Which candidate is the most "bi-partisan". McCain, and it's not even close.

[Kilmer17]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

ANALYSIS:

Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

more---

[Larry]

It's been posted before, but yeah, I agree.

Before he had his soul removed and became a puppet for the "anything to gain power for the Party" machine, he used to actually care about what was best for the country.

Wish that guy was still running.

[The Evil Genius]

So does this mean that McCain doesn't sponsor legislation that challenges party lines? Or that he is better at getting people to work on both sides?

I suspect that isn't answered fully, huh?

[michael_33]

You are absolutely right!

We are not going down without a fight my friends!!!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Its easier for Republicans to be bi-partisan because Democrats usually have good ideas. So they don't mind voting for democrat bills, etc. For a democrat to be bi-partisan, there would have to be some republican idea or bill that actually makes sense and is worth voting for. And that really hasn't happened in like 30 years.

[Midnight Judges]

Was this before or after McCain flip flopped on all those issues?

[Burgold]

Here's the problem. It's a skewed analysis. Obama's only been there for a relatively short window... What you have to ask yourself is this? Were the Republicans and the Bush Administration very often on the right side of things? Do you agree where the country was headed under the Bush and Republican stewardship?

The fact that McCain agreed with the Democrats shows that he had some good sense. The fact that Obama disagreed with the Republicans also shows that he has good sense.

[mjah]

Well, let's see here. I haven't agreed with much the Republicans have done for eight years now.

And that makes me a political moderate!

So something about that analysis isn't on the level. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[Cooked Crack]

Damn, Matt Damon was right.

[mjah]

"Coming Soon to Washington DC" as Obama's special ambassador to West Canada.

[Predicto]

Here's the problem. It's a skewed analysis.

Ya think? From a Washington Times analyst?

[Destino]

Sen McCain? Sure. Candidate McCain? No. The current McCain is whatever he needs to be to win. His campaign has gone from talking about "clean" and "straight talk" to lying so badly even Karl friggin Rove called them out on it. He sold out his stance on nearly every major issue. Tax cuts, drilling, immigration, etc etc etc he's flipped and flopped to fit what the polls of the conservative base demanding. He was even pressured into picking a running mate that wasn't in his top too for political reasons.

[TrumanB]

Here's the problem. It's a skewed analysis. Obama's only been there for a relatively short window...

And therein lies the problem. Also, in addition to the lack of experience, his years in the Illinois State Senate also indicates his weak convictions. I mean, voting "present" 130 times? WTF?

[TrumanB]

Ya think? From a Washington Times analyst?

Of course, just attack the messenger.

[Predicto]

Of course, just attack the messenger.

Sometimes it's a valid thing to do.

When the message is a "basic fact," attacking the messenger is a cheap tactic.

When the message is an "analysis" (like this one), attacking the messenger is perfectly appropriate.

I'm sure that if a guy from the DailyKos wrote an opinion piece about which candidate was more bipartisan using his own criteria as to what makes one bipartisan, TrumanB might have a bit to say about the source.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

He was more bi-partisan because he was never a conservative until now.

Plus with a democratic Congress and the Bush people behind the scenes we're looking at 4 more years of low Congress and Pres. approval.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

Sen McCain? Sure. Candidate McCain? No. The current McCain is whatever he needs to be to win. His campaign has gone from talking about "clean" and "straight talk" to lying so badly even Karl friggin Rove called them out on it. He sold out his stance on nearly every major issue. Tax cuts, drilling, immigration, etc etc etc he's flipped and flopped to fit what the polls of the conservative base demanding. He was even pressured into picking a running mate that wasn't in his top too for political reasons.

Exactly. I used to be a McCain fan until he sold out to get the nomination. The old McCain would make me consider voting for him. The new McCain is a political sellout in order to get his nomination.

[TrumanB]

Sometimes it's a valid thing to do.

When the message is a "basic fact," attacking the messenger is a cheap tactic.

When the message is an "analysis" (like this one), attacking the messenger is perfectly appropriate.

I'm sure that if a guy from the DailyKos wrote an opinion piece about which candidate was more bipartisan using his own criteria as to what makes one bipartisan, TrumanB might have a bit to say about the source.

Well, actually, dissecting the MESSAGE seems to work best for me without even having to mention who the messenger is. Anyway, nice set of rules and guidelines you have there. You make them up yourself?

[Predicto]

Well, actually, dissecting the MESSAGE seems to work best for me without even having to mention who the messenger is. Anyway, nice set of rules and guidelines you have there. You make them up yourself?

I use the same guidelines that pretty much everyone else here uses, including you.

Anyhow, several of the posts before mine dissected the message. Why be repetitive?

[Baculus]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

ANALYSIS:

Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

more---

I think most of us would agree that McCain is definitely the most bi-partisan candidate. I think this is one reason why his campaign (and his past campaign) has been attractive to independents, too.

That being said, I think he has taken a step backwards with his recent efforts to appeal to more social conservatives within his party. But I suppose the Republican party had to appeal to its political base, lest face an uprising in its own ranks.

[Smoot Point Really]

Here's the problem. It's a skewed analysis.

Everyone is skewed...

[mjah]

Exactly. I used to be a McCain fan until he sold out to get the nomination. The old McCain would make me consider voting for him. The new McCain is a political sellout in order to get his nomination.

Precisely.

I would have strongly considered jumping for the 2000 version of John McCain. But this McCain 2008 product is full of bugs, crashes, poor customer service, and draconian user agreements.

So I switched to Barack 2008, which promises to be a far better product and service. Better to risk the potential of a false hope, than suffer the self-inflicted guarantee of no hope.

[Larry]

Sometimes it's a valid thing to do.

When the message is a "basic fact," attacking the messenger is a cheap tactic.

When the message is an "analysis" (like this one), attacking the messenger is perfectly appropriate.

I'm sure that if a guy from the DailyKos wrote an opinion piece about which candidate was more bipartisan using his own criteria as to what makes one bipartisan, TrumanB might have a bit to say about the source.

The discussion's been had before. Using ratings from groups like the NRA, the ACLU, and similar professional advocacy groups.

And while, yeah, the NRA says "McCain good, Obama bad", (gee, no foolin?), all of their scores (from both liberal and conservative advocacy groups) list McCain as closer to 50% than Obama was to 50%.

(And I checked, they all said that about Obama in '06, too. They didn't suddenly decide that Obama was a far left voter after he became the frontrunner.)

Yeah, I'm pretty convinced that Senator McCain has a long, documented history of forging alliances with his "enemies".

There's other possible explanations for the discrepancy, but I consider the evidence "close enough for government work".

[Predicto]

The discussion's been had before. Using ratings from groups like the NRA, the ACLU, and similar professional advocacy groups.

And while, yeah, the NRA says "McCain good, Obama bad", (gee, no foolin?), all of their scores (from both liberal and conservative advocacy groups) list McCain as closer to 50% than Obama was to 50%.

(And I checked, they all said that about Obama in '06, too. They didn't suddenly decide that Obama was a far left voter after he became the frontrunner.)

Yeah, I'm pretty convinced that Senator McCain has a long, documented history of forging alliances with his "enemies".

There's other possible explanations for the discrepancy, but I consider the evidence "close enough for government work".

Absolutely, McCain is closer to 50%.

That is only significant if you assume that voting should be 50% for each side, regardless of other factors. For eight years, the Bush Administration has shoved a pile of fecal matter onto the American people with the willing assistance of Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert and all the rest. To McCain's credit, he occasionally voted against this wave of :pooh: To his discredit, he supported the :pooh: more often than did Obama.

But the :pooh: was not 50% good and 50% bad.

[Larry]

Absolutely, McCain is closer to 50%.

That is only significant if you assume that voting should be 50% for each side, regardless of other factors. For eight years, the Bush Administration has shoved a pile of fecal matter onto the American people with the willing assistance of Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert and all the rest. To McCain's credit, he occasionally voted against this wave of :pooh: To his discredit, he supported the :pooh: more often than did Obama.

But the :pooh: was not 50% good and 50% bad.

Oh, if I were to use more clinical (and less inflammatory) language, the thought does occur to me that for the last several years, I wouldn't have a problem with an argument that:

Since the Democrats have been the minority, the legislation they've been proposing could well have tended to be more moderate than what they'd really like to propose, because they know that's the only way it would get passed.

Whereas, over the same period, it would seem logical that the "typical Republican legislation" would tend to contain more "poison pills" in it. Specifically for the purpose of making Democrats vote against it.

In short, I wouldn't be surprised if recently, the average piece of Republican legislation was written from the outset to be more extreme than the average piece of Democratic legislation.

OTOH, that's impossible to measure.