Why Not Victory?

I did a panel this afternoon with Marc, Ross, and David Brooks at which Brooks, Marc to some extent, and also Fred Malek (yes this Fred Malek) were sort of harping on the idea that Barack Obama doesn't really have a McCain-esque background of breaking with his party's leadership and cutting deals with those on the other side of the aisle. This is, as best I can tell, totally true -- Obama has worked with Republicans on various issues, but never done anything comparable to McCain's work on, say, the McCain-Feingold bill.

To which I more-or-less say: shrug.

A sign of the long era of political dominance is that to a lot of people, I think the idea of a progressive Democrat running and winning as a progressive Democrat and going on to govern as a progressive Democrat just doesn't really scan. If you're going to win, and you're going to be a Democrat, then you have to be a "different kind of Democrat." And Obama sort of isn't. He's not the most liberal Democrat in congress, but then again most Democrats (by definition) aren't on the party's leftward fringe. He's a pretty ordinary Democrat, but much more charismatic and much better at giving big speeches about why his ideas are awesome.

And while he might lose the election, I and everyone else think he'll probably win.

Comments

I did a panel this afternoon with Marc, Ross, and David Brooks at which Brooks, Marc to some extent, and also Fred Malek (yes this Fred Malek)

Did you let him mark you down as Jewish or Hispanic?

Posted by Gabriel | July 2, 2008 9:52 PM

Breaking with your party isn't a virtue in and of itself; it's only a virtue if your breaking with them is the correct decision in the particular instance.

Posted by Freddie | July 2, 2008 9:54 PM

Despite Senator McCain's history as someone that works across party lines, I would say that--thus far--in the general election McCain is as much of an average Republican as Obama is an average Democrat. Maybe more. With President Bush's approval rating, this would seem to help Senator Obama.

Posted by Compassionate Badger | July 2, 2008 9:57 PM

So is it supposed to be a bad thing that when Obama has worked with Republicans, the bills in question ultimately had bipartisan support?

Because I can understand Republicans wanting to know if Obama can work productively with Republicans. But it is a little much to ask that he also poke the Democrats in the eye at the same time.

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 9:58 PM

And did you say this on the panel instead of just letting Brooks babble on uninhibited?

Posted by JDinBalt | July 2, 2008 10:00 PM

Yeah, this idea that you're a Democrat and you have to be against Democratic principles? Nonsense. Obama is a Democrat because the party's principles and ideals and ideas are close to his own. You don't think the Repubs would love to have someone like him-- young and inspirational? Sure. But the Republican worldview and desires aren't his. Why is he somehow lesser because he's chosen the side that comports most closely to his POV?

No one expected Reagan to embrace Family Leave, after all.

It's more of that idea that "real Americans" are really conservative (or supporters of good things for rich people), when there isn't much evidence to support that.

Posted by shippy | July 2, 2008 10:06 PM

So is it supposed to be a bad thing that when Obama has worked with Republicans, the bills in question ultimately had bipartisan support?

Er, is it true that when Obama has worked with Republicans, the bills in question ultimately had bipartisan support? Always? Usually? Some of the time? And how much support, roughly, does a bill need to have from each party to qualify as "bipartisan?" Questions based on dubious and unclear factual premises aren't terribly interesting.

Posted by Mixner | July 2, 2008 10:07 PM

did you get to ask your fellow worthies how many of them worried about whether george bush was achieving bipartisan support?

Posted by howard | July 2, 2008 10:11 PM

Obama-Coburn (Google for Government) wasn't exactly popular with either party. It took a public whip count to reveal that Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd had secret holds on the bill. Then all the party hacks jumped on board out of shame but it took real leadership to shine a light on the sausage making in Congress.

In the IL state senate Obama was "... winning passage of what some in Springfield called “the driving-while-black bill,” which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor racial profiling. Law enforcement groups had repeatedly blocked earlier versions while the Republicans were in control; when the Democrats took over, Mr. Obama brokered a compromise between the police groups and the A.C.L.U.

Mr. Hendon, sponsor of a previous bill, said Mr. Obama had “made some compromises that other members of the black caucus just weren’t willing to bend on” — perhaps, he said, because Senator Obama had never been abused by the police. But he added, “I’m not saying he gave up too much. In hindsight, it was best to go ahead with the weaker version because a lot of police attitudes changed when we passed it.”" - NYT, 7/30/07

McCain-Lieberman bipartisanship might give David Brooks a woodie but does it actually accomplish anything worth a damn? Note: Nice panel full of fail.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 2, 2008 10:19 PM

Er, is it true that when Obama has worked with Republicans, the bills in question ultimately had bipartisan support? Always? Usually? Some of the time? And how much support, roughly, does a bill need to have from each party to qualify as "bipartisan?" Questions based on dubious and unclear factual premises aren't terribly interesting.

Obama-Lugar passed unanimously.

Obama-Coburn also passed unanimously.

Obama-Hagel passed unanimously.

I believe his Death Penalty Reform Bill that passed in the Illinois Senate also passed unanimously (or at least very nearly unanimously).

I'm not really sure why pissing a lot of people off is seen as so essential to bipartisan success. Isn't passing effective legislation with broad enthusiasm just as a good as sparking some loud and flashy fight with your own party that attracts a lot of media attention?

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2008 10:32 PM

I think a better reason for Obama not to have gone against most of the Democratic Party's legislative agenda in the 4 years he's been in the senate is that the Dem's positions have been solidly good positions, and there's not much in them for a sane person to rebel against and go over to the other side. The same isn't true of the Republicans, who have all kinds of crazy positions that any sane Republican, such as McCain, really has to abandon if they want to do credible good. It's simply Obama's good sense to be a Democrat at a time when the Democratic party is fairly free of crazies and nut jobs steering the party's agenda, whereas the Republicans have for quite some time now been at the mercy of all kinds of crazy people pushing crazy agendas that require a sane politician to break with his party on a regular basis. If Obama were a Republican, he'd be breaking with his party all the time too. If he were a Democrat in a different era, he'd be breaking with the Dems too. But of late, there's just not a lot in the Dem platform that requires anything like a serious break on policy issues. Except, of course, his break with the party in regards to opposing the original invasion of Iraq.

Posted by conradg | July 2, 2008 10:33 PM

Bobo is a reliable medium for wingnut memes, and they're clinging onto that one like squirrels with a nut.

It's more bullshit bipartisanism, where 'breaking with your party' means 'doing what George Bush and the GOP in Congress want'. Since most of the country hates George Bush and the Republicans, that's just fucking stupid.

The voting numbers show that the GOP Senate caucus is as whipped as the House caucus. Collins, Snowe, Specter, even Hagel? They pretty much always do what they're told.

So, if Bobo wants to criticise Obama for not being Mary Landrieu or Ben Nelson, he can go right ahead and we can laugh at him.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 2, 2008 10:43 PM

To steal from Charlie Pierce, Jeebus Christmas.

McCain now toes the line on EVERY GOP issue...and he is still the maverick. And Obama should have a pillow fight with his party, well, just cuz.

Matthew, these are the bad and/or lazy-stupid people.

No shrugging allowed. Bite their heads off for the next 4 months.

Posted by Andruw | July 2, 2008 10:43 PM

I don't think that bucking party lines is a good thing in and of itself. But isn't a big part of Obama's message that he wants to cross party lines? That he wants people to come together for change? McCain has a reputation as a maverick, his record confirms that, and voters can make their choice. But shouldn't the record and the rhetoric match?

Posted by Zac | July 2, 2008 11:08 PM

Yeah, I'd really rather not have a nominee who breaks with Democrats to side with Republican pieces of legislation, thanks.

Posted by Chris O. | July 2, 2008 11:09 PM

Fred Malek? "The" Fred Malek, Nixon's Jew counter?

You are now too much of a villager to tell that fucker to go fuck himself, aren't you Matt?

Posted by calipygian | July 2, 2008 11:10 PM

Fred Malek? "The" Fred Malek, Nixon's Jew counter?

You are now too much of a villager to tell that fucker to go fuck himself, aren't you Matt?

Posted by calipygian | July 2, 2008 11:10 PM

Any more? If Obama is willing to work with Republicans only on bills for which there is unanimous support, that isn't exactly persuasive evidence of a willingness to defy the Democratic leadership and cross party lines. If McCain is more willing than Obama to work outside his own party that's probably a political advantage in a general election, which is presumably Brooks's and Ambinder's point.

Posted by Mixner | July 2, 2008 11:13 PM

Zac,

Again, Obama HAS worked with Republicans on legislation. The complaint appears to be that when he has done so, other Democrats also supported the legislation in question. But that is precisely what it would mean to bring people together--Republicans and Democrats supporting the same bills. But apparently some people want to see examples of Republicans plus Obama but not other Democrats supporting a bill, and yet that wouldn't be bringing people together--that would just be Obama as an individual voting with a different party than his own.

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 11:14 PM

That Continetti guy was pushing this line on NPR a couple months ago, that Obama isn't a post-partisan politician because he isn't splitting the difference with Republicans.

Maybe Obama isn't post-partisan, but the frequency with which he agrees with the GOP isn't a remotely valid metric for that question.

Posted by kth | July 2, 2008 11:14 PM

McCain now toes the line on EVERY GOP issue...and he is still the maverick.

According to the Washington Post's Votes Database, McCain has voted with the majority of his GOP colleagues 88.3% of the time during the current congress. Obama has voted with the majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.5% of the time. But both have also missed a very large number of votes.

Posted by Mixner | July 2, 2008 11:21 PM

Maybe Obama isn't post-partisan, but the frequency with which he agrees with the GOP isn't a remotely valid metric for that question.

Really? Not even a remotely valid metric? What would be then?

And yes, all of you are missing the point. Of course you don't want Obama to break with his party. You're all good liberals. But one of Obama's big selling points is that he can heal the deep divide in America. His record indicates this is not the case.

Posted by Mark Adams | July 2, 2008 11:28 PM

Any more? If Obama is willing to work with Republicans only on bills for which there is unanimous support, that isn't exactly persuasive evidence of a willingness to defy the Democratic leadership and cross party lines. If McCain is more willing than Obama to work outside his own party that's probably a political advantage in a general election, which is presumably Brooks's and Ambinder's point.

But that's the point; working in a bipartisan fashion doesn't have to be synonymous with "defying" your own party, or defying anyone, really. Why does bipartisanship only count when you make everyone mad at you?

Obama should get credit for working with Republicans on effective legislation that gets a lot done and passes with broad support. Making people mad and attracting a lot of press isn't virtuous in and of itself.

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2008 11:30 PM

By the way, I think it is kinda obvious what is going on here.

Obama has a record of working well with Republicans, and that is obviously a problem for the GOP since that was supposed to be McCain's shtick. So they are trying to claim it isn't enough for Obama to work well with Republicans--he actually has to have a reputation for defying his fellow Democrats. In other words, bipartisanship isn't enough--Obama needs to have a reputation as a MAVERICK, just like dear old John McCain.

I highly doubt this is going to work, however. First, I don't see much evidence that people care about maverickiness, as opposed to bipartisanship. Which is logical, since there is no inherent virtue to having fewer supporters for a given bill.

Second, the bottomline is that the Democrats are overall much more popular than the Republicans right now. So even if you somehow convinced people that, say, Obama was 95% Democrat and McCain was only 85% Republican, that still leaves McCain 85% Republican, which is a bad place to be this cycle.

But they don't have a lot of cards to play, so I don't blame them for trying.

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 11:39 PM

How much time did FDR spend working with the Republicans? How about LBJ?

My quick answer to Brooks and the intrepid Jew Hunter -- fuck you.

Posted by Sir Charles | July 2, 2008 11:43 PM

Mark Adams,

Again, wouldn't "heal[ing] the deep divide in America" imply Republicans and Democrats working together, as opposed to Obama working with Republicans but not Democrats?

Posted by DTM | July 2, 2008 11:44 PM

But one of Obama's big selling points is that he can heal the deep divide in America. His record indicates this is not the case.

What does one's partisan voting index have to do with America's "deep divide"? Are Ben Nelson and Olympia Snow really the chief divide healers of American politics?

Obama will do more to "heal the divide" by giving big lofty speeches touting all that feel-good stuff about there being more that unites us than divides us than he ever will by bucking his party leadership on appropriations votes.

Posted by Dave | July 2, 2008 11:46 PM

I'm not sure why the point is so hard for DTM and Dave to understand. Most voters probably don't think the leadership, or the majority, of either party's congressmen is right all of the time. A candidate who is sometimes willing to defy his party's leadership and majority probably has an advantage in a general election over a candidate who is rarely or never willing to do that. An advantage with voters in general, that is. Not an advantage with rabid partisans of his own party.

Posted by Mixner | July 2, 2008 11:52 PM

I am so tired of listening to these bloviating sacks of sh*t make up nonsensical reasons why voters should support McCain or any GOP candidate.
These doofi need to be jailed for assaulting the public's ears and brains with their mountains of crap.
Brooks & Co should be wary, especially now that DC residents can have handguns - taking one of the bobbleheads out would be considered self defense.

Posted by CParis | July 2, 2008 11:55 PM

Umm...he did oppose the Iraq War while he was running for Senate. That went against both parties.

Of course, it wasn't a legislative victory, but it was a moral one. What's the point of this line of inquiry? Is this about political courage or political correctness? About risk or about playing well with others? Either way, with his Iraq War position, he's got courage. With his bi-partisan bills, he's got correctness.

Posted by slag | July 3, 2008 12:02 AM

Mixner,

Unless you can point to a specific legislative issue that Obama ought to break with the Dems on, and join the Republicans, it just makes no sense to suggest in principle that he should do so anyway, just to make himself look good in some people's eyes. The fact is, the Republicans have all kinds of crazy ideas about things that McCain and others in his party ought to break with, but the same simply isn't true of the Dems right now, which is why they are a lot more popular. If you have any real issues to suggest, fine, but mere generalizations mean nothing.

Posted by conradg | July 3, 2008 12:02 AM

Mixner,

I understand you perfectly. That is why I am not bothering responding--you aren't saying anything worth responding to.

Posted by DTM | July 3, 2008 12:03 AM

I'm not sure why the point is so hard for DTM and Dave to understand. Most voters probably don't think the leadership, or the majority, of either party's congressmen is right all of the time. A candidate who is sometimes willing to defy his party's leadership and majority probably has an advantage in a general election over a candidate who is rarely or never willing to do that. An advantage with voters in general, that is. Not an advantage with rabid partisans of his own party.

Most voters don't care or are even aware of 99.9% of the bills these guys vote on, so taking a look at some partisan voting index on the Washington Post website has nothing to do with which candidate will look good to voters in general.

McCain's whole brand as a maverick is based on a small handful of press-baiting skirmishes, from McCain-Feingold (now, thankfully, getting picked to pieces by the court system), to the Bush tax cuts (which he's since backtracked on), to immigration reform (which is dead).

Voters in general like people that do things they like or support, things that make them feel safer or make them feel like we're moving in the right direction. At this point, Democrats hold a big advantage on those "things voters like" so I don't think Obama being more Democrat than McCain is Republican is that much of a disadvantage.

Speaking non-horse race, and as someone who does care about these votes, I actually admire Obama's bipartisan work a lot more than McCain's, as Obama has been able to work in an effective, incremental fashion on issues of grand importance (weapons non-proliferation, spending reform, etc.) in a way that gets a lot more done without pissing people off than McCain's big issue grandstanding has ever done.

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 12:04 AM

The Republican Party is an imperialist, delusional, spendthrift party driving this country into the ground.

Breaking with that party makes sense. It's easy to do occasionally.

Breaking from Democrats to stand alone with Republicans in the past decade makes no sense. The segregationsts went Republican after the Civil Rights Acts and gave the Republicans decades of power, culminating in this decade of arrogant, thieving, belligerent abuse.

Posted by putnam | July 3, 2008 12:09 AM

conradg,

I said a willingness to cross party lines is probably a political advantage. You may believe that the position of the congressional Democratic leadership or majority was the right position on every single vote, but voters in general are not likely to share that view. Even Obama himself doesn't seem to share it, given that he has sometimes voted against the majority of his Democratic colleagues (though less often than McCain has voted against the GOP majority).

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 12:16 AM

I said a willingness to cross party lines is probably a political advantage. You may believe that the position of the congressional Democratic leadership or majority was the right position on every single vote, but voters in general are not likely to share that view. Even Obama himself doesn't seem to share it, given that he has sometimes voted against the majority of his Democratic colleagues (though less often than McCain has voted against the GOP majority).

It matters which votes we're talking about. You get a much bigger advantage supporting the things voters like than you do defying your own party just for the hell of it.

If Obama defied the Democrats by calling for a 100 year troop presence in Iraq, a large scale invasion of Iran and a resurrection of the draft, the ground he'd someone gain by defying his party would be crushed by the ground he'd lose by supporting wildly unpopular policy.

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 12:22 AM

Prof. Keith Poole runs an idealogy free analysis of Senate votes (he doesn't look at the content of the bill, just who votes with who) and maps the similarity of individual Senators relative to each other on a two dimensional liberal-conservative axis. Under Poole's measure (which I trust more than David Brooks and and his anecdotal bolognameter) McCain is a hard right partisan Republican and far more extreme than Obama on a relative basis.

Here are the scores using Poole's Optimal Classification system.

110th Congress
McCain - 8th most conservative - most similar to John Cornyn & Wayne Allard
Obama - 11th most liberal - most similar to Joe Biden & Bob Menendez

109th Congress
McCain - 2nd most conservative - most similar to Jon Kyl & John Sununu
Obama - 21st most liberal - most similar to Bob Menendez & Barbara Mikulski

108th Congress
McCain - 4th most conservative - most similar to John Ensign & Jeff Sessions
Obama - [in IL state senate]

107th Congress
McCain - 46th most conservative - most similar to Gordon Smith & Susan Collins

So McCain gets his ass handed to him by George W. Bush in the '00 GOP primaries and in a fit of pique flirts with the Democratic Party (see Tom Daschle's account) and champions campaign finance reform. Post-9/11 he realizes he's swept up in the "transcendental" battle of our time and reverts back to being the hard right Republican he's always been. In '08, he openly ignores the ruling of the GOP-appointed head of the FEC in order to benefit his own campaign. Yet the residual effect of his "maverick" behavior (more like pouting - see Lieberman, Joseph) from almost a decade ago still gives David "Salad Bar" Brooks a case of the vapors.

I love the smell of freshly baked ideas in Aspen....smells like....dysentery.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 3, 2008 12:31 AM

Matt:

DTM is on to something. The reason behind the sudden "the only initiatives that count are the ones that were hated by the candidate's party" is that Republicans and their toadies in the press want to strengthen the whole "maverick" narrative and distance McCain from the rest of the GOP (which most people are souring on these days).

They want everyone to adopt a yardstick that will make their guy look better. The right answer to this is "that's a stupid yardstick!"

The test should be whether a candidate can reach beyond the base, appeal to the center, and work with moderates in the other party; not simply whether he or she can piss off the base on a couple hot button issues.

McCain has built a career on preening for the press while doing the latter, and it's about time that someone called Broder and the rest of them on it with more than just a shrug.

Posted by Sean | July 3, 2008 12:57 AM

Mixner is also committing a logical fallacy, btw. Just because a bill ends with unanimous support doesn't mean it began with unanimous support, and certainly doesn't mean that the bill didn't originally anger party leadership of either/both parties.

In fact, the unanimous votes could be (and, in some cases are) evidence of Obama's skills as a legislator at generating broad bipartisan support for bills that were originally fought against by one/both parties

This is actually the case in the Obama-Coburn bill and his state-level death penalty reform (which, btw, has become the model for multiple other states since).

Kevin Drum had a great post on this awhile back, I'm gonna try to dig it up

Posted by Michael | July 3, 2008 12:59 AM

We can't have McCain win when Bush's and McCain's poll ratings are so low. It's just not realistic. If the Republicans want to do something to tear the country apart, the best thing they can do is rig the election to get McCain a victory. It would make people hate their party forever.

Posted by Swan | July 3, 2008 12:59 AM

Found that Drum post. Drum echoes Mixner's fallacious logic, and is corrected.
=====================

CAJOLERY....Washington Monthly founder Charlie Peters, responding to people (like me) who are afraid that Barack Obama's "let's all work together" MO won't be sufficient to actually bring about the change he so often talks about, says we should look at Obama's record in the Illinois legislature:

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused....The bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

....He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery....The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent, [but] by showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

This is a fair point. And yet....can I say that I'm still a little skeptical? First, any bill that eventually passes 35-0 can't possibly have had that much in the way of stone-cold opposition. Obviously Obama did a good job of working with both Republicans and law enforcement interests in Illinois, but at the national level congressional Republicans have shown themselves remarkably immune to Obama-ish cajolery when it comes their key issues. I continue to have my doubts that a charm campaign will get the job done against the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They know all too well who signs their paychecks.

But lest I protest too much, Charlie does make a good point. Springfield isn't Washington DC, but it's not the Peoria city council either, and although Obama may not have been a game changer in Illinois, he was an effective legislator who got some important things done. Win big in November and maybe he'll be able to cajole half a dozen of those famous moderate Republicans in the Senate to actually do something moderate.

UPDATE: Via email, Archpundit expands on something he said in the comment thread:

It was fought tooth and nail Kevin. The cops and prosecutors were adamantly against it for some time including the Democratic Cook County Prosecutor.

I swore reform was dead after the commutations, Obama pulled it off. It was an incredible sight.

The end result was truly amazing. The police groups hated the idea and they hated racial profiling legislation — he passed both without angering them, but by working with them, listening, and showing good faith. I never thought it would pass with

I know sometimes the claims sound too good to be true, but he is truly an amazingly talented politician with the right values. I like the other candidates, but every time I've seen him underestimated, he pulls out a victory whether it be electoral or policy.

linky link

Posted by Michael | July 3, 2008 1:07 AM

Michael,

Mixner is also committing a logical fallacy, btw. Just because a bill ends with unanimous support doesn't mean it began with unanimous support, and certainly doesn't mean that the bill didn't originally anger party leadership of either/both parties.

I didn't say it did. If you have evidence that Obama is more willing to defy his party's leadership and majority than McCain is, you are welcome to present it. Their voting records, at least in the current congress, certainly don't seem to support that.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 1:08 AM

Let's also not forget that although McCain may have helped pass some campaign finance reform laws, he is also now in the process of breaking several campaign finance laws.

What a maverick!

Posted by Sean | July 3, 2008 1:13 AM

If you have evidence that Obama is more willing to defy his party's leadership and majority than McCain is, you are welcome to present it. Their voting records, at least in the current congress, certainly don't seem to support that.

You keep coming back to this but this is still missing the point. Bipartisanship is not the same thing as defying your party, and defying your party is only going to give you a big advantage with voters if the defying comes in service of a policy the voters support.

Here's a good example:

McCain's maverick image is just as tied up with his reputation as a "straight talker" as it is with his flashy party defying. Yet that "straight talk" can also cost him some votes.

McCain has many times over the years and said openly that he doesn't know much about the economy (something that appears to be pretty true). I will definitely give him props for being so candid, but at the end of the day...I want to vote for someone know a lot about the economy.

Straight talk and party defying votes only get you so far. It doesn't matter if Obama is somehow less willing to "defy his party leadership" if the positions his party leadership is taking are very popular.

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 1:19 AM

Dave,

Yes, bipartisanship is more than just a willingness to defy your own party. But no one has shown that Obama is more "bipartisan" than McCain in any meaningful sense.

There's no evidence, just endless repetitions of the assertion that McCain's reputation as a maverick and straight-talker is a sham and that the voters will see this, and yadda, yadda, yadda. If McCain were remotely as conservative and conformist as the Obamabots here are pretending, he wouldn't be so unpopular among the conservative wings of the GOP.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 1:37 AM

I wasn't really trying to argue over who was more bipartisan, just that it's stupid to think Obama is somehow explicitly not bipartisan just because he's never worked with a Republican on legislation that pissed off a lot of people in his own party. I gave you plenty of evidence of strong legislation in which Obama worked in a bipartisan fashion on stuff that passed with broad support, bipartisan work I think is much more effective than anything in McCain's record.

Plus, there's no evidence behind the assertion that bucking your party for the sake of bucking your party is a way to gain some sort of huge electoral advantage. Just because he's pissed off Rush Limbaugh a whole bunch of times doesn't make him some sort of 20th century Daniel Webster; the party defying needs to be in service of effective policy if it's going to be worth commending, and it's gotta come in service of popular policy if you're looking for some sort of political advantage.

A "willingness to work outside your party" isn't commendable in and of itself, nor is it alone enough to build a popular electoral majority around come November.

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 1:56 AM

During your panel discussions Matt did you notice a box of raisins missing? Because if you did I would look at Marc's direction.

Posted by Roger | July 3, 2008 2:01 AM

McCain's been there a long time, has had more opportunity.

But I think the crux of the matter is, on an issue by issue basis, the Dem positions are just WAY more popular than the GOP ones.

McCain crossed party lines on issues with broad popular support.

Posted by mike | July 3, 2008 3:18 AM

Matt: "I and everyone else think he'll probably win."

Who is this "everyone else", paleface?

I don't know that he'll win. He very well might given the lameness of the scumbag he's running against. But I can hypothesize circumstances - even without an Iran war - where McCain can win.

The election is still four months off. Once we get down to maybe two to four weeks, and Obama's still running a ten point lead over McCain, then maybe you can say "everything thinks he'll probably win' - as long as Bush doesn't start a war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 3, 2008 4:09 AM

Mixner,

Then just tell me which issues Obama should have crossed party lines on, which issues most Americans would have supported him in doing so, if you think people disagree with the Democrats so strongly on a variety of issues. The idea that there's something inherently good about crossing party lines only makes sense when there's an issue worth doing so over. If you can't name one, then it couldn't really be all that important to cross lines over. The idea that people in general care about "crossing lines" is just malarkey. Only the press cares about that stuff. People care about actual issues that ought to be supported by people on both sides of the aisle, but which don't get that support because of partisanship. So which are the issues where Obama should have crossed lines to get the people's work done, but didn't because he was being too loyal to the Democrats?

Posted by conradg | July 3, 2008 5:40 AM

Dave and conradg,

Good luck getting Mixner to understand the points you are making. He has no interest in trying to understand how the American people actually feel about any given issue, and how McCain and Obama actually stack up on the issues, so he isn't going to address your points.

Rather his argument is entirely abstract, and is something like that since in theory it is unlikely that a 100% with-majority-Democrats or 100% with-majority-Republicans voting record is going to be the most popular possible voting record, McCain has a political advantage because he votes with his party slightly less often than Obama does. Of course that is not a valid conclusion from the premise, and indeed is basically equivalent to arguing that because the geographic center of the lower 48 states is in neither Wichita nor San Diego, a person 200 miles from San Diego is closer to the geographic center than a person 100 miles from Wichita.

In short, Mixner really hasn't said anything worth bothering with, and is unlikely to ever come up with a significant reply to your points. So, my casual advice is to let your perfectly sensible points stand.

Posted by DTM | July 3, 2008 7:43 AM

" If you have evidence that Obama is more willing to defy his party's leadership and majority than McCain is, you are welcome to present it. Their voting records, at least in the current congress, certainly don't seem to support that."-Posted by Mixner

I don't think it can be ascertained which candidate is more likely to defy their party's leadership. McCain has done it more, but he had the advantage of belonging to a party that was wrong much more often.

I also think it is unimportant.

As long as there is some willingness to defy party leadership, that's all that is necessary. Simply running against Hillary Clinton is all the proof I need of Obama's willingness to defy powerful party interests.

Besides, once elected president, you ARE the party leadership. It is other people who defy you.

Posted by Njorl | July 3, 2008 9:07 AM

I'd echo the point that some of the other commenters made: the "who has defied their own party more" is a stupid test whose sole purpose is to be a test that only McCain can pass. So if you hear a reasonably intelligent pundit raising this as an issue, that's good evidence the pundit is in the tank for McCain.

The Republican President has a 23% approval rating and the leaders of the Republican Congress openly concede that they're going to get their ass handed to them in congressional races this November. In short, the Republicans are historically UNPOPULAR. Under these circumstances, why would the elecotrate consider it a virtue for Obama to have defied his party to stand with the party that is historically despised? This is dumb, dumb, dumb.

Posted by Led | July 3, 2008 9:52 AM

I meant to say Republican leaders in Congress, not leaders of the Republican Congress. It's not, of course, a Republican Congress.

Posted by Led | July 3, 2008 9:56 AM

Amen!

Wasn't this the same thing Hillary's fanboys and girls kept saying about her? That she had reached across the aisle and shown real courage in the face of partisanship?

Whatever, man.

90s style "bi-partisanship" turned out to be either capitulation or co-opting to the other guys, not actually adhering to your Democratic principles. If we are supposed to be proud of someone, Republican or Democrat, who in the early part of this decade decided it was more ballsy to work with the Bush Administration than actually stand up and say "Hey I don't agree with this stuff and neither do a lot of people!" then I don't really get politics.

The point isn't that Obama is transcending political party lines -- I think it's more important to consider how he has inspired people who would otherwise not have been involved in the process. That will, in the end, make more of a difference than whether there was ever an Obama-Vitter bill about smiling babies and campaign finance reform.

Posted by CHoward | July 3, 2008 10:03 AM

Breaking with your party to bring about a piece of legislation should only count if don't later renounce the legislation.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2008 10:04 AM

Some great comments in this thread.

When the giantkiller Obama came out of nowhwere, beat the Hillary juggernaut and won Iowa, he did a Jedi Mind Trick on David Brooks ("these aren't the droids you're looking for") and convinced Brooks he'd be the new kind of philospher-king Brooks has been pining for.

The Brooks snapped out of it when he realized McCain was going to win the Republican nomination. I don't know why but Brooks columns always cheer me up and make me laugh. Especially when he tosses in a cultural references like Vampire Weekend or whatever.

Posted by Peter K. | July 3, 2008 10:50 AM

I hear all the time how McCain crosses the aisle to work with the other side, but how many bills has he passed in his entire career where he worked with Dems to get it passed? If only 2% of all the bills he's put his name to are considered bi-partisan than that's not very much. It's just I hear this all the yet I never ever hear any facts or figures on it.

Posted by Fred F. | July 3, 2008 11:13 AM

I and everyone else think he'll probably win.

Y'all are missing the most important part of this post (unless I missed someone else's comment upthread): Matt just did what we've all been begging him not to do and predicted election victory for Obama. Now, Matt knows he's a super-ultra-double-whammy-jinx, so I can only assume he's trying to throw the election to McCain.

Expect more of the same as the summer wears on.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 3, 2008 11:14 AM

Why is offending your party to reach across the aisle a good thing? I don't see that it's been very helpful to McCain who now has to tack right to get his base's support, thereby looking like a hypocrite and weak. I've never had the sense that reaching across the aisle means betraying your party. I always thought Obama meant he can work together with people on the other side without offending them and use his winning ways to reach compromise or concession, just as Michael above shows that Obama has in fact done. That's always always been my sense of what Obama meant. I always thought he meant that he could persuade dissenters to his point of view. Why would you want to go against your beliefs and offend your party? That makes no sense to me, and those people who thought Obama meant that strike me as foolish. Why would you want that? Would you trust somebody who did that? Somebody who broke with his party positions just to make himself popular with the other side?

McCain has been popular with those on the left and center because he defies his party,but that very same quality has made him unpopular with his party base, and is the reason why his support is so unenthusiastic now. To his potential peril.

And Peter K., don't underestimate Obama's ability to continue with those Jedi mindtricks. McCain is the best giant the Republicans have to go against Obama, but having felled the last giant only makes Obama stronger. He's very good at looking like he's weaker than he is and using it as a feint to his advantage. Brooks makes me laugh too, but mainly at his earnest silliness. I see him and a whole slew of pundits (and politicians) as being stuck in a twentieth century mindset that leaves them kinda blinking their eyes in the headlights every time Obama surprises them with his twenty first century weapons and Jedi serenity.

Posted by cnnr | July 3, 2008 11:17 AM

It seem really simple to me. There are four ways to be bipartisan. All four of them would be admirable in the world David Broder thinks exists, where the two parties are more or less equals in the soundness and responsibility of their thinking.

But in the real world where there is one party that has more or less the right idea about most things another party whose entire agenda is built on lies, bad faith and the economic interests of the corporate elite, there are only two good ways to go about it.

Here are the four approaches:

I -- You independently decide what you think is best for the country and support that position whichever side is advocating it. In Broderland, this will have you be some kind of saintly Nunnian moderate. In the real world, a person of sound values and keen insight will be with the Democrats (or at least against the Republicans) every time.

II -- The McCain approach where you strongly favor your own party, but selectively pick a few high profile issues where you side with the other team. As we've seen, there's some political gain to be had here, particularly if the issues where you bolt the ranks are ones where your party is disasterously wrong on both substance and politics. But it's hard to see how this is particularly admirable if breaking ranks with your party would entail supporting wrong-headed policies, as it surely would were Obama to pursue it.

III -- The Obama approach evidenced in Illinois, where you do the hard work of bringing the other side over to yours by listening, cajoling, and occaisionally horse-trading. I'm skeptical that a President Obama could do this legislatively, because the Congressional GOP are just such a bunch of deeply entrenches scumbuckets that it could be a hopeless project. But if he can use these skills on the general public, he could really change the political dynamics of this country for a long time to come.

IV -- The approach of the Obama/Colburn bill, where you look at issues where bad bipartisanship has created structural problem, and you find a kindered spirit on the other side to help you challenge it on a purely process basis. If one was being fair, he could argue that McCain/Feingold is another example of this, too. But I don't feel like being fair today, so fuck it.

My point is this -- when Obama talks about being post-partisan and breaking down walls, he's not talking about finding the sweet spot in the middle. He's talking about persuading conservatives to support liberal causes, even if he wouldn't ever say so explicitly. The Brookes and Broders of the world will never get that. But they don't need to.

Posted by Potomac Guy | July 3, 2008 12:32 PM

Did the air have a tint of sulphur near Malek?

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | July 3, 2008 2:56 PM

conradg,

Then just tell me which issues Obama should have crossed party lines on, which issues most Americans would have supported him in doing so, if you think people disagree with the Democrats so strongly on a variety of issues. The idea that there's something inherently good about crossing party lines only makes sense when there's an issue worth doing so over. If you can't name one, then it couldn't really be all that important to cross lines over.

It's not about any particular vote. The issue is the willingness of a candidate to make, and act upon, his own independent judgment rather than just toe the line of his own party majority or leadership. Again, if you think the majority Democratic position has been and always will be the correct position, and that Obama therefore never has had and never will have any reason to vote against that majority, fine. But voters in general--including probably most Democrats--aren't likely to see it that way.

The idea that people in general care about "crossing lines" is just malarkey. Only the press cares about that stuff.

Right. That must be why McCain plays up his reputation as a maverick and independent so much, and why Democrats spend so much time and effort trying to debunk that reputation.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 5:11 PM

Mixner --

What you don't seem to get is that party independence alone isn't going to win any elections, unless that independence comes in support of policy voters like.

If the extent to which a candidate valued their own independent judgement above party loyalty was the highest standard by which people cast their votes, we'd right now be watching a general election match-up between Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.

Obviously we're not seeing anything like that right now, and that's because the things those two quite free spiritedly supported were totally freaking crazy.

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 6:48 PM

What you don't seem to get is that party independence alone isn't going to win any elections

Strawman. I never said or suggested that party independence alone is going to win any elections. I said that being more willing to go against your own party is probably a political advantage in a general election. That obviously doesn't mean it would be enough of an advantage to win the election (although it might be).

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 7:23 PM

Ok, I'll revise:

What you don't seem to get is that party independence alone isn't going to give you any sort of political advantage, unless that independence comes in support of policy voters like.

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 9:40 PM

What you don't seem to get is that party independence alone isn't going to give you any sort of political advantage, unless that independence comes in support of policy voters like.

I don't think that's true, either. I doubt that most people who think more highly of McCain on account of his reputation as a maverick could name a single vote where he has defied his party's leadership or majority. They just know that he has a record of doing that, and of speaking out against important elements of the GOP base when he thinks they're wrong, like the religious right and the Limbaugh crowd, and they conclude that McCain is not afraid to do and say what he thinks is right. Obama just doesn't have that same reputation for independent thought and action. And Democrats know that this is an advantage for McCain, which is why they spend so much time trying to persuade people that McCain's reputation as a maverick is a sham and that he's just a more-or-less conventional conservative Republican.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 9:56 PM

Democrats are trying to demonstrate that McCain is a "more-or-less conventional conservative Republican" not because they're afraid his awesome persona is going to carry him to victory, but because conservative Republican positions are incredibly unpopular right now and they want to tie McCain to those unpopular positions.

It's going to be tough for McCain to center a general election campaign around vague personality characteristics when too many of his positions on big issues are just very unpopular. Obama's electoral advantage isn't just because he's a hip guy who gives a great speech, it's because he's a hip guy who gives a great speech and who is proposing policies that are very popular.

To go back to the previous example: I admired McCain's candor when he admitted to not knowing very much about the economy, that was some definite straight talk. But at the end of the day, I want to vote for someone who knows a lot about the economy, so, despite the props for the candor, McCain's not getting my vote.

In the same way, people aren't going to vote for McCain just because they're confident he's "not afraid to do or say what he thinks is right" when what he thinks is right is very very unpopular right now. At the same time, Obama may not have the same reputation for "independent thought and action"*, but he does have a reputation for supporting those policies voters like, and that's why he has a leg up in this election.

*(I actually disagree with this statement, just look at polling that shows fewer people think Obama has changed his mind for political reasons than McCain).

Posted by Dave | July 3, 2008 10:21 PM

Democrats are trying to demonstrate that McCain is a "more-or-less conventional conservative Republican" not because they're afraid his awesome persona is going to carry him to victory, but because conservative Republican positions are incredibly unpopular right now and they want to tie McCain to those unpopular positions.

Democrats are specifically attacking McCain's reputation as a maverick, an independent, a "straight-talker," because they understand that voters tend to like those qualities in a presidential candidate. I don't know why you can't see this.

It's going to be tough for McCain to center a general election campaign around vague personality characteristics when too many of his positions on big issues are just very unpopular.

I haven't seen anyone suggest he should center his campaign around vague personality traits. Another strawman.

Obama's electoral advantage isn't just because he's a hip guy who gives a great speech, it's because he's a hip guy who gives a great speech and who is proposing policies that are very popular.

As this recent post indicates, Obama is, at best, only moderately more popular on the issues than McCain. Obama tends to win on things like healthcare and energy. McCain on things like values and terrorism.

To go back to the previous example: I admired McCain's candor when he admitted to not knowing very much about the economy, that was some definite straight talk. But at the end of the day, I want to vote for someone who knows a lot about the economy, so, despite the props for the candor, McCain's not getting my vote.

I didn't think he was. However, given that you are only one of hundreds of millions of voters, that isn't terribly relevant.

In the same way, people aren't going to vote for McCain just because they're confident he's "not afraid to do or say what he thinks is right" when what he thinks is right is very very unpopular right now.

Right. Not "just because" of that. Why do you keep responding to statements I have never made? I never suggested that people are going to vote for McCain "just because" of his reputation as a maverick/independent. I said it's an advantage.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 10:48 PM