has Obama ever gone against the democratic left-wing interest groups?

[nageov3t]

so, I'm reading the Wall Street Journal op-eds tonight (because that's what I do before going to bed, rss ftw) and there was a line that really resonated with me.

Mr. Obama has fashioned a message that fits the political moment and the public's desire for "change." At his best, he offers Americans tired of war and political rancor the promise of fresh national unity and purpose. Young people in particular are taken by it. But more than a few Republicans are also drawn to this "postpartisan" vision...

Yet govern how and to what end? This is the Obama Americans don't know. For all of his inspiring rhetoric about bipartisanship, his voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate. His policy agenda is conventionally liberal across the board ? more so than Hillary Clinton's, and more so than that of any Democratic nominee since 1968.

We can't find a single issue on which Mr. Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Mr. Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121254834844844045.html

I think people (rightly, in a lot of cases) criticize McCain for capitulating to the party-line, but for all his talk of bipartisanship, is Obama any different?

I guess it's a good thing if you fall in line with the left-wing special interests, but it's a little unsettling for someone like me who's trying to believe, and I'd (really) love to read the counter argument.

 

[RichardE]

Theres a big difference with breaking with the party, and stepping across party lines and embracing a republican idea which Obama has done. I noticed the article focuses solely on when or if Obama gave the dems the finger on an issue more or less and does not address the issue of when Obama agreed with republicans to get something done. As much as the WSJ seems to enjoy painting politics in a black and white landscape, it is not always that way.

 

[chowderhead]

he voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. Billions in tax subsidies to Bg Oil and his big contributors at the nuclear power industry.

 

[pstylesss]

Oh what a good idea. I'll start reading the wall street journal op-eds to put me to sleep too.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Oh what a good idea. I'll start reading the wall street journal op-eds to put me to sleep too.

They got a view pro-immigration ops there...it might make you riled up instead

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Oh what a good idea. I'll start reading the wall street journal op-eds to put me to sleep too.

They got a view pro-immigration ops there...it might make you riled up instead

LOL

I have no problem with immigration, it's illegal immigration. Actually I would find the op-eds interesting and I would probably stay up late and read them.

Anyway, on topic. I think once the RNC has time to pick apart his voting record he will lose all his independent voters. I highly doubt he is a uniter -- he's just a good prepared speech giver.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's the giveaway in the article-

He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax.

I paid taxes the whole time Clinton was in office, and certainly didn't feel like I'd been brutalized. Even at the top of the pile, the WSJ audience, taxes were quite low during that era when compared to the rest of the developed world...

And, uhh, Obama isn't talking about raising payroll taxes, but rather about taking away the exemption for income above the cutoff point-

Which, of course, bothers the WSJ terribly- he's talking about denying america's top incomes the fattest tax loophole they've ever had... 90+% of Americans won't pay a dime more...

Standard fearmongering and anti-tax raving form the rightwing- lyin' bastids that they are...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Theres a big difference with breaking with the party, and stepping across party lines and embracing a republican idea which Obama has done. I noticed the article focuses solely on when or if Obama gave the dems the finger on an issue more or less and does not address the issue of when Obama agreed with republicans to get something done. As much as the WSJ seems to enjoy painting politics in a black and white landscape, it is not always that way.

And this was when? I am not trying to be a smartass. I am actually interested in knowing when and what bills he has done this.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RichardE
Theres a big difference with breaking with the party, and stepping across party lines and embracing a republican idea which Obama has done. I noticed the article focuses solely on when or if Obama gave the dems the finger on an issue more or less and does not address the issue of when Obama agreed with republicans to get something done. As much as the WSJ seems to enjoy painting politics in a black and white landscape, it is not always that way.

And this was when? I am not trying to be a smartass. I am actually interested in knowing when and what bills he has done this.

Two of the major ones off the top of my head are

Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006

Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act

I know there are more but I'm rushed for class so I'll try to answer later :beer:

 

[Genx87]

Thanks, ill look them up. :thumbsup:

Interesting, first bill was co sponsered by Coburns, Obama, Carper, and McCain.
passed but has been put on hold by Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd(big effing surprise)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481
so, I'm reading the Wall Street Journal op-eds tonight (because that's what I do before going to bed, rss ftw) ...

I hope your range of sources reaches beyond Rupert Murdoch's spin machine.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
so, I'm reading the Wall Street Journal op-eds tonight (because that's what I do before going to bed, rss ftw) ...

I hope your range of sources reaches beyond Rupert Murdoch's spin machine.

pretty much all the blogs and newspapers I read on a regular basis:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/loki8481/feedonfeeds.jpg

I read WSJ before going to bed because they tend to update around midnight, and NYT/WaPo in the morning at work.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
so, I'm reading the Wall Street Journal op-eds tonight (because that's what I do before going to bed, rss ftw) ...

I hope your range of sources reaches beyond Rupert Murdoch's spin machine.

pretty much all the blogs and newspapers I read on a regular basis:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/loki8481/feedonfeeds.jpg

I read WSJ before going to bed because they tend to update around midnight, and NYT/WaPo in the morning at work.

TMZ? you cad you.

 

[Rainsford]

I have a better question than the one asked in the thread title. Has there ever been an election, EVER, where the right-wing commentators didn't call the Democratic candidate the most liberal candidate ever? I mean seriously, it's getting embarrassing now guys.