Obama On His Reach-Across-The-Aisle Record

From Jake Tapper, here is a question that the McCain campaign has been waiting for a reporter to ask Barack Obama:

TAPPER: You and Senator John McCain are both talking about the need to reach across the partisan divide.
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: It's not difficult to look at Senator McCain's record and see examples of times when he reached across the partisan divide at great political risk to himself: immigration reform, Gang of 14, campaign finance reform. I know that you have worked across the aisle.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

TAPPER: But have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?

OBAMA: Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.

And the same is true when it comes to the economy. The same is true when it comes to national security. You know, this administration, the Bush administration, has made, for example, the war on terror into a sharply partisan issue.

But the truth is, is that I admire some of the foreign policy of George Bush's father. And I've said so before. I think that there's a tradition of us working together to make sure that we are dealing with the threats that are out there and that we are building a consensus here in the United States. That's the kind of approach I intend to take when I'm president of the United States.

Watch for the McCain campaign to make this one of the centerpieces of their change argument -- that McCain has taken stands that caused him to go out of the GOP comfort zone and Obama has never taken a risk on anything that would cause him trouble with liberals.

Comments

"...and Obama has never taken a risk on anything that would cause him trouble with liberals." Now I know this is not an example about legislation, but didn't Obama get into trouble with some liberals recently for speaking well of Reagan?

Posted by Jackie | June 16, 2008 6:55 PM

Marc, you write this the day after Obama blasts black dads.
You might object that this is a popular stand, and that Obama's skin tone means he's more able to make it. The fact remains that Obama is the one making the stand, in opposition to old-style liberal interest group orthodoxy, on an issue McCain can't go near.

Posted by bert | June 16, 2008 7:03 PM

I think others have already made this point: the fact that Obama hasn't necessarily had to fight with his own party does not mean that he has no record of bipartisanship. McCain's own fights simply reflect some of the extreme dogma of the Republican party. The mere fact, for example, that mcCain has acknowledged the existence of global warming somehow makes him a "maverick" relative to his party, when in fact it should make him a mainstream politician.

What I don't understand, is how come Obama didn't play up some of his bipartisan legislation that many people probably haven't heard of. He can talk about Darfur legislation with Sam Brownback, nuclear proliferation with Dick Lugar, and of course, his ethics bill with Coburn (a very conservative senator). He should also mention that his ethics reform bill angered some of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, and finally, he should start talking about his openness towards school vouchers, which does anger some Democrats. (He should also embrace a reform of the affirmative action system along class lines, but that's for another discussion.)

Obama must, must be more explicit about all these things, otherwise the GOP talking-point about his lack of bipartisanship will stick--and its simply not true.

Posted by JY | June 16, 2008 7:08 PM

Obama once took great political risk speaking with Tom Coburn (R-OK).

I didn't realize passing ethics reform including the 'toothpick exemption' was risky. Funny.

Posted by Harriett | June 16, 2008 7:19 PM

When Americans think about change, they do not mean reaching across the Congressional aisle. They mean replacing enough members of Congress to ensure no ideological minority can hold the rest of the country hostage.

Posted by justcorbly | June 16, 2008 7:20 PM

Previous commenter: "I think others have already made this point: the fact that Obama hasn't necessarily had to fight with his own party does not mean that he has no record of bipartisanship."

This doesn't really make sense. If you are always agreeing with your party, how can that lead to bipartisanship? There's no heavy lifting on your part to be bipartisan because you also get to be a party loyalist at the same time. Obama hasn't done much in the Senate where he was a crucial defector to the GOP side. I am less familiar with his time in the Illinois legislature. Maybe something there shows his bipartisanship?

Posted by John | June 16, 2008 7:24 PM

"McCain's own fights simply reflect some of the extreme dogma of the Republican party."

I second that.

Posted by JD | June 16, 2008 7:26 PM

hmmmm. you mean those faux-liberals Elizabeth Edwards and Paul Krugman are now on the same page with Obama regarding health care mandates?

Posted by along | June 16, 2008 7:52 PM

McCain's charges against Obama will only work if voters don't agree that the items Obama names should be bipartisan. Since they do, predominantly, want those bipartisanism on those matters, McCain will have a hard time making those charges stick.

Posted by janinsanfran | June 16, 2008 7:56 PM

The point is with McCain nobody gives a hoot about his "bipartisan" record. He's aligned himself with GWB on the most important issues of the day. The Iraq War, the economy, Iran, and health care. That's not change we can believe in.

If McCain actually took real risk this year and opposed Bush on these vital issues, he'd have a point. Now it seems he's just whining. "Look at me I was the mavericky maverick" "I've been around for decades and occasionally make friends with Dems and kick my party in the teeth" BFD. He can't get away w/ sidling up to Bush on the most important issues of the day. It's not the GOP we hate, IT's BUSH!!!

Posted by furtg | June 16, 2008 7:57 PM

Obama should also be able to point to his reputation as a bridge-builder during his days in the illinois legislature. Chicago politics is rough and his accomplishments there are significant. His record there shouldn't be ignored or diminished. That is, after all, where he has spent the vast majority of his career in public office.

Posted by blue MN | June 16, 2008 8:06 PM

Just to respond to John: the claim that you can't be bipartisan without defecting from one's own party is belied by the rest of my post. Clearly, Obama has a record of bipartisanship without "defecting" from the Democrats. Bipartisanship should not necessarily be measured strictly by whether or not you anger your own party leadership.

On the issues I listed--nuclear proliferation, Darfur, ethics, and I should add divesting from Iran (also with Brownback)--Obama has shown that he can work together with Republicans on a common cause. That is the definition of bipartisanship; the fact that he didn't have to be a crucial defector to the GOP to get this legislation passed with a Republican, doesn't make it not bipartisan. In fact, I think you could argue that the best kind of bipartisanship is the kind that does not require any "defecting", or angering the base of either party--that is the sign of true, non-ideological, pragmatic government--you shouldn't have to anger either party. Again, the fact that McCain angered his party is perhaps more symptomatic of the dogma of the Republican leadership over the past few years, and not inherently a sign of a bipartisan "maverick" (but to give McCain his due, whatever you want to call it, he angered his party over a position, and that is commendable).

As for Obama in the Illinois state legislature, he has a strong record of building consensus and working with Republicans to pass new health care initiatives in the state.

Posted by JY | June 16, 2008 8:44 PM

There's a very obvious response here:

What if pretty much all Republican policies these days are just *wrong*?

Why would Obama reach across the aisle to support any of them if he, along with his fellow Democrats and most of the country, just don't agree any of them are worth enacting?

Given the blowouts in generic D/R Congressional matchups in polls, this might not be the wrong approach to take at all.

Posted by Adam | June 16, 2008 8:50 PM

It's hard for him to even talk about such a short Senate record. That's not a bad thing, just not something he needs to play up. The winning strategy for Obama is to hammer McCain as a flip-flopping fraud on working "across the aisle." McCain has veered Right on plenty of issues during his infant general run.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | June 16, 2008 9:09 PM

As I mentioned in the previous post, Obama "legislative achievements" in the Illinois senate were manufactured by senate majority leader Emil Jones, a longtime patron of Obama. All of his so-called legislation was passed in a single year, all of it co-opted from other, senior legislators who had actually done the work, and all of it labelled with Obama's name for show.

Cite, with link to Todd Spivak article.

Posted by Cal | June 16, 2008 9:57 PM

Cal,

The racial profiling or recorded confessions bill differed from the original version. That bill changed due to Obama negotiating with the Repulicans. Obama was chosen by Emil Jones to do the negotiations because he felt that Obama was the best to deal with the Republicans. All those bills passed in one year because after being in the wilderness for so long, the Democrats were now in charge of the Illinois State Senate. In that regard, Obama's achievements are impressive.

Posted by Micheline | June 16, 2008 10:17 PM

No one gives a crap about bipartisanship. Its all a dog and pony show as far as most people are concerned. The ideal government from a voter's perspective is totalitarianism where his or her views are represented entirely. Most people recognize that this is not feasible so they associate with a party (or candidate) that they relate to more so than the other option.

For what its worth, McCain will trump his isle-crossing on relatively less meaningful issues because he recognizes that the current political climate is not favorable to him. Conversely, Obama recognizes that his views are more amenable to the general electorate by and large and does not need to make similar proclamations.

Posted by Joel | June 16, 2008 10:34 PM

I certainly hope John McCain chooses this line of attack! Because JY and JD are right. Republicans are extremely dogmatic, and Democrats are far more open to differences within their own party (hence, the self-parody that is Joe Lieberman). All this line of argument will prove is that McCain belongs to a stupid failure of a political party. He doesn't have to be a Republican. He wants to be one. It's his own fault that McCain makes such bad choices.

Posted by slag | June 16, 2008 11:43 PM

Obama was chosen by Emil Jones to do the negotiations because he felt that Obama was the best to deal with the Republicans.

That is, quite simply, untrue.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's ­kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics — and he couldn't have done it without Jones.

Before Obama ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was virtually unknown even in his own state. Polls showed fewer than 20 percent of Illinois voters had ever heard of Barack Obama.

Jones further helped raise Obama's profile by having him craft legislation addressing the day-to-day tragedies that dominated local news ­headlines.

For instance. Obama sponsored a bill banning the use of the diet supplement ephedra, which killed a Northwestern University football player, and another one preventing the use of pepper spray or pyrotechnics in nightclubs in the wake of the deaths of 21 people during a stampede at a Chicago nightclub. Both stories had received national attention and extensive local coverage.

I spoke to Jones earlier this week and he confirmed his conversation with Kelley, adding that he gave Obama the legislation because he believed in Obama's ability to negotiate with Democrats and Republicans on divisive issues.

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.

Right. That conversation looks like it's all about "Obama's ability to negotiate". Big ol lie. So don't repeat it.

The man had no legislative history at all until Jones handed him 26 bills in one year. And the conversation about "making a Senator" happened. But it was all about Obama's abilities.

Sure. Gulp that Koolaid, baby.

Posted by Cal | June 17, 2008 12:45 AM

Marc, you write this the day after Obama blasts black dads.
You might object that this is a popular stand, and that Obama's skin tone means he's more able to make it. The fact remains that Obama is the one making the stand, in opposition to old-style liberal interest group orthodoxy, on an issue McCain can't go near.
Posted by bert

You are correct that old style liberal and media people hold that "victim groups" must never be criticized by outsiders. Any who do so are immediately called racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic. But "one of their own identity" is permitted by the still powerful liberal interest group orthodoxy.
That said, Obama took little risk. It is well known that blacks vote by skin color 92-98% for any black candidate against any white candidate, unless their "handlers" higher up decree that a black Republican running is in effect a race-traitor who runs against his own kind and the nice white Democrat is "better for our people."
There was only an up side. Just like with Clinton dissing Sista Soulja. He had the black vote locked down, as does Obama. Now it is time to show he will stand up to race baiters like Jesse and Rev Al and Rev Phfegler and Rev Wright and Farrakan and attract independents.

Kudos though to Obama for doing so and not running away from the festering dysfunctions of the black community like so many black leaders as safe as Obama is have refused to do out of "racial solidarity".
And he is orders of magnitude better than the scumbags in the NBA, hip-hop gangsta community that not only don't criticize, but glorify the culture of abandoning dads and slut welfare mommas, "Don't Snitch campaigns" that have dropped murder cases being solved from above 50% to single digit resolutions in certain cities.

Posted by chris ford | June 17, 2008 3:13 AM

"wasn't popular"? IT PASSED THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY.

Posted by dt | June 17, 2008 10:50 AM

The Gang of 14 could hardly be called bi-partisan. Yes half were Democrats, but none of them were Liberals by a long-shot (well, Lincoln Chafee possibly). There was no risk at all on McCain's part by slumming with that group.

Posted by tom.a | June 17, 2008 7:16 PM