Home › National
Paulson: Voters need to understand candidates' positions
Now it's time for clarity
Download this story as a podcast!
ELECTIONS '08
Check out our one stop for all the information and news you need to be ready for to cast your vote.
Election Central »
Elections stories »
STORY TOOLS 
More from NationalBarack Obama appears now to have earned enough delegates to ensure his eventual selection as the November standard bearer for the Democrats.
Obama has harnessed his rhetorical abilities and populist message to position himself as a new kind of politician. He's selling himself as an inspirational uniter who promises to take our country beyond the partisan bickering that dominates Washington. In short, his election will help transcend partisanship and race and change everything that is wrong with the United States.
In spite of this compelling vision of a united America, Obama has exhibited very little bipartisanship during his short time in the national spotlight. He supports traditional left-leaning causes: repealing high-income tax cuts and increasing government spending. The National Journal scored Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007. He's been endorsed by some of the most liberal and partisan forces in the Democratic Party, including MoveOn.org. Claiming to be a uniter is one thing; living it is another.
Lest we forget, President Bush also came to Washington promising to be "a uniter, not a divider." As governor of Texas with a Democratic-controlled legislature, he reached across partisan lines to achieve important things for the state. Bush had a proven track record as a uniter, and there was every hope that he could do in Washington what he did in Texas. It was not to be!
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" has exploded onto the political scene. McClellan disclosed his motive for writing the book: "Like many Americans, I am concerned about the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. I wanted to take readers inside the White House and provide them an open and honest look at how things went off course and what can be learned from it.
"Hopefully, in some small way, it will contribute to changing Washington for the better and move us beyond the hyperpartisan environment that has permeated Washington over the past 15 years."
Predictably, his book has already added to that hyperpartisan environment. Republicans have questioned McClellan's motives, credibility and naiveté. Liberal Democrats and "Bush haters" are using his book to fuel further attacks.
McClellan continues to express "personal affection for the president," but he failed to be a "uniter, not a divider." In a Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, McClellan confessed: "This is about an idealistic young guy who goes to work for him (Bush), hoping we can change the partisanship, and then we go way off course. The whole thing about the book is that there are a lot of good people on both sides. We've got to get rid of the venom and the hatred on both sides and find out how we can come together."
The only times Americans have a history of uniting is to fight a common foreign enemy. Our country is built on a messy and often contentious freedom — the freedom of speech. For more than two centuries, we have guarded and even celebrated our freedom to disagree. America's Op-Ed pages are not for the fainthearted.
They remain a battleground where ideas and causes have been tested by the fire of public discourse. We may not like what is expressed, but we protect the right to express even controversial positions.
Don't expect the poisonous atmosphere in Washington to change anytime soon. In most states, we've created a gerrymander nightmare where some senators and most congressional leaders face "safe" elections. You don't win in safe districts or safe states by running to the middle as a uniter — you provide "red meat" to the faithful.
Only in presidential and closely contested campaigns does it pay to attract votes from the middle. In primaries, most presidential candidates run to their base. They run to the middle to attract critical independents as they sprint to November.
As voters, resist empty calls for "unity." Demand more clarity from our candidates. Where do they stand on important issues? What is their vision for the future of our country? Between now and November, make every effort to clarify the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain that will determine your vote.
As to the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, let's leave it in Washington. Have passion for your candidates and principles, but let's agree to disagree without being quite so disagreeable.
— Terry Paulson of Agoura Hills is a psychologist, speaker, author and host to the politicaltalk.org blog. E-mail him at terry@terrypaulson.com.
Posted by laura_54321 on June 9, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Let's agree to disagree without being quite so diagreeable."
Ok, then, could you agree to writing honestly? Could you agree not to smear my candidate unneccesarily?
You write that "Obama has exhibited very little bipartisanship during his short time in the national spotlight." Yet this is the man who worked with Senator Lugar to compose and pass very important legislation to address loose nukes. And that is just one example of his non-partisan work in the senate to address national needs.
In Illinois, working with the police departments, he convinced them to support legislation they had strongly opposed- to videotape the interogation of suspects- and was able to overwhelmingly pass the needed legislation, which worked to the benefit of police departments.
He has managed, in his campaign, to avoid the sliming via talking point that has been SOP for the last several cycles.
I can't wait for the general election debates. I agree that voters need to understand the candidates' positions, and I look forward to Obama laying his out over and over again.
because he will win.
Posted by shaver_one on June 9, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lest we not forget John "100 Years" McCain, who voted as a Bushie 95% of the time.
McSame favors continuation of the Bush tax breaks for the rich. McCentury favors continuation of Bush's War of Occupation in Iraq. McClone favors Bush's plan to attack Iran.
America cannot afford another four more years of George W. Bush in the guise of John "100 Years" McCain.
Posted by Jacksprat on June 9, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can he be a uniter when just look at the comments to this story, there is not indication of a unite. Nasty comments about both candidates. How can any one unite these people. Most of us at this point have made up our minds.
Bill Clinton, was not a uniter, but he knew how to work with both sides of Congress and get things done. No one liked him for that they called him names. But do you really think that a young man can come into Washington, with little experience and unite both sides. If you do how about buying a bridge I have for sale. Go back through the history of this country, and read about the way both parties have been at each other. Like the story say except for time like the WWII did they come together but not completely.
So don't look to big change in Obama were to get elected. He will have more trouble getting things done than Carter did.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 9, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting points a lot of people do not consider.
Bush come to D.C. as a "unifier", yet his views were to the right of the herd.
Now Obama is coming as a "unifier", yet his view are to the far left of the herd.
Obama speaks well, but his idealogy (ie - voting record) shouts leftist liberal, much like Bush's shouting right wing cowboy.
McCain is the only candidate running who has pissed off both the Dems and the Republicans. I find the fact that he has pissed off and pissed on both parties polarities intriguing.
Maybe Washington does need a Maverick. With a Libertarian candidate taking the White House unlikely, maybe McCain is the next best option.
Posted by lthrnek on June 9, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A sensible comment Veritas. . .
I was going to suggest that both sides of this issue look to and follow the money, where it's coming from and where it goes. . .
Our political system is broken and approaching "beyond repair." I won't yet suggest that maybe a good old South American type military coup might be the answer but. . . I'm getting close. ..
Posted by del on June 9, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We, by law, have a revolution every 4 years. It is too bad not enough people, using what brains they have been giving, participate. So we have government that has been chosen by a few mindless sheep.
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 9, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
del, your are both correct and totally wrong. We do have the opportunity to elect someone new every four years. But we are only able to elect someone with enough money to get there name out. Look at Mike Huckabee. Politics aside, his biggest weakness was lack of finances and he still spent almost 10 million on his campaign. Obama raised more money than all the rest. He has spent well over 100 million on his campaign. Whatever anyone would like to say about Obama and McCain they are both establishment candidates. We could have everyone in the country vote and we would still have one of these two. We have been lulled into believing that "change" will somehow come from the government. Real change is up to the individual on an individual basis. If you want to improve your life, get out there and improve it. The government has done very little to improve anyone's life in my lifetime. It just wasn't designed to do so.
Del, it also sounds like you believe that people that don't vote are lazy and those that do are mindless sheep? Which of those two categories do fall under?
Posted by mtlmolina on June 12, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting that Mr. Paulson talks about Obama and Bush but doesn't even mention McCain. Could it be that he would have to admit that McCain indeed possesses the record of working with the other side nationally to "get things done" even in the face of criticism from his own party?
If people were really interested in bi-partisan reform, they would take off their blinders and look solely at the past records. Do you really want to work together or do you want to try to force your will upon the entire country regardless of the other side's beliefs?
Trust me, McCain was not my first choice but I'm sick of politicians pandering and doing just enough to keep their jobs instead of doing anything of real substance.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.