The March 25 edition of the New York Times carried a political memo by Robin Toner, titled, “Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?” Toner begins by reminding us that, “At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.”

 

But can he? Like most of what is written in the liberal press, the article requires a bit of translation to screen out the leftist bias. She quotes Obama as saying that, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents, and Republicans together to get things done.”

 

Is he trying to say that he is that leader? Given the opportunity to reach across the aisle in the United States Senate during his brief and unremarkable career, he has bitten the hands that have reached out to him at every opportunity. The Times reminds us of a March 15 interview in which Obama said that he was a “progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could – and should – rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.”

 

Aha, so there’s our answer. (Translation: Obama can win the war if only the other guys would lay down their principles and surrender. If only Senate Republicans would be struck by a sudden urge to commit political suicide and vote with Barack, Teddy, and Harry on every issue, he’d be happy to wave a flag over their dead bodies and claim credit for political unity.)

 

Obama went on to say that, “Only then could the party achieve what it has so rarely won in modern presidential elections: a mandate to do big things.”

 

(Translation: Since the Johnson Administration, the people have been wise enough to deny Democrats a free hand to expand the welfare system, to raise taxes on everyone but the very poor, to regulate corporations, large and small, out of existence, to end all domestic oil and gas exploration and energy production, to bankrupt social security, and to turn our forests and fruited plains over to tree-huggers and global warming hoaxers.)

 

Obama is quoted as saying, “The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people. It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate.”

 

(Translation: While Obama likes to deny that he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Barbara Boxer...he really is. He should also be aware that, if most senate votes are designed to purposely divide people, it is the Democratic leadership that decides which bills are voted upon. And, unlike most fifth graders, Obama apparently thinks that, as president, he would control the terms of the debate in the Congress. Nope! It doesn’t work that way.)

 

Obama’s voting record, such as it is, is a carefully crafted one and certainly not a record that would classify him as a political “unifier.” His voting record leads one to wonder just how long he has been contemplating an ill-advised and premature run for the White House.

 

Records of the Illinois State Senate tell us that, in his six year career in that institution he voted “present” no les than 130 times. In many instances, as in the case of a 1999 bill that would have allowed some juvenile offenders to be tried as adults, his “present” vote was a purely political vote. A “yea” vote would not have been popular within the Chicago black community and a “nay” vote would have been used against him by law-and-order proponents for the rest of his career.

 

However, in 2001 and 2002, Obama worked up the courage to vote “nay” on two identical bills that would have required a physician performing an abortion to have a second physician in attendance, if he/she suspected that the abortion procedure might result in the birth of a live infant. The role of the second physician would be to evaluate the viability of the newborn child.

 

Obama’s “nay” votes were certainly not acts of political courage. For any Democrat with ambitions for higher office, the last people he would want to offend would be the pro-abortion forces of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood. The pro-life forces? To stick a thumb in their eye would only help to build his liberal credentials.

 

Later in the 2002 session, the Illinois Senate voted on a bill called the Induced Birth Liability Act. The purpose of the act was to force healthcare providers to give proper medical attention to a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion. Under provisions of the act, a parent or a public guardian of a child born as a result of an induced labor abortion would have a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider that failed to provide medical care for the child after birth. Obama voted “present.”

 

Clearly, Obama’s definition of a unifier is one who can govern...but only if everyone else abandons their principles and agrees with him. He is not a unifier, he is a divider.