What Barack Obama means when he talks about “change” and “bipartisanship”

Ever notice that during every presidential election cycle, at least one candidate is promising a "change" in Washington, DC?  This year’s agent of "change" is Senator Barack Obama.    The speech he made when he announced his candidacy back in February 2007 was titled "Change We Can Believe In."  It’s been the centerpiece of his candidacy.  He wants to end the gridlock in Washington, DC, reach across partisan lines, all in order to "get things done."  When the average person hears that, they may think, "Wow, he really wants to extend a hand to the other side of the aisle and work together to come up with solutions both sides can be happy with."

But tell me something: Assuming for purposes of discussion that Barack Obama wins the nomination and then the presidency, what gridlock is he going to be presented with after he takes the oath of office?  A Republican Congress? Nope.  At best, we’ll keep the numbers we have in the House and Senate.   The liberal lion of the Senate Ted Kennedy – and many other solidly liberal politicians and public figures – have endorsed his candidacy.  His socialized healthcare agenda, his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, amongst other ideas under his liberal agenda, will meet with very little opposition – and even at that it will be an opposition that will not be in any position to demand any substantial compromises.  The only Republicans an Obama administration would have to reach out to would be a few moderate Republicans in the Senate whose votes they would need to ensure a bill comes up for a vote in the Senate.

So what "change" is Barack Obama talking about? Nothing that involves working across the aisle outside of getting  few votes he’d need to pass his agenda.   He’s praised Reagan for his ability to get things done in Washington, DC, but Reagan got things done as a Republican president working with a Democratic Congress, something that was unquestionably much tougher to do than what an Obama administration would have to face with a Democrat Congress hungry to implement their (and his) liberal ideas.

Let’s also not forget that whenever you hear a politician talking about "reaching across the aisle" in a "gesture of bipartisanship," what they’re talking about is conceding the bare minimum to the opposition in order to get their agenda accomplished.  Rembember Pelosi and Reid’s promises of "change" and "bipartisanship" leading up to and and immediately after the 2006 election? We know how that turned out. 

And a show of hands how many of you believe that many of Obama’s supporters who tout his eloquent manner of speaking and how he promises "unity" in DC actually want him to reach across the aisle in the "spirit of bipartisanship" in the manner the average voter would assume he meant?  The left already flip out as it is when the Dems don’t deliver to the letter everything they want in a bill or resolution – there’s no way in hell this "pro-change" gang is actually in favor of the "unity" Obama is promising.  The "change" they want is a change from conservative/moderate ideas to solid liberal ideas that borderline on the Socialistic.

Remember all this the next time someone starts preaching the benefits of  the"change how things work in DC" candidate, whether it be Barack Obama or whoever – ask ’em what they mean by it, and ask them if they understand what the candidate means by it, too. 

Related: Obama’s eloquence and spirit has even impressed some Republicans, according to the Washington Post.  Ericka Anderson at Redstate understands why, but also explains why, for all his impressive talk, Obama isn’t cut out to be the Commander in Chief.

Comments are closed.