- ‹ previous
- 4094 of 8902
- next ›
"Present" but Unaccountable: Senator Obama's Illinois Voting Record
Yesterday, the NY Times discussed Senator Obama's penchant for using a quirk of the Illinois Statehouse to sidestep contentious issues that might jeopardize his reelection chances. Or, it's simply a device that allows legislators there to voice legitimate concerns with a bill without voting either for or against it. You decide. It's called voting "present," as opposed to yea or nay, and it's pretty confusing to figure out. Is it a dirty trick or a proof that he's a smart cookie who simply knows how to be an effective politician?
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
Sometimes the "present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.
Taylor Marsh, at the Huffington Post is certainly steamed at Obama about it (and at Obama in general apparently from the tone of the piece). She's pretty sure he's a wolf in sheep's clothing using 'present' votes to focus more on ducking responsibility on serious issues than on dealing with those serious issues:
...Obama is continually talking about Clinton being a "triangulator," as do many of the Hillary haters. People talking about her calculations. I don't agree with all of her votes, especially on some foreign policy matters, particularly her Iraq war vote, but also Kyl-Lieberman. But when she's pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes "present" when it matters. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn't. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn't back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her in grumbling. It's what she believes, with Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson backing her. []
Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. It's a lot easier. But it's not more principled, no matter your excuse. It's triangulating. It is also quite calculating. Because what better way to hit your opponent than to duck a tough vote where she was counted, and you'd been counted months earlier, then rail against her because no one is paying attention to the facts.
So far, the issue hasn't got much traction (though Senator Clinton's team has bought attack sites with names like votingpresent.com) but these are slow news days. Come January, I'll bet the Obama folks will have spent their holidays coming up with plausible justifications for why he voted "present" rather than "no" on trying black kids as young as 15 as adults. A tough spot for any politician but this is a major part of his whole appeal - the earnest, young straight-talker versus the jaded old school Dems. Bravo for admitting to your drug use and wastrel days, now tell us why you voted "present" if you're going to keep talking about how your opponent voted for the Iraq war. I'm willing to believe he had his reasons - and that maybe they're reasons he regrets now - just tell me what they are.
The Clinton campaign is grasping at straws here. This was already brought up when he ran for senate and he has explanations for each one.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
Keep in mind he voted about 4000 times over the course of his 8 years in the IL senate. Maybe if Hillary had been elected to office before 2001 she would have a record that went back far that we could check. Oh wait, we just need to see 2002 when she voted in favor of invading Iraq. Welcome to "silly season" folks. Hillary is desperate and will do and say anything to win.
So let me get this straight:
Hillary votes for the war, that's not so bad. Hillary takes coporate funding, not so bad. Hillary takes it to the floor digging up as much dirt as possible, Rovian style, not so bad.
Obama recognizes that 130 out of 4000 (3%) are contentious enough not to take a stand, and that's front page news. Please.
I am much more concerned about Hillary's vote to give Bush authority to wage war against an innocent nation as well as her more recent vote for Bush's plan to demonize Iran and subsequently go to war against it. Further, she has blindly supported the Israeli occupation of Palestine in spite of all its violations and human rights abuses.
This was a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood to get more moderate legislators to vote present by having a large block of progressives also vote present on this meaningless posturing votes that the Republicans put up.
Taylor Marsh has been shilling for Hillary for quite a while now, and I'm not sure why anyone outside Hillary's core supporters would be paying attention to her.
Well, Axe, I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I am a Chicagoan and can tell you that Marsh is right and Obama's spin is wrong -- many of those "present" votes were hatched with Emil Jones (state senate leader) to protect him.
Obama helped defeat a reformer in a tight election who would have saved us from our horrific county government (John Stroger -- Bill Clinton supported him too). He also endorsed some truly hideous aldermen, like Dorothy Tillman, who once barged into the Art Institute and took an axe to a painting she found offensive.
And as for war votes, Obama comes from the "People's Republic of Hyde Park" -- the most leftist area of Chicago. When he voiced his opposition to the Iraq war, he was running 3rd in the Dem senate primary (the frontrunner imploded after his divorce records became public) -- his anouncement was about as courageous as an Iowa politician promoting ethanol.
P.S. -- if the "present" vote story is so trivial, maybe an Obama supporter can tell me what brave stance he took becomming senator with all that political capital he had.
If I recall, the only issue he spoke up on was Avian bird flu and Darfur (which he's been pretty silent about since he anounced for office).
Obama is an establishment hack. Like Clinton, he's got nothing to offer but more war and less civil liberties (more patriot act, etc). He talks a good talk, but that's all he's got.
I am under the impression that the choice community in Illinois is defending Obama's "present" votes on abortion issues because they were designed as part of a complicated plan to generate support for the progressive position.
I haven't bothered to really investigate, however.
Obama's unwillingness to take bold stands is in his stride with "consensus-building, come together as Americans" rhetoric. Perhaps he should've made a career for himself as an arbitrator. He lacks the backbone to be a bold, decisive leader.
I think Obama is not experienced enough to be President also he doesnt like people to talk about his voting record, his past use of drugs, and some of the people he associated with such as Rezco the slum loar he worked for but he loves to challenge other peoples voting records etc.
At least Hillary votes; will Obama "duck" issues if he is President because he wants to see how others will "vote" first. Come on people; we need some one who will be decisive not wait and see which way the wind blows! Present! 3% voting record - I hope our next president has a better decisiveness than that! Admit Obama held out for political reasons.
This is really about Obama's very negligible experience in the US Senate (it's only been a few months), as well as his willingness to morph himself into every man's "man" and his willingness to say or do anything to get elected our first black President so he can make the history books!
I thank God we have not had a coward for our US President! When he stands for something, he won't back down, and when he promises he'll support an issue he supports it! Obama sounds "tough", but when it comes down to him having the responsiblity of making the decisions affecting our whole World on his own shoulders, will he totally capitulate? That's something no one can accuse George W. Bush of doing! Obama fancies himself to be Abraham Lincoln, but he obviously hasn't bothered to read the history books, as he was a Republican Christian Conservative, whereas Barack is a Socialist Democrat!
Those who naively follow him entirely because of his race or because of his charismatic personality and his continual promises he makes, despite no proof he will follow through with them, haven't bothered to study Adolph Hitler and his charismatic personality and the continual promises he made which enabled him to get political power without any suspicion!
Click on the other site that is underneath this one on the GOOGLE search: "Jews Who Support Obama", as I've just posted some vital info there for my fellow US citizens who have never lived or worked in Europe, hoping you will not only read it, but absorb it!
This is really about Obama's very negligible experience in the US Senate (it's only been a few months), as well as his willingness to morph himself into every man's "man" and his willingness to say or do anything to get elected our first black President so he can make the history books!
I thank God we have not had a coward for our US President! When George W. stands for something, he refuses to back down, and when he promises to sign something into law, he does it! Obama may sound "tough", but when push comes to shove and he has the responsiblity of making the decisions affecting our whole World on his own shoulders, will he totally capitulate? That's something no one can accuse George W. Bush of doing! If our Nation is attacked again, will Obama display the same strength of character President Bush did at that time? If he pulls our entire US Military out of the Middle East, as promised, how will he keep his promise to defend Israel from a nuclear attack, short of him starting a nuclear hailstorm from the USA, which will result in a nuclear war?
Obama fancies himself another Abraham Lincoln, but he unfortunately hasn't bothered to read our American history books: Lincoln was a Republican Christian Conservative, not a Socialist Democrat like Obama! Furthermore, Obama fancies himself to be another JFK, but hasn't bothered to read the fact JFK was the first US President to send our US Military to fight and die in Vietnam and it was his LBJ, his own Vice President after JFK had been assassinated, who increased our Military strength in Vietnam. It was Richard Nixon, our Republican President, who brought our US Military back home from Vietnam.
It's JFK, LBJ, John Kerry (and his girlfriend, Actress Jane Fonda), who are really responsible for why so many US Military died over there, all thanks to Kerry accusing all our US Military of being "war criminals" (the same way he and his fellow Socialist Democrats, decades later, have been accusing our US Military of doing the same thing in the Middle East)! Kerry made all of his accusations against his fellow Vietnam Vets (he decades later, when running for President, said were his "war buddies"), two days before my 23rd birthday. I guess the reason so many of my own peers have forgotten these facts is because they were doing drugs, unlike myself! Furthermore, because Kerry demanded our troops be withdrawn before the US could secure South Vietnam (like our current President is trying to secure Iraq)--and nd before our US Government could secure release of all our POW's and MIA's--immediately after our US Troops were pulled out of Vietnam, the North Viet Cong Communists swooped across the border into South Vietnam and slaughtered 2+ million innocents! This is why President Bush is trying to prevent the same thing from happening! It was because John Kerry accused all of our US Military of being "war criminals", that they were treated like war criminals upon their return to the States, were denied the title "war heroes" they deserved (a name Kerry amazingly applied to himself), and they were forced to wait several decades before construction of the war memorial to honor them!
A former dear friend of mine (who was a Green Beret in Vietnam), told me his fellow Vietnam vets despised both Kerry and Fonda, the reason they called him "Hanoi John" and her "Hanoi Jane". For those of you too young to remember, she flew to North Vietnam during the war so she could personally offered her propaganda services to the Communist Viet Cong, against our Military!
Those who naively follow Obama entirely because of his race, his political party, or because of his charismatic personality and the promises he continually makes--despite having absolutely no proof he will be able to deliver on one--haven't bothered to study Hitler and his charismatic personality and continual promises he made which enabled him to gain political power without them being suspicious of his real political agenda!
Click on the other site that is underneath this one on the GOOGLE search: "Jews Who Support Obama". I've just posted some vital info there for my fellow Americans who have never lived or worked in Europe, hoping you will not only read it, but absorb it! One of the worst mistakes we have made, in my estimation, was withdrawing most of our US Military from Europe. I explain why in that other blog I just wrote. After living there for 5 yrs. as a US Military Dependent and working there 2 yrs., I believe I'm entitled to express an educated opinion.