so much to ask?
In contrast, Obama would force the Republicans to pick a more moderate candidate in order to avoid being swamped, and the debate would be less of a partisan pissing match and more of an actual debate about who is the best person to lead our country.
Workingmen of all countries, unite!
My personal suspicion is that once they get close to actually naming a candidate, they're actually going to just wind up latching onto some single issue which isn't so much bipartisan as it is orthogonal to traditional party lines (like fiscal responsibility, or illegal immigration, or neoconservatism), and then grab two random candidates who campaign based on this single issue.
It looks like it has much more potential to be positive by convincing people to think outside the box of traditional party lines than by actually, you know, nominating any candidates.
Anyway, I can't speak for Shinto, but Obama never made sense to me. It seems as if someone said, "he's the next great hope" and everyone wanted a next great hope really bad so they all climbed aboard.
I'd rather see everyone get fired up about someone with some real substance, like Biden or Edwards.
P.S. The Unity Party is moderate Libertarians.
why in the name of whatever's out there is he putting himself in the position to run for president? He's been in the Senate for less than 2 years!
He should focus on making more of a name, and actually presenting some legislation (as far as I know he hasn't attempted much. I may be mistaken.)
Honestly, I think Obama and Edwards are at about the same level in terms of substance.
In fact, they are the same type of candidate.
Yeah.
I mean - it's not haggling over an AIDS program in exchange for a bridge in Alaska, but it definitely has bipartisan appeal on the citizenry level.
It's bi-partisanship in the sense of working towards a common goal with people who you strongly disagree with on a number of policy decisions. (plus bonus points because he didn't cave in on his own strongly held beliefs) Which is to say, it's not really bi-partisanship in any conventional definition of the word. Not like that's ever stopped the media or political junkies before.
The reason I'm crossed as opposed to... well... opposed, is that if he was to run and win, or run as a VP and gain support, he is helping the dems, which means he is helping "me" (where me=a democrat)
Just sayin'.
So he's bipartisan in the sense that he's not advocating positions to which he's opposed just to spite the other side of the aisle.
Okay, I'll buy that.
This would make sense if the alternate option were like, Al Gore or John McCain or something. But it's increasingly looking like it's down to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Is four years in the senate plus a couple in a state senate, vs eight years in the senate that big a difference?
He's actually done a decent amount for someone who's only been in there two years-- not a huge amount, I mean, but for someone who's only been in there two years, he's sponsored some impressive-looking legislation, including being one of the four sponsors of the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006", which since it legislates the creation of a website, will probably be all attention-getting for him whenever that website actually goes online. I assume he'll do something big and flashy to get more attention this year.
Wow. They're both young, charismatic, and religious, but that's where the similarity stops for me. Watching the VP '04 debate was the one thing that made me glad Bush won. As vicious as Cheney is, I cannot imagine president Edwards. What an unconscious, hollow shell of a man.
Obama, though, actually has a sense of himself and is intelligent. What actually does it for me more than his campaign trail speeches is watching him work on the floor of the senate (plenty of c-span clips on youtube). There's no gloss there, just an actual intelligent human being who understands what's going on and is determined to do the right thing. It makes him stick out like a sore thumb, sad to say.
I consider myself one of those, but reading the setup made me grin with cynicism. Online primaries you can register for in a few seconds? One republican, one democrat, and votes determine who gets to head the ticket? Yeah, that ballot box won't get stuffed or anything. It's going to be an enjoyable disaster to watch, particularly if either McCain or Obama (i.e. "moderates") are in the race for the republicans and democrats.
It'll be fun watching primary losers run to it, too.