Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:he does skip some votes by just voting present or some other cop out
It's a common practice in the Illinois state leg. Did you hear him talking about it at the debate?
Cycloptichorn
She's paraphrasing from the factcheck.org link posted in Soz's political blog thread.
The problem with that factcheck.org vetting is that it does exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. It just gives the statistics and nothing about the validity of such a practice in the Illinois State Legislature, nor does it give any of the detail that has been repeatedly presented elsewhere in the media that explains many of the reasons for using the "present" vote.
Many of those votes were at the request of the Bill sponsors themselves who requested "present" votes while negotiations and re-writes continued on the Bills. Voting any other way would kill those re-writes and result in either a badly written law or the Bill being rejected before it was complete.
Other reasons for the "present" votes are because of the political games the republicans were playing in the Illinois legislature at the time. They'd present badly written Bills that gave Obama no choice but to vote "present." If he approved them, then bad laws would be enacted and exacerbate the problems. If he disapproved of them, his negative vote against a bad bill would be interpreted as him disapproving of the issue being addressed.
I had a bit of an issue with the fact check on the "present" votes too, but maybe it's my increasing bias showing. The thing is that he doesn't dispute the fact that he voted that way, he disputes the implication that it means he'll duck tough issues. And fact check can't really verify what his intentions were when he made those votes, so to lend credibility to the attack just by verifying that yes he did indeed vote present and in some cases it was on politically sensitive issues is kind of hinky to me.
Oh; well; of course it is.
We're also talking about 100 or so votes out of over 4000. 2.5% of his votes.
I doubt any of our Senators has as good a record of showing up for votes.
Cycloptichorn
Butrflynet wrote:The problem with that factcheck.org vetting is that it does exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. It just gives the statistics and nothing about the validity of such a practice in the Illinois State Legislature, nor does it give any of the detail that has been repeatedly presented elsewhere in the media that explains many of the reasons for using the "present" vote.
Actually it does acknowledge your complaints.
Quote:The New York Times examined the issue in December and found a mixed record: "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," the paper reported
"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."
So here they're admitting there are parliamentary reasons for voting 'present' and also admitting your second point. I think the votes they are questioning are the ones where he was the
only legislator to vote 'present'. So, it's probably somewhat incorrect to accuse them of doing "exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing".
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Enough of your existential hissy fit revel.
I do not know that Sam Boyd is an A2K member and that nimh was quoting one of his posts. If that's the case - fine. If on the other hand he is a columnist or something similar, and nimh has quoted a published piece I would simply like to know that.
I googled Sam Boyd and came up with nothing.
Dude - what about, uhm, clicking the link in my post?
That could have told you that he's one of the contributors on TAPPED, the blog of the American Prospect. Just one click, thats all it would have taken!
Lordy...
nimh wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Enough of your existential hissy fit revel.
I do not know that Sam Boyd is an A2K member and that nimh was quoting one of his posts. If that's the case - fine. If on the other hand he is a columnist or something similar, and nimh has quoted a published piece I would simply like to know that.
I googled Sam Boyd and came up with nothing.
Dude - what about, uhm, clicking the link in my post?
That could have told you that he's one of the contributors on TAPPED, the blog of the American Prospect. Just one click, thats all it would have taken!
Lordy...
Dude... what about answering a simple question?
If only - "click on the link"
If I had know there was a link in your post I would have clicked it.
Lordy indeed
Finn dAbuzz wrote:If I had know there was a link in your post I would have clicked it.
It's the part that's in blue...
ohfergoshsakes! They're doin' those in BLUE now?
I don't see anything racist in those speeches in the link above.
On the other hand; I honestly do not think if McCain gets the republican nominee he would do or say anything even remotely racist if Obama gets the democratic ticket. But the right wing media voices will be twice as bad if the following is anything to go by.
Quote:
Savage:
Do you realize that this is, or can be seen as, the first affirmative action election in American history? Let me repeat that again. We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say amen and yes to this affirmative election vote? In many ways you could say this election is about the mandate called affirmative action, and I can predict right now they're gonna lose because when the American people themselves have been able to vote for or against affirmative action, as most recently they did on a ballot initiative in very liberal Michigan, they voted against affirmative action.
You understand what I just said to you? The American people haven't been heard from yet. This is all staged, it's all stooges, it's all controlled by the parties, the people have not yet been heard from. When they are heard from, the affirmative action ticket goes down in flames. You can mark this down, you can mark this down. Mark it in bronze. Mark it in bronze they lose. I don't really care who's gonna be on the other side, they win. America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency. I stand by those words.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802040008
Quote:
Matalin seems to be suggesting that there's something about this picture of McCain's family that just isn't truly "all-American":
If Matalin wasn't talking about McCain, was she suggesting that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton don't have "all-American" families?
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/05/matalin-american-family/
[Links for statements at both sources]
Maybe it is that ratty looking dog!
revel, I think the main point is that some of us prefer somebody young, with energy, with an ability to bring something new to the table besides the same old tired Washinton politics, which is what McCain represents. I know very little about McCain's personal life, but I don't see how a wholesome family could be a negative. No family is perfect, but we should all at least respect those that try.
okie wrote:revel, I think the main point is that some of us need somebody young, with energy, with an ability to bring something new to the table besides the same old tired Washinton politics, which is what McCain represents. I know very little about McCain's personal life, but I don't see how a wholesome family could be a negative.
This is why you won't see Fred Thompson as the running mate. The average age of the ticket would be about 107.
Look for Huckabee to be picked, and look for the fiscal conservatives to mutter constantly on the way to a loss.
Cycloptichorn
Bill has lost his schtick -- he only recently discovered that he has no control over the press anymore and they continue to whack him for effecting dirty politics, giving no regard to the old Clinton machine, no matter how well-funded. In fact, all the media outlets are commenting about this actuality (if you've been watching as I have), and at least for the past week or so, Hillary has been playing nice with Barack.
AND, after last night, McCain has it sealed up... he's the winner for the Republican primary. Romney will never catch up now, he's just way too delegate-poor and his future prospects are even more grim. Huckabee will be McCain's running mate/VEEP. He'll bring in the southern vote and will give the hard core right-wingers the excuse they need to save face and vote for McCain. It all just goes to prove that the PEOPLE will elect the President this time, not lard-assed Rush Limbaugh and The Reverend James Dobson, the latter being a profoundly heinous hypocrite and a rotten prick of the First Water.
But McCain will NOT be our next President -- Barack Obama will hold that position. Did you hear that speech he made last night? Did you see that demographic of regular, intelligent-looking American people standing behind him nodding their heads, some crying in joy, ALL hanging on to his every word? Obama moves people. That was the greatest, most compelling and powerful speech I ever heard from anyone,.... ever, JFK and Reagan included. If he makes a speech like that one come November, just a night or two prior to the election, that's within a football field of the one he orated last night, then she's all over, my friends. He'll even pick up 10% of moderate Republicans.
And did you note last night's NUMBERS? The Dems turned out in DOUBLE the numbers of the confused Republicans. They'll do the same thing in November too!
I can't say who will be Obama's VEEP but I can tell you that it won't be Hillary. A black President is enough change for one election for most voters. If Barack were to take on board a female or minority VEEP candidate, it would cost him votes. (If he does okay as President, race and gender will literally disappear as factors in future Presidential elections.. a HEAVY burden for Obama to have to bear in addition to the normal presidential duites!) Obama's partner needs to be a white guy, probably either from New England or California, preferably a solid guy with some military service on his resume.
Obama is a candidate of inspiration... a true icon of hope for many people. Hillary is a polarizing, devisive figure. We hear more and more, from news outlets, about A-B-C Democrats... Anybody But Clinton! Anyway, the consequences of these respective profiles will play out to Obama's huge benefit over the coming days. The inertia has already begun to lean heavily in that direction. You can bet that Hillary slung a plate into the wall and took the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in vain when she lost Missouri last night.
okie wrote:revel, I think the main point is that some of us prefer somebody young, with energy, with an ability to bring something new to the table besides the same old tired Washinton politics, which is what McCain represents. I know very little about McCain's personal life, but I don't see how a wholesome family could be a negative. No family is perfect, but we should all at least respect those that try.
I don't see how you can get "young; fresh or tired washington politics" with the words "all American family" in any sort of context. Much less "affirmative action ticket."
In any case; McCain looks pretty solid right now for the republican candidate; guess you guys who prefer somebody young with energy better get used to it.
In what way would McCain not be trying to be a all American wholesome family as opposed to Romney?
