Monday, November 17, 2008
But we didn't vote for him
Checking out the President-elect's blog, today I see a post about Obama meeting with Sen. McCain to discuss ideas for approaching and solving some of our nation's many troubles.The blog post quotes, among others, one Tamara, of Springfield, Oregon - perhaps it's the fact that she's from my home state that made her quote catch my eye:
"If you truly want to gain the support and respect of those who did not vote for you, you could 'reach across the aisle' so to speak and begin with incorporating some of the ideas from the Republicans."
Wait a minute.
Didn't we, as a people, just spend 18 months rejecting the ideas of the Republicans? Didn't Republicans, by and large, lose and lose big up and down the ticket? Local races, state races, national races... a whole lotta lose for anyone with an "R" after their name. Even the ones who tried to hide their party affiliation, like former Senator Gordon Smith, whose TV ads pictured him with Democrat Ron Wyden, or Democrat Barack Obama. Or Dino Rossi, whose only mention of his Republican-ness in the ad I saw consisted of white letters on a white background saying that he was "GOP".
And yet, the voters could instantly tell that the Republicans were, in fact, Republicans because of the obvious signs: they hated the gays and the brown-skinned people, and accused their opponents of harboring treason in their hearts, and associated with terrorists.
Which of these "ideas" of Sen. McCain, you know, the ideas that cost him the election, is President-elect Obama supposed to incorporate into his platform, exactly? Is Tamara suggesting that Mr. Obama now appoint an intellectually incurious, uneducated, vindictive nobody to his Cabinet? Is Mr. Obama supposed to now actually associate with someone who pursued violent means forty years ago, who was never convicted of any crimes, and who has reformed themselves and become an influential member of society? Or is Mr. Obama supposed to drop everything in a media stunt, and rush off to get involved in issues that will not benefit from his actions, only to have his own party reject his help and vote against his ideas?
This is not change we can believe in.
Elections have consequences. And the vast majority of us (certainly a larger percentage than trusted Bush over Gore in 2000, and a larger percentage than trusted Bush over Kerry in 2004) trust Mr. Obama to get things done.
If we'd wanted Sen. McCain's ideas, we would have voted for him.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Now, I know you aren't that one-track-minded. Sure, right now Obama holds the majority of the country's approval because the majority of the country voted for him. However, it was close--and I think 46% of the country needs something more than a "yeah well you lost suck it up." Surely you can admit Republicans have more variety in their beliefs than boo gays yay war. Much of McCain's platform mirrored Obama's. I think the biggest areas that (rational, non-knee-jerk) people fear a Democrat in power are foreign relations and economy. Not "oh noes he's going to destroy the sanctity of marriage and fetuses!" Ya can't please everyone on the economy, and I tend to be fiscally conservative as a general rule so I understand some's apprehension and wish to connect across the partisan divide on that issue.
Iz all I'm sayin, I ain't sayin no more.
Iz all I'm sayin, I ain't sayin no more.
#
posted by 
:: 11/18/2008 5:22 AM
:: 11/18/2008 5:22 AM
I'm not going to argue with you. Your thoughts on this are more in line with Obama's, because our President-elect has made it clear that he wants to work with everyone, not just the people who voted for him and the people who worked, hard, to get him elected. No "red" Americans and "blue" Americans, just Americans. And the underlying point, that there is a difference between how Democrats campaign and govern compared to Republicans, inclusive vs. divisive, is one I agree with in general.
That being said, when I hear people talking about "bipartisanship", it is nearly always directed at Democrats with the meaning of getting them to adopt Republican policies and frames, never the other way 'round. Glenn Greenwald writes about it often, but so do many others.
At any rate, I hear what you're saying. Thanks for speaking up. Yesterday I wasn't feeling so inclusive.
That being said, when I hear people talking about "bipartisanship", it is nearly always directed at Democrats with the meaning of getting them to adopt Republican policies and frames, never the other way 'round. Glenn Greenwald writes about it often, but so do many others.
At any rate, I hear what you're saying. Thanks for speaking up. Yesterday I wasn't feeling so inclusive.
<< Home
