AP – Obama Interview – Blasts Romney - Is Willing to “Compromise” in Second Term – A First – History in Illinois Assembly, U.S. Senate Suggest Not

Then Senator Obama (Illinios General Assembly) from 1997 - image from the Illinois General Assembly with bio here

From the APan interview with President Barack Obama prior to the RNC Convention this week – two paragraphs stand out (read the entire AP article here
First:

The 25-minute interview, conducted in the library of the White House residence, was part of a multi-faceted campaign by Obama's team to snag some of the spotlight during Romney's big week. Obama denied the notion, widely if quietly held in political circles, that the fiercely competitive president is also driven to beat Romney because he does not hold him in high regard.
"I don't really know him well," Obama said. "The big arguments that I have with Gov. Romney have to do with where we take this country forward."

Second:

Obama also offered a glimpse of how he would govern in a second term of divided government, insisting rosily that the forces of the election would help break Washington's stalemate. He said he would be willing to make a range of compromises with Republicans, confident there are some who would rather make deals than remain part of "one of the least productive Congresses in American history."

In the first paragraph noted above, the fact that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are unlikely to know one another personally is a given – based on both mens previous occupations and opportunities available for their paths to cross. Barack Obama went from the halls of academia and Community Organizations to the Illinois State Legislature, and a short stint as an Illinois U.S. Senator, before becoming President. Romney went from Harvard, to business, to the Olympics, to the Massachusetts Governors Office to a run for the Presidency. Their upbringings did, however, bring both men to various parts of the world – The President’s early childhood spent in Indonesia, while as a teenager Romney was in France as a missionary. The experiences, perhaps shaping them somewhat - Indonesia, a third-world country, assuming from the President’s Book “Dreams of My Father”, that life in Indonesia was less than wonderful, while Romney, from article accounts (the few there are), suggest he became, from necessity, frugal while on mission in Europe (which may explain his divesting himself of an inheritance and living in a Boston basement apartment out of choice.) At no time would either have an opportunity to get together for say – a round of golf? Therefore, when one is making assessments about what someone may or may not do – one should have at least something solid to stand on – a record perhaps, rather than conjecture based on association. If that were the case, then one might not be able to take exception when detractors challenge past associations as probable cause for Obama’s present actions.

In the second paragraph noted, the President speaks to compromising with the “Republicans”. However, one has to look hard and long to find where the President has ever compromised his firmly held convictions. In fact, searching the Illinois General Assembly Archives, yield nothing more than partisanship – from the beginning – The archives, located at http://www.ilga.gov/previousga.asp are searchable from sessions beginning in 1971, both the legislature (assembly) and the state senate. As to articles found, one in particular stands out as regard to the Senator from Illinois, a In Congress A Vanishing Center – the date: November 14th, 2004. In this article which describes the defeat of Tom Daschle and his replacement, Harry Reid, there is mention of the Senator from Illinois: “What's more, the Democrats' biggest new star, Barack Obama of Illinois, has unabashedly advocated a left-of-center platform. Obama, who will be the sole African American member of the Senate, electrified the Democratic Convention last summer with his keynote address, and party leaders hope he will become a high-profile critic of conservative excess. With his election all but assured, Obama campaigned for other Democratic candidates, so he arrives in Washington with plenty of chits and a rock-star rep.”. The article paints a picture of a Right and Left view of the nation, without compromise – has anything changed?

Not exactly, or by much, but historically, looking at both individuals, as Governor, Mitt Romney did walk across the aisle (a search of mass.gov reveals 302 instances), and that got him barbs from hard-line Massachusetts Conservatives (yes there is such an animal), but also saw the unemployment rate drop, household income rise, all with a Republican Governor and a Democrat Legislature. It is the individual who knows corporate diplomacy (yes, there is such an animal) that will be able to transition that role to government – as proven by Mitt Romney. Then there is the left of center individual, who is grounded in partisanship that runs so deep, with votes cast along strictly party lines, for decades, that has a lack of diplomatic skills and is patently unable to compromise their “principals” in order to move legislation or the nation forward.

Is either man seeking the office perfect? Hardly, for perfection would be impossible, with few exceptions (See the Delhi Lama, or the Pope for perfection in negotiations between state and religions – they are both, heads of Church and Heads of State) historically. Therefore, as one can anticipate this election will be about division (see the media constant negatives on Romney and Ryan as the polls turn), more than anything else, and the nation has the task of choosing a Leader that will be willing to compromise from the get-go, and one who will, if unwilling to compromise, be able to negotiate with the other side, and bring them around to seeing a point of view. One has to ask themselves, which one of the two would be more probable to meet the criteria of compromise to move this nation forward.

The General Election – Division and Labels – Does it Ever Change?

Partisanship is the word of the day, (or has been since Barack Obama secured the nomination) - what one has to expect when two opposing political parties are campaigning for any office, that people will chose sides, it is expected. With each election the rhetoric is the worst it has ever been, the campaign advertisements are the worst they have ever been, and the polls are watched as if they are fact, not probability based on a small sample (generally 400 to 2,000 participants) of those who indicate they are most likely to vote. Pundits on both sides spar endlessly on the evening news and talk show circuits, extolling the virtues of their candidate and the vice of the opposition.

This year, it appears that partisanship has indeed risen to new heights, the media is more aggressive, op-ed pages are filled with hate couched in elite humor the “Non-Profit” organizations more aggressive in their “get out the vote” efforts. Has partisanship risen to new levels, or is it that the optimal conditions for one party over another, proven a bit overblown, and now, they must work harder to achieve their goals. Why is it that with an unpopular war, and the economy in a downturn, that Obama has still not sealed the deal, so to speak, with the media pushing as hard as it can to put him over the top? The answer is fairly simple, the electorate has not changed, not one bit, in four years. The country is still divided; however, it is not divided down the middle. Enter The Terrance Group and the Battleground Polls. This is the only poll that asks which way one’s political point of view leans, and surprisingly, one figure has remained consistent over the years, and that it the percentage of Americans who consider themselves “conservative”. Over 50% of the electorate still considers itself to be conservative, while 30% consider themselves to be liberal, and the balance leaning one way, or the other. Those inclined to live by polls, including those who had John Kerry changing the White House drapes by Mid-October, 2004, had apparently ignored the Battleground statistics. Full Battleground tables here The conservatives will elect a Moderate Democrat (A Clinton for example), but will not embrace a liberal thinker – go figure.

What is the influence on the American electorate? Morality and the ideology of Patriotism are clearly driving the voting patterns on both sides. Voters Guides are available for religious conservatives while those that feel religion should be left out of politics entirely turn to sor the Paper of Record, and or Katie Couric. One might argue, however, that the nation was founded upon the principals of religion; those who departed the Mayflower at Plymouth were seeking the freedom to worship outside the constraints of the Church of England, and God has played a pivotal role in every decision made in the foundation of this nation. One on the left could argue that the New York Times is also doing its part.

Will there be change, certainly, one or the other of these two candidates will be elected on the 4th of November, and as neither the Times nor the Polls, nor Nancy Pelosi has a crystal ball, it is anyone’s best guess as to who will be the next President. That said; History, my friends, is bound to repeat itself. Perhaps that is why the media is shriller and the operatives more desperate.