McCain: Obama has done well, but hasn't been bipartisan [edited]

Amazing. The Republicans, the party of no and won't, are continually ignoring the American people and doing everything they can to hold up and block Obama. I think it's time we ignore them and move forward. There is no reason to have them on board for health care reform. We don't need them and frankly neither does our country. Go away McCain. Go away Republicans. If you can't come up with better ideas for our country than the same ol same ol, then just quit, go home, become private citizens, and let people who have a vision for the future do their jobs. The republicans have done little to reach across the aisle.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain: Obama has done well, but hasn’t been bipartisan - Blogs from CNN.com

You can't call John McCain a sore loser.

Seven months after Barack Obama defeated him in the U.S. presidential election, the Republican senator from Arizona said Sunday he thinks his former Senate colleague is making things happen in the White House.

"I think he's done well," McCain said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

"He has achieved literally every one of his legislative accomplishments," McCain noted in reference to the economic stimulus package and other measures passed by Congress in recent months.

However, McCain said, the same partisan divisions remain in Congress despite Obama's campaign pledges of seeking bipartisan solutions.

"Unfortunately, it's by picking off a couple of Republicans" to support his measures instead of gaining real consensus, McCain said. "It's not been bipartisan."

On foreign policy, McCain offered Obama a grade of "incomplete," noting the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats.

Click to expand...

Hyperpartisan much?

I didn't like Bush because he bent over backwards to compromise with the Left far more than I thought there was any call for.

So far Obama isn't showing anything remotely like that level of "bipartisanship". It's a legitimate complaint. McCain was a lot more polite about it than I would be.

Goshin said:

Hyperpartisan much?

I didn't like Bush because he bent over backwards to compromise with the Left far more than I thought there was any call for.

So far Obama isn't showing anything remotely like that level of "bipartisanship". It's a legitimate complaint. McCain was a lot more polite about it than I would be.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole much? I say the Republicans have said no far too much and aren't willing to work for the majority of the people. They are gross examples of public servants and should be fired. The fact that any of them got voted in again is beyond commonsense.

formerroadie said:

Hyperbole much? I say the Republicans have said no far too much and aren't willing to work for the majority of the people. They are gross examples of public servants and should be fired. The fact that any of them got voted in again is beyond commonsense.

Click to expand...

Yup, hyperpartisan. :rofl


Personally I say a plague on both their houses. It's a pipe dream but I'd like to see the Libertarians have a turn in the Big House.

Oh, I don't claim to be bi-partisan. Republicans are ***holes. . I have no clue why people think having a platform and ideology is a problem. I'm a former Republican that cannot stand my former party who dishes out the crap load that McCain just handed out. Obama has done what he can and Republicans have been reactionary as usual.

Libertarians are Anarchists light. I don't want commoners to have free reign, especially where I live. They would just kill each other and be selfish and practice their stupid ass social darwinism. Sorry, I don't buy it.

formerroadie said:

Oh, I don't claim to be bi-partisan.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think anyone was worried about that.

Republicans are ***holes. .

Click to expand...

How dare they have opinions contrary to your own!

I have no clue why people think having a platform and ideology is a problem.

Click to expand...

The problem is being so binded to that platform and ideology that you pathologically ignore everything that opposes it. You are a perfect example of that.

I'm a former Republican

Click to expand...

Extremists tend to switch to the other extreme when they switch. The political compass really is sort of a circle.

that cannot stand my former party who dishes out the crap load that McCain just handed out. Obama has done what he can and Republicans have been reactionary as usual.

Click to expand...

In some respects, Republicans have been not nearly reactionary enough, in my opinion.

Libertarians are Anarchists light. I don't want commoners to have free reign, especially where I live. They would just kill each other and be selfish and practice their stupid ass social darwinism. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Click to expand...

You really didn't need to prove your elitism here, I had already deduced it....

It's silly to blame Obama for non-bipartisanship.

Congress is the playing field where bi-partisanship is played, not the presidency.

When Obama starts Vetoing bills that are bi-partisan, THEN I will say he for non-bi-partisanship.

Otherwise, keep the blame where it should be and that is the congress playground.

If you want to say congress is non-bi-partisan, knock yourself out, you'll have more of a shot than blaming Obama.

TheNextEra said:

It's silly to blame Obama for non-bipartisanship.

Congress is the playing field where bi-partisanship is played, not the presidency.

When Obama starts Vetoing bills that are bi-partisan, THEN I will say he for non-bi-partisanship.

Otherwise, keep the blame where it should be and that is the congress playground.

If you want to say congress is non-bi-partisan, knock yourself out, you'll have more of a shot than blaming Obama.

Click to expand...

So tell me,
When Bush's propositions turned out to have little to no support among Dems, did you blame the Dems in Congress for the lack of bipartisanship? Just curious is all.

formerroadie said:

Oh, I don't claim to be bi-partisan. Republicans are ***holes.

Click to expand...

I may be a liberal, but some of my favorite people, and some of my favorite posters on this board are republicans and conservatives. Let's be careful of the name calling please.

When Bush had the WH and the congress, I did not hear alot of sympathy from the right for the lack of power democrats had. I don't feel bad now when the situation is reversed.

I think it is time for a post partisan America. There should be things everyone can agree on if they would just educate themselves on the issues and not look to others for how they should feel about an issue. There is nothing wrong with having a political philosophy but it should never be clung to like a religious faith and those who oppose your philosophy are almost never out to ruin America, no one wants that.
Too many times it comes down to the argument of what is more important, people or money. That seems to be the unsolvable riddle at the core of all this strife.

formerroadie said:

Hyperbole much? I say the Republicans have said no far too much and aren't willing to work for the majority of the people. They are gross examples of public servants and should be fired. The fact that any of them got voted in again is beyond commonsense.

Click to expand...

Each congressman or senator does not work for the majority of the people. They work for the constituents that voted them into office. Many of them were voted into office for the express purpose of opposing and balancing out their counterparts.

If you don't like representative democracy, I suggest you move somewhere more to your liking such as Iran.

Dav said:

So tell me,
When Bush's propositions turned out to have little to no support among Dems, did you blame the Dems in Congress for the lack of bipartisanship? Just curious is all.

Click to expand...

Depends, you will have to give examples. Either way, yes, I put blame on the congress unless the President Vetoes that Bi-Partisan measure, then the blame is with him.

So far I am unaware of Obama vetoing a bi-partisan bill, so until then the blame cannot fall under Obama.

Goshin said:

Hyperpartisan much?

I didn't like Bush because he bent over backwards to compromise with the Left far more than I thought there was any call for.

So far Obama isn't showing anything remotely like that level of "bipartisanship". It's a legitimate complaint. McCain was a lot more polite about it than I would be.

Click to expand...

Really, can you give me some examples where Bush bent over backwards?

TheNextEra said:

Depends, you will have to give examples. Either way, yes, I put blame on the congress unless the President Vetoes that Bi-Partisan measure, then the blame is with him.

So far I am unaware of Obama vetoing a bi-partisan bill, so until then the blame cannot fall under Obama.

Click to expand...

The tax cuts, I'm pretty sure were voted on within partisan lines, for example.

jallman said:

Each congressman or senator does not work for the majority of the people. They work for the constituents that voted them into office. Many of them were voted into office for the express purpose of opposing and balancing out their counterparts.

If you don't like representative democracy, I suggest you move somewhere more to your liking such as Iran.

Click to expand...

You left out an important part of the equation J,the lobbiest .:2wave:

Why do we always assume bipartisanship is a good thing?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Why do we always assume bipartisanship is a good thing?

Click to expand...

It's not always such, but it's always good to know that some people aren't more loyal to their party than they are to their country.

Personally though, I prefer NON-partisanship... unfortunately that doesn't seem likely. So I settle with what I can get.

Dav said:

It's not always such, but it's always good to know that some people aren't more loyal to their party than they are to their country.

Personally though, I prefer NON-partisanship... unfortunately that doesn't seem likely. So I settle with what I can get.

Click to expand...

Most often bipartisanship means we are going to get screwed big time.

No debate on proposed bills and laws is a terrible thing.

Dav said:

The tax cuts, I'm pretty sure were voted on within partisan lines, for example.

Click to expand...

By Congress.

Again, if you want to blame congress fine, but this has NOTHING to do with Obama being not for bi-partisan.

As best I can tell, Obama bent over backwards to try and include republicans on the stimulus package, but republicans wanted more than Obama was going to give. After that, Obama decided not to bother so much with the whole bipartisan thing.

Goshin said:

Yup, hyperpartisan. :rofl


Personally I say a plague on both their houses. It's a pipe dream but I'd like to see the Libertarians have a turn in the Big House.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Libertarians could flush a few toilets up there.

As far as bipartisanship is concerned; if you don't do it my way you're not bipartisan.

The American people come the closest to bipartisanship by alternating Democrat and Republican Presidents. That's the closest we come to balancing things out.

TBone said:

Really, can you give me some examples where Bush bent over backwards?

Click to expand...

Inviting Ted Kennedy, of all people, over to help write the education bill, for one.

Goshin said:

Hyperpartisan much?

I didn't like Bush because he bent over backwards to compromise with the Left far more than I thought there was any call for.

Click to expand...

Oh, ye of short and rather distorted memory...

The first day in office, Bush and crew accused the Clinton WH staff of deliberately trashing the West Wing offices before leaving. An investigation into the matter found the accusations baseless, totally without merit.

Bush didn't look up the bipartisanizer until after the 2006 mid-terms. Before that, he was the Decider.

Redress said:

When Bush had the WH and the congress, I did not hear alot of sympathy from the right for the lack of power democrats had. I don't feel bad now when the situation is reversed.

Click to expand...

Similarly, when Bush was in the WH and Republicans had the congress, I did hear a lot of demands for bipartisanship and calls of how a full one party government is dangerous and should be avoided no matter what by many democrats. I don't feel bad now when the situation is reversed and suddenly they're going "How DARE you want bipartisanship. Your side lost".

TBone said:

Really, can you give me some examples where Bush bent over backwards?

Click to expand...

No Child Left Behind brought Ted Kennedy, a ranking democrat in the senate, in to work on it.

The Perscription Drug plan.

Illegal Immigration where he was continually trying to be bipartisan and try and work towards "comprehensive" (See amnesty) reform rather than do what the conservatives wanted and simply secure it first.

The only real place that Bush was stingently uncompromising for the most part was the War.

But ultimately, yes, while Bush attempted a Bipartisan lean in some things he was not exactly "Joe Bipartisan" or mr "uniter" like he was made out to be. And the left SLAMMED him for it. At the same time, Obama was running on a platform that he was going to bring in Republicans to work with him and try to get away from partisanship....yet if some of you are going to blame the Bush Administrations possible stupid moves on Bush, you must blame Obama's administrations stupid moves (like targetting Rush) on him as well.

Much like you're saying Redress. When many of these people who used to criticize Bush for being "The Decider" and not being a uniter and backing down on his campaign promise turn around and then want to say how Obama isn't really responsible for bipartisanship its the congress, or turn around and say it doesn't matter your side lost, or other such things it strains their credibility and my desire to give a **** what they think.

Its become a sad fact in our political world that Bipartisanship is something that's helpful for you if you talk the talk, but every politician knows is likely to actually hurt you if you walk the walk.

formerroadie said:

If you can't come up with better ideas for our country than the same ol same ol, then just quit, go home, become private citizens, and let people who have a vision for the future do their jobs

Click to expand...

Rather ironic statement, given that The Obama is offering nothing but "the same ol same ol".

Tell me:
If you believe the "vision" that The Obama has for the future is exactly the opposite of what is good for the country, why would you do anything BUT oppose it?

The republicans have done little to reach across the aisle.

Click to expand...

Psst... the GOP isn't in power.