Originally Posted By RoadTrip I mentioned this in another thread, but no one ever addressed it. I really would like to hear what folks here have to say about it. What during the RNC really turned me from Obama to McCain? Well, part of it was more confidence in McCain leading us through the dangerous times we are in. More of it though was concern about Obama's 129 "present" votes in the Illinois Legislature. Why the hell would he do that? Can the man not make up his mind? Does he want to be all things to all people so badly that he refuses to leave a legislative trail of his beliefs? Why the hell would you ever elect a politician who in effect says "never mind" such a large percent of the time? And you guys think Palin is dangerous? I did not just accept the McCain campaign's word on this. I have verified it with multiple sources. Even the Daily Kos verifies the number of Obama "present" votes and questions them. <<Barack Obama's 129 "Present" Votes by Berkeley Vox Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM PDT Yesterday, Sen. Obama’s campaign held a conference call for reporters and bloggers to defend his record of voting present on choice issues. But the Obama campaign failed to address the fact that Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama’s present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues. Berkeley Vox's diary :: :: Obama's votes speak for themselves: Sen. Obama’s Present Votes By The Numbers Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07] In 1999, Sen. Obama voted 'present' more often than he voted 'no': According to state records, Obama voted 'present' 43 times in 1999, while voting 'no' just 29 times. [ilga.gov] At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]>> Source: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/15/16954/9740/971/437366" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...1/437366</a> Please. Tell me why I should vote for Obama when he spent such a major part of his political career voting for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!
Originally Posted By dshyates And McCain leads the US Senate in missed votes. 60% of the votes the senate voted on McCain missed. Didn't even vote present.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Well, part of it was more confidence in McCain leading us through the dangerous times we are in.<< I think you've bought into Republican scare tactics. What "dangerous times" might those be? Republicans want us to be scared, but they also want us to believe that they've done something about terrorism. McCain is Mr. Iraq. That's made us less safe, RT, not more safe. Obama denounced Iraq even when it wasn't the popular thing to do. As for Obama's voting record in the Illinois State Senate, I'll confess I'm not familiar enough with the details to either defend it or acknowledge it as a shortcoming. But, even if it's the worst case scenario you paint it to be, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to make this the deciding issue between McCain and Obama. We have McCain's record to, and it's one of blatant pandering and flip-flopping. You don't know what Obama will do? How on earth can you know what McCain will do? Right now, it seems like he'll say or do anything for votes. Including flat out lying about Obama. No reasonable person can defend the sex-ed ad. No reasonable person can believe Obama was talking about Palin when he referred to lipstick on a pig. That really doesn't trouble you in the slightest? You have no interest in seeing some integrity in your elected leaders? And let's talk about Palin - the ultimate in pandering, and insultingly so. McCain assumes that women will vote for anyone so long as they don't have a Y chromosome. Palin has no experience and is entirely unqualified and unremarkable. Yes, I know people believe the same thing about Obama. But he got here on his own. Palin got here for being a woman. Would McCain have picked her if she was a man with the same credentials? No way. I can genuinely see people having some issues with Obama, RT. But to pretend like McCain doesn't have the same ones is blindness beyond belief. It's cognitive dissonance at its best. So why on earth vote for the guy who's promised more of the same?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And McCain leads the US Senate in missed votes. 60% of the votes the senate voted on McCain missed. Didn't even vote present.>> Yes, over the past year when he has obviously spent most of his time running for president. Check prior years. The story will be very different. Besides; in my mind being there and refusing to make a decision is considerably worse than not being there at all. Frankly, there is NO WAY the democrats can explain this one away. When all you can do is point fingers and say "well he was just as bad" you have lost.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***When all you can do is point fingers and say "well he was just as bad" you have lost.*** And yet that's exactly what the McCain campaign does every time Palins (extraordinary lack of experience) comes up. "Well, Obama's inexperienced too!" Problem is, he never said he wasn't. The McCain campaign is the one who made an issue out of experience being essential "in these dangerous times" and then they go out and pick a VP who is nothing short of a political rookie. They set the standard, and then picked someone who couldn't hold up. Hypocrites of the highest order.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Palin made herself sound like a complete rube when she admitted ignorance of and expressed outrage over the existence of the "present" vote. The "present" vote is a staple of everyday life -- and of governmental voting on ALL levels. "Honey, which dress should I wear? I think the green one makes me look fat. But the mauve one makes me look old." "My esteemed collegues, new and not-immediately-verifiable information has just become available, minutes before this vote." "...and so I suggest that it is imperative that we honor today as Beeman's Gum Day, as that gum has given me so much pleasure for so many years." There are so many good reasons to vote "present."
Originally Posted By gadzuux A "present" vote is the same as a "no" vote - and Obama knew that at the time he was casting these votes. Don't think that "present" means that he's indecisive or wishy-washy. >> Well, part of it was more confidence in McCain leading us through the dangerous times we are in. << I believe he might be too reactionary. He's big on bravado and bluster, and less so on non-military means for conflict resolution. Besides which he's famous for being a hot-head. I don't trust McCain to keep us out of unnecessary conflicts.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That's made us less safe, RT, not more safe. Obama denounced Iraq even when it wasn't the popular thing to do.>> Maybe that is the crux of our differences. I do not believe we are less safe. Even though I think Dubya was probably one of the worst presidents in our history, I thank him on a daily basis for keeping us safe over the past 7 years. And he has kept us safe. When al Qaeda has committed devastating attacks on Spain and England and many other places, you know it cannot be blind dumb luck that the United States has avoided attack since 2001. You have to know that al Qaeda would far rather attack the United States than any other country on earth. Yet they have been unable to. The Bush administration horribly bungled Iraq. Much of that was due to Cheney and Rumsfeld trying to fight the war on the cheap. If we had gone in with the forces our Generals (and McCain) wanted we probably would have been in and out of there in a year. People will frequently say we are less safe now because radical Muslims have more reason to hate us. They hated us enough prior to Iraq to plan 9/11. How much worse can it get than that? I think we have accomplished much in Iraq... the primary thing being that most Iraqis no longer see al Qaeda as an ally but as an enemy. That is HUGE. Talk about winning hearts and minds. Have we bungled things massively? Yes. At the same time, the Iraqi people have been able to see over the past five years that radical Islamic fundamentalism is NOT the answer. I'm pretty satisfied with what the Bush administration has done to keep us safe from terrorism. That may be the only thing I am satisfied with, but in my mind that trumps an awful lot of stuff.
Originally Posted By dshyates " I thank him on a daily basis for keeping us safe over the past 7 years." You do realize in the 232 years we have had exactly 2 attacks on American soil by foreign terrorists. To say the least the odds were with him.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... the primary thing being that most Iraqis no longer see al Qaeda as an ally but as an enemy. << There were no al qaeda in iraq before we invaded. >> the Iraqi people have been able to see over the past five years that radical Islamic fundamentalism is NOT the answer. << Saddam's government in iraq was largely secular, and effectively suppressed much of the more 'radical' islamics within iraq. Point is, the iraq war has done nothing to make us safer because iraq never posed any threat to us in the first place. And if you give Bush credit for 'keeping us safe', do you also hold him accountable for ignoring intelligence just prior to 9/11? And then turning around and using 9/11 to pursue and unrelated agenda in iraq, through subterfuge and disinformation?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Palin made herself sound like a complete rube when she admitted ignorance of and expressed outrage over the existence of the "present" vote. The "present" vote is a staple of everyday life -- and of governmental voting on ALL levels.>> Well, what can I say? The Daily Kos seemed to thing it was excessive also. Sure, the "present" vote is a staple of everyday life. But 129 freaking times? Show me ONE Illinois legislator who did it even 70% as often. We both know you can't.
Originally Posted By mapleservo I'm over my head here but... but a quick google found this article... <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/" target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/news/nat...t_votes/</a> A key quote "In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. " The last example in the article fits this nicely. (Not saying that it always applies"). The article notes that his 139 "present" votes work out to about 1 in every 31 votes.
Originally Posted By Mr X So it's a fact that Obama used the "present" vote more than any other Illinois legislator in an equal amount of time? I'd like to see more on this.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And if you give Bush credit for 'keeping us safe', do you also hold him accountable for ignoring intelligence just prior to 9/11?>> Yes, I do. From what I understand the Clinton folks made the Bush folks very aware of the dangers we were facing. The Bush folks chose to ignore that. They learned from their mistakes and kept us safe since then. What more could you really ask? Roosevelt didn't keep us safe from Pearl Harbor either, even though history shows that he either did known or should have known about the attack in advance. Anyone can make a mistake. It is how you recover from it that is meaningful.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The article notes that his 139 "present" votes work out to about 1 in every 31 votes.*** Wow, that sounds much more reasonable now, doesn't it? I'd like to see some comparisons with other lawmakers though. Actually, it's funny because while RT has taken this as a sign he should chose the other guy (after all this time), I was much more bothered by it when I first heard it (and iirc I brought it up here as well..and not in a positive way). However, after hearing all the stories from DVC_Dad on Chicago politics and what a mess it is, I came to feel that perhaps it's simply a technique he needed to employ from time to time. Maybe so, maybe not, I really don't know enough about Chicago politics to be sure..how sane and rational is a filibuster, anyway? And yet grown adults in Washington do it all the time in the name of "getting something done" (or blocking something they don't like, whichever). Perhaps it takes 25 "present" votes to work your way into getting something done on the 26th vote. I don't know.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There were no al qaeda in iraq before we invaded.> Yes, there were. Al zarqawi was in Iraq, as was the guy who replaced him. Saddam supported and harbored terrorists, threatened his neighbors, and was pursuing WMD's. He wasn't abiding by the cease fire, was targeting our planes while they were trying to enforce the no-fly zones, and was deemed a threat by almost every intelligence agency. I've made this point over and over, and backed it up with evidence, over and over.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Roosevelt didn't keep us safe from Pearl Harbor either, even though history shows that he either did known or should have known about the attack in advance. Anyone can make a mistake.*** Many will tell you that was no mistake.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<The article notes that his 139 "present" votes work out to about 1 in every 31 votes.>> Which would imply that he actually showed up for work and voted much more regularly than his collegues did.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Wow, that sounds much more reasonable now, doesn't it?>> No, it does not. If you could show me some other legislator that did it as frequently I would certainly have to change my tune. I doubt you can. If the very liberal Daily Kos thought it was unreasonable, I would be surprised if anyone else could prove anything different.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Yes, there were. << No, they were not. As for zarqawi - <a href="http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/colum...,00.html</a> >> But as Wolfowitz warned, the evidence is murky: Zarqawi had been in Baghdad, but his relationship with bin Laden is in dispute — European interrogations of some of his subordinates suggest he was running a rival group. <<
