Obama: The Great Civil Engineer?

Jennifer Rubin over at Commentary Magazine has a great post about Obama and his contention that he is the "great bridge builder" and that he will be the one to lead a new era of bipartisanship.  However, his record shows nothing more than just being an ideologue:

He has essentially taken up every cause of the left (from opposing confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito to supporting a bevy of tax increases) and has been absent from any of the truly bipartisan efforts, few that they may be, since he got to Washington (e.g. the Gang of 14).

As the most liberal Senator according to National Journal, he is further from the middle of the Senate and less inclined to compromise on strict party line voting than Senator Mitch McConnell (the ninth most conservative Senator) is on the other end of the spectrum. Is someone more doctrinaire in his voting record than McConnell on the Right (and Dick Durbin and John Kerry on the Left), the best person to lead us into a new era of bipartisan co-operation?

Worse still, John McCain actually can lay claim to being a bipartisan role model, which made his primary run so problematic with the GOP base. His list of bipartisan efforts on global warming, judges, campaign finance, immigration and spending reform is long and substantitve.

Bipartisanship implies compromise.  If Obama went to Washington voting on his core beliefs, then based on his record, I believe compromise runs against his core belief system.  And that is fine -- but why do one thing and say another?  Oh, yeah, that is what politicians do.

And then there is Iraq.  And as Jennifer, again, correctly points out, Obama shows no sign of even considering the other argument on Iraq.

...Obama has shown no inclination to process new information and adjust his views accordingly. Indeed, there appears to be no new data that would persuade him that the answer to Iraq is other than: “Leave immediately.” If that is not the definition of an ideologue (or a “dogmatist” as Obama would say), I do not know what is.

So Mr. Obama, if your campaign literally runs on the personification of hope and that anything can be overcome, then when glimmers of hope are seen in Iraq, why is your first and only thought to still abandon our new ally?  And if you are indeed the savior of the cluster that is Washington politics, then why didn't you put yourself out there and try to create bridges when you were there?

In my opinion, Obama is just another politician.  He will not be the savior of our great Republic.  And neither will McCain for that matter.  But when it comes down to brass tacks, I think McCain has shown that he is willing to take on Washington politics, he has rubbed his party the wrong way in the name of bipartisanship, and he has put his personal political gain on the line with a controversial issue like Iraq.

With bipartisanship comes controversy and the creation of friction.  I don't think Obama wants people to dislike him in his own party.  His record clearly shows that.  And maybe that is why so many Democratic politicians are jumping on his bandwagon.  So don't buy into the rhetoric.