GOP Doubts, Fears Obama's Call For Change

Washington Post: Republicans Are Skeptical Of Democrat's "Post-Partisan" Pitch, But Worry It Just Might Work

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Jonathan Weisman.

---

Exploiting a deep well of voter revulsion over partisan gridlock in Washington, Sen. Barack Obama is promising to do something that has not been done in modern U.S. politics: unite a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents behind an agenda of sweeping change.

But in pitching himself as a "post-partisan" politician, Obama (D-Ill.) is only the latest in a string of presidential candidates promising to remake Washington into a city that sings in unison. George W. Bush was to be a uniter, not a divider. Bill Clinton was going to put people first. Even Richard M. Nixon, on the day after the 1968 election, invoked a sign he had seen during the campaign that said, "Bring Us Together," and said that was the goal of his administration.

Washington, however, has a way of consigning such rhetorical hopes to the partisan waste bin.

"Words are not actions," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday night during a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, as she called for a "reality brake" on her rivals' rhetoric. "As beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action."

"He believes he's a game-changer, but I don't believe the game has changed," said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, dismissing Obama's transformational pledges as naive. "It's captivating. It's intoxicating, but it's not going to last."

In Washington, bipartisanship for decades has been synonymous with compromise and incrementalism. When it has worked, both parties have sacrificed some elements of ideology for modest steps forward. The Clinton White House could not win passage of universal health care, so it settled for a federal-state partnership to insure the children of the working poor. The Republican "revolutionaries" of 1994 could not abolish a Cabinet agency, such as the Education Department, so they settled for slowing the growth rate of Medicare and abolishing Congress's Office of Technology Assessment.

Obama is promising something very different, what skeptics call an oxymoron: sweeping bipartisan change.

"I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes, not incremental changes, not small changes," Obama said Saturday night. "I think that there are a whole host of Republicans, and certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who don't believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, don't believe what politicians say. And we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change."

Republicans in Washington view Obama's "post-partisan" political appeal with a mixture of skepticism and fear. They are skeptical, they say, because the first-term senator's thin record has shown virtually no sign of bipartisanship. They are fearful because his appeal just might work.

"It's clear he is a phenomenon," said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a conservative scrapper who revels in Washington's partisan warfare. "He will use style and grace to achieve liberal goals, which is absolutely politically brilliant but intellectually dishonest."

"Any new president is going to have a honeymoon period, and with his communication skills and the foundation that he appears to be wanting to lay -- 'Look, I'm above partisanship; I want to be everybody's president' -- I'm concerned he could push through some policy things that I fundamentally disagree with," said Rep. Jim McCrery (La.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Liberals have their own trepidations about a candidate who exudes an air of compromise, even if he doesn't necessarily propose it. "I like my Democrats a bit more hard-edged, at least at this moment in time," read one posting on the liberal Web site DailyKos yesterday. "I never got over the stolen election of 2000 and I don't think I ever will. I was hoping for someone, as a candidate, who conveyed that they understood why that matters."

Beyond the partisan polls, Obama's appeal is clear, said Trent Lott, who retired last month as the Senate's second-ranking Republican to begin a career as a Washington lobbyist -- K Street being a favorite foil of Obama's when he talks about what's wrong with Washington.

Americans are tired of the bickering and want progress, Lott said. But he said Republicans are not about to concede to Obama's vision of progress, a vision they see as classically liberal: federally run health care, government-mandated energy changes and a rapid pullout from Iraq.

"Barack is tapping into a feeling that he has heard out on the trail, and it's very real," Lott said. "But if he's talking about bipartisan, sweeping big government, I don't think that's what people are talking about."

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said bipartisanship tends to produce the worst that Washington has to offer -- transactional politics where lawmakers scratch one other's backs without regard to the bigger picture. Pork-barrel spending goes unchallenged because members of both political parties know that by objecting to one project, they jeopardize their own, Flake said.

"Partisanship is underrated. There is a time and place for it, and more time and place than we realize," he said.

In Obama's first years in the Senate, he showed little interest in the middle, where moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats coalesce, often to thwart their leadership.

In 2006, he won a 95 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal rating group, and a 93 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. In 2005, both groups gave him ratings of 100 percent. In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked him at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals.

Obama's aides and supporters say voters should look beyond traditional measurements. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama assembled a bipartisan coalition in the Illinois Senate to expand health insurance for children and approve more stringent ethics rules, and that he took that approach to Washington to help win passage last year of the most significant ethics and lobbying rule changes since Watergate.

"If he can do that in the state Senate and the United States Senate, just imagine what he could do as president," Burton said.

The first attempt at ethics reform showed the limits of Obama's legislative skills. The bill presented on the chamber floor in 2006 was far weaker than the one he had worked on with Feingold and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Those three were among just eight no votes when the bill passed overwhelmingly in March 2006, but died in a House-Senate conference.

Shortly after the 2006 elections, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pulled Feingold into his office. "Russ, I want you to write the 'gold standard bill,' and I want Barack to work with you," Feingold recalled Reid saying.

Obama and Feingold convened a conference call with newly elected Senate Democrats, several of whom who had campaigned as reformers. They secured support for a stringent bill banning all gifts from lobbyists and prohibiting lawmakers from paying cheap rates to travel on corporate jets (a perk Obama has acknowledged he heartily enjoyed in his first year in the Senate).

The final bill passed with more than 80 votes and was signed into law last August. It had some loopholes, including a "widely attended" event exemption allowing lobbyists to pick up tabs at events so long as they are not sit-down meals.

But Feingold and most reform advocates praise the final package. "When Senator Obama says this is the strongest ethics reform legislation, he's absolutely right," he said. "It's a genuine accomplishment."

McCrery, the Louisiana Republican, said the next president will confront problems that will beg for bipartisan solutions, such as funding Social Security and Medicare.

"He's very good. He's very smooth. He has charisma," McCrery said of Obama. "If he's elected and he chooses to use those qualities not only to win elections but to lead, I think he'll have a great opportunity."

Staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.

[dallaswolf1]

Let me tell you what is going to happen. Nothing. Thats what always happens. If he is able to make some change it will be through pork laden bills etc... The Dems and Rep have forgot what they are their for which is the people. To get to Washington now means what Hollywood means to a runaway which is fame and fortune. Today we have to pick the lesser of two evils. They said change starts with one person. I don''t thinks its him. But, I hope for our sake I am wrong.

[obama1289]

Check out this very moving Obama video. Brings tears to my eyes!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jPev5sEdTjg

[candide777]

But candide777''''s post a while back contending that men don''''t support Hillary becase they are threatened by "srong" women, was certainly not "breathtaking".
It was blatant sexism. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 09:08 PM : Jan 07, 2008

Wow, formrusmcsgt, you just put your foot right directly into your mouth, proving how absolutely stupid you are. I never said only "men" were threatened, I said americans are threatened by strong women. Clearly, your assumption that I was referring only to american men reveals that you are a HUGE sexist! Get thee to a NOW clinic for some gender sensitivity training! LMAO!

[liberalvet]

We Christians need to stand up and take our country back, Vote for Huckabee. At least he seems to care and has morals...more than I can say for the others.

Posted by FlaLady41 at 03:01 PM : Jan 07, 20

Morals....what a laugh. Your kind displays blaytant biggotry and hatred toward homesexuals. You kind advocates murdering of thousands in the name of your religion. You want to ban abortion, but then do not want to have any social programs to help support the increased babies that would be born. Yeah LADY we need more of your MORALS. You can not eat morals....wake up America and ignore these idiots....

[liberalvet]

We Christians need to stand up and take our country back, Vote for Huckabee. At least he seems to care and has morals...more than I can say for the others.

Posted by FlaLady41 at 03:01 PM : Jan 07, 20

ROTFLMAO....Lady the Christians are the main problem this country has. Your types have been left unchecked for way to long. They started another crusade, trampled all over the Constitution, and ran our national debt through the roof. It is time your types stepped down and let intelligent thought take over.

[tulcak]

The people we need to keep out of office are the ones who are warning us that obama''s call for bi-partisinship change is "unrealistic" or "just words". What are country desperately needs is change. Big time change and to keep the partisens out!

[jedi08]

Mikemb1- Im glad your posting on here. Its great to hear you squirm. Most of the other Clinton supporters on this site have disapeared.

So does this mean you wont vote for Obama in the general. Are you voting republican then?

The Cliton Dynasty ends tonight. You and Billary Clinton should go have a cry fest in a local dinner somewhere. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

[prinzowhales]

Jonathan Weisman is really very wrong in his idea that "there is voter revulsion over partisan gridlock in Washington." People I know and myself hate Washington with a passion--not because of gridlock-- but because of the bipartisan support of the IRS, the open borders, the Stupid Peoples'' War, the economy, the graft, the abuse of power, the police state, the failure to investigate 9-11...

The press is trying to re-focus public antipathy to Washington onto some sh*t non-problem like "partisan gridlock"...the way Obama peddles to the naive chumps who support him, the idea that the petty annoyances that he plans to put in the way of lobbyists is "reform.

[libra127]

"It was blatant sexism. Nothing more, nothing less."
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 09:08 PM : Jan 07, 2008

It is not racist to say African-Americans have darker skin than white people. And it is not "sexist" to say many men have a hard time accepting a strong woman. That''s because both statements are simply the truth.

[okbutdontask]

Any change will be welcomed!After eight years of watching the neo-cons tear this country and econmony apart.And i''m not really surprised to see,that alot of replublicans are going to back Change,by jumping ship...

[trinitron01]

Hello People! You have a real chance to get the best man in office with a perfect record in congress-- none of them come close to Dr. Ron Paul. I have compared them. I didn''''t know who was who and didnt trust the media machine. Look up ronpaul2008.com and his issues and record, and you will see for yourself. Don''''t be fooled by the imitators, there is only one guy that can really make a difference for the people. Also Dr. Ron Paul is on TONIGHT WITH JAY LENO - Tonight!!!

[likeitis5050]

He''ll have to be president to a nation...not just those who voted for him, so he surely knows he can''t walk in and just turn the nation over to illegals, tax middle class to oblivion to pay for universal health care (national, universal...potato/potahto), or any of the other ''sweeping changes'' he talks of making as president. Either way...we''re going to know within months of his election to president if he''s a breath of fresh air or just another big bag of wind.

[mikemb1]

thats funny. do you have a crystal ball that tells you if you vote for whoever that they are going to deliver any of that possibly stuff? you must be that person with all the bumper stickers on your car driving down the highway mad about this country and you don''t know why.

Its called compromise and that is how politics really work. so if you think that voting for someone that will "possibly" bring those changes that you so desperately want. what ever that means, think again cause its called lip service buddy. but you are eating it up cause you probably already gave money to someone (obama) because your friends/family did and you just want to fit in. take a stab at that smarty pants.

[formrusmcsgt]

what does change mean anyway?

Posted by mikemb1 at 09:44 PM : Jan 07, 2008

I''''l take a stab at that.

Possibly ending the "borrow and spend" policies of this administration?

Possibly a return to diplomacy?

Possibly a return to checks and balances?

Possibly a return to respect for the rule of law?

Possibly a return to a foreign policy that benefits the country as opposed to a select few?

[mikemb1]

what does change mean anyway? many candidates say the word "change" at every pres election. Its called "intellectual weakness" when they don''t want to talk about specifics of a plan, or have no plan. its the teflon answer, they say my campaigns about change in washington.
How can you debate with that? Its not legitimate. I think I remember in 5th grade kids saying "when I grow up I''m going to change the world". pretty childish and amateur, but inspiring.
so if you suckers think you are well informed and are ready to vote for the "change person" (with NO plan) then you should move to France where you won''t have to worry about thinking for yourself. you just play follow the leader and give them your money, sounds like fun if you have an I.Q of 50.

[wogerwabbit]

Have a nice life LIB. McCain will win the independants and thus the presidency.
Posted by mbcsmith at 07:50 PM : Jan 07, 2008

dude... I''m an indy now (ex-repub) and I ain''t voting for McCain or any other repub. You''re delusional. You hard cor right wingers are losers with a bad attitude, and until you can look in the mirror and see how ugly you''ve become, you''ll continue to drag your party down the path to irrelevancy. Your despicable holier than thou attitude and total cluelessness of the God you profess to believe in has alienated a major portion of this country.

Initiating war crimes tribunals would go a long way in redeeming the repubs once good name, but I don''t think that''ll be enough... it would probably appear to have as much legitimacy as the Nazi''s investigating Hitler.

I think real repubs should start a new party to replace the GOP stench and bury the neocon corpse where it won''t stink up our country and politics again.

[formrusmcsgt]

I did not see the earlier posts. I was refering to the posts where we were addressing mbcsmith.

Posted by the74blaster at 09:25 PM : Jan 07, 2008

Nothing but insults in his quiver......

[the74blaster]

It was blatant sexism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by formrusmcsgt''

I did not see the earlier posts. I was refering to the posts where we were addressing mbcsmith.

[formrusmcsgt]

why are candidates from both parties espousing "change"?

Because dubya leaves a bad taste in everyone''s mouth.....

[frb01]

It took us years for Washington to get stuck in gridlock. I would not expect it to be changed entirely by the next President. If Obama moves us beyond name calling, finger pointing and above the fray that is a good thing. We elected the Democrats to do that job in 2006, they failed but maybe he can succeed. This is when the past just won''t do anymore, this is the audacity of hope.