Obama: obsessed with bipartisanship? [View All]

stimulus bill:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041

House 246 - 183. 0 republican votes in favor
senate 60-38. 3 Republican votes in favor(just enough to overcome the filibuster)

Obama signs it into law even though it got the bare minimum of R votes absolutely necessary to pass it.

heath care reform bill - final version

House 219-212, 0 R votes in favor(main bill); 220-211, 0 R votes in favor (fixes). http://thehill.com/homenews/house/88189-house-approves-senate-healthcare-bill-sends-legislation-to-obamas-desk

Senate 60-39, 0 R votes in favor (main bill) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act; 56-43 via reconciliation 0 R votes in favor (fixes) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/house-health-care-vote-co_n_514031.html.

Obama signs it into law even though absolutely no Rs voted for it.

financial reform

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/opinion/16fri1.html

House 237-192, 3 R votes in favor
Senate 60-39, 3 R votes in favor, just enough to overcome filibuster

Obama signs the bill although it has token republican support.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this sound like a president obsessed with bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake?

Or does this sound like a president who is doing what he needs to do to accomplish something positive for America?

In all three of these bills there was zero margin for error in the Senate and a small one at best in the House. What that says to me is that Obama and the Democrats got the farthest left bill they could while still being able to pass it.

The alternative I suppose would have been to veto everything for not being left enough, but who would that have helped?