Progressives come out to defend Obama on 'present' votes

[TeamJordan23]

A ‘present’ for Obama’s opponents? Probably not

The NYT has a lengthy report this morning, noting that Obama voted “present” about 3% of the time during his tenure, including on bills relating to crime and abortion rights. What’s more, while Hillary Clinton has dropped the charge from her stump speech, her campaign has clearly not dropped the issue altogether: “ABC News has learned that the has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill…. Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites…. The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.”

This post, from Kate Sheppard, summarized the broader dynamic nicely.

This isn’t really new; it’s a recycled Republican talking point. In the state senate, Obama voted “present” on several abortion bills, a bill regarding firearms in a school zone, and one on concealed weapons. Obama says that on the abortion-related votes, he worked out an arrangement with abortion-rights advocates to get Democrats to vote “present” on bills if they feared a “no” would endanger their re-election. It seems like a cop-out, to be sure, but even the presidents of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence backed his decisions to vote present. But those points are pretty much moot, since in Illinois voting “present” is essentially the same as voting “no” — without having to go on the record as voting “no.” The Obama campaign has already fired back on their “Fact Check” site.

Going after Obama on the “present” votes, especially in places where his vote was advised by progressive advocates, is stooping pretty low for the Clinton campaign.

“Anyone who says that a ‘present’ vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn’t understand the first thing about legislative strategy,” said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist in Springfield. “People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, ‘huh?’”

In practical terms, a “present” vote is as good as a “no” vote because the law requires a bill to win the votes of a majority of the lawmakers in either body, not simply a majority of those voting.

If “present” sounds wimpy, that’s because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University’s School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois’ byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote “present” on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.

Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes. Why would he then vote “present” instead of a resounding “no” on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?

“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote ‘yes,’” Sutherland said. <…>

“Criticizing Obama on the basis of ‘present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of the process,” said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13989.html

[msongs]

1. well at least he showed up...some of the time :-) nt

[AtomicKitten]

2. "This isn’t really new; it’s a recycled Republican talking point."

Of course it is. But then again this particular group of surrogates banging away on this didn't try to fit the word "cocaine" or "Muslim" as many times as they could into their statements, so, there's that.

[MADem]

3. Here's the old story, from last February. It may be "recycled" but it is factual.

While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield - even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day - that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

You take that, and you make of it, whatever you so choose.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.

[SoxFan]

7. Nice source you've got there

RealClear Politics.
The Wall Street Journal.

Didn't this guy work in the Bush White House before going to work in the media?

[BeyondGeography]

8. He now works for Stuart Rothenberg

Beltway Stu has a hard time hiding his pro-Hillary feelings every time I see him on the telly.

[SoxFan]

10. Rothenberg

Part of the larger problem of the Beltway Blinders that so many pundits, operatives, and pols seem to have on. Rothenberg, Cook, et al, they all seem to value "gotcha" politics, special interest money, playing nice with special interests, and political gamesmanship above all else.

[MADem]

11. Oh, cut the aggrieved SHIT. Look UPTHREAD--did not a post refer to this whole

bit as a "Republican Talking Point???"

I am not suggesting that the source is anything but what it is.

Are you trying to suggest that the source LIED about his votes? That they made this shit up?

Please.

[BeyondGeography]

12. The last sentence you underline is opinion masquerading as fact

And the journalist you keep pushing in this and other threads is a less credible source than others who are more familiar with the facts. To take just one example of direct refutation from the OP:

==“Anyone who says that a ‘present’ vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn’t understand the first thing about legislative strategy,” said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist in Springfield.==

[MADem]

14. Again, cut the crap. And while you're at it, track back that cite to the ORIGINAL source

It's not RCP/WSJ (from almost a YEAR ago, well before they were sold, but never mind that). They reprinted it from another location.

I am not PUSHING any journalist. I'm simply providing the RECYCLED STORY in its ORIGINAL context--you know, the SOURCE DOCUMENT--so people don't have to rely on assholes with bullshit, lies and rose colored glasses to get the facts of what actually was said in said document.


Get over your aggrieved ass, whydoncha? This is the story that people are talking about. This IS the "recycled" story. The REFERENCED one. The one that RELATES to the present story. The one that these recent reports are referencing.

You're acting as though I'm some kind of fucking "traitor" for providing it, and that, to my mind, suggests that you have a problem with VERACITY.

That's your pathetic little whiny-ass problem, not mine. And it's a big one, too.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Mr. "Above the Fray" shows his anti-Obama colors every time

Crap cutting starts with thee, MADem.

[MADem]

18. Stop your whining. It's unbecoming. I am not going to give Senator Obama a pass

to spare you some hurt feelings. This shit is idiotic. He needs to make his views known on these issues. They're KEY.

I was displeased with his parsing on the gay business; I don't care for his waffling on choice either.

If that makes me "anti-Obama" well, excuse the fuck out of me. That's two instances where he's standing closer to Huckabee than anyone else in the Democratic field, and that, frankly, is a cause for genuine CONCERN. If I wanted a Republican in office, I'd go work for fucking McCain.

Get over yourself. You are so uncritical when these issues come it, it's rather PATHETIC. Don't get all pissy when people who haven't had any of the Barack Kool Aid take issue.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Someone's been exposed

[MADem]

22. Yes, you certainly have been. Plain as day. Nt

[frazzled]

21. Not factual -- he voted AGAINST the Illinois "Born Alive Protection Act"

It came up in several guises--some of which he voted present on and also "NO"--and he was specifically targeted by the right-wing nutcase originator of the bill (Ms. Stanek), for being the ONLY Senator to speak out against it:

But Stanek said Obama was the only state senator to speak out on the legislation, and his actions there are “just one demonstration of how liberal he is.”

“Everybody in the pro-life movement is completely aware of what Obama stands for — how bad he is,” she said.

Stanek, who was one of the protesters present at Obama’s announcement, said she thinks anti-abortionists “may be more up in arms” over Obama’s positions “than even Hillary Clinton’s” because of “his extreme position” on this specific issue. But she said she knows of no concerted effort to single Obama out for his support of abortion rights.

http://hill6.thehill.com/campaign-2008/abortion-foes-target-obama-because-of-his-vote-record-on-illinois-legislation-2007-02-15.html

Why would abortion foes target Obama? Why would NARAL consistently give him 100% rankings? Why is he consistently the best on speaking out against handguns and assault weapons?

If we're talking about abortion votes, specifically, why don't we ever discuss the fact that Dennis Kucinich consistently received 0% rankings on abortion rights? He had the worst record in the House, bar none, for over a decade.

This nonsense about "present" votes is ignorant gotcha politics, ignoring all understanding on how present votes in the Illinois legislature work. And ignoring Obama's record--way to the left of, say, a John Edwards.

I guess your abrasive language tells me I shouldn't even be trying to correct you--people who put 'crap' in their headers (see below) usually are not amenabvle to rational discussion.

[SoxFan]

4. The bloviators don't understand legislative politics

Very often, hot-button issues such as abortion and gun control lead to "stunt votes". Advocates on one side or the other will come up with a bill, amendment, or motion that is loaded with toxic provisions that appeal only to the true believers on one side or the other. The votes are then used to pummel candidates at election time, or to screw them over when an organization releases its "legislative scorecard".

I served for three terms in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. We did not have the option of voting "present", either on the floor or in committee. The closest thing was the practice known as "taking a walk". When a legislator wants to avoid a vote on a contentious issue, he turns off his voting station and finds a reason to be in the bathroom, cafeteria, or smoking lounge when the roll call is taken.

In my three terms, I took a walk only one time. It was a partial birth abortion vote. A clique of pro-life zealots were pushing a proposal that would have banned the procedure, but without any exception for either the life or the health of the mother. Now, I am generally a pro-life Democrat in the Bob Casey sense of the term. But this bill was designed mainly to screw with people such as me, who are often torn by the subtleties of the issue. I find partial birth abortion abhorrent, but I'm not going to vote for a measure that could kill a woman.

The bill was clearly going to be defeated, but I decided that I was not going to play the either/or game that both NH Citizens for Life and NH-NARAL were proposing. I grew disgusted with the name calling and general bullshit of the floor debate, turned off my voting gizmo, and went up to the Democratic member's hangout to dru=ink stale coffee and read the Concord Monitor's sports page.

Was i proud of skipping the vote? Hell no. But I discussed it with friends from both sides of the issue, explained where I was coming from, and made it clear why I did what I did. All of them understood why I chose to walk out on that vote.

My larger point is that many of the votes where Barack Obama voted present were probably "gotcha" votes cooked up by the NRA, a "Christian" right group, or some other hard line advocacy group. No politician wants to be seen as dodging an issue, but sometimes the baloney and buffoonery becomes so overwhelming that you decide that you aren't going to play the game.

[AtomicKitten]

6. thanks for that perspective

I would think people would be more familiar with "gotcha" politics since it has been dominating the landscape for decades.

[Cha]

25. Thanks for this..I

had no idea.

[Lurking Dem]

27. Thanks for this.

No matter how many times it is explained as a legislative tool, the issue keeps popping up in a belligerent manner.

It has taken on a decidedly unappealing flavor.

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Obama himself said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"

Obama himself said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

[SoxFan]

9. One question for you

Are you ever going to put in a positive word about your candidate, Gov. Richardson?

hell, I think I've send more good things about him then you have. The only time you show up is when you want to engage in Obama-bashing.

Of course, I'm assuming that your support of Richardson is legitimate, but I really have some doubt...

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Donate, do a search, and then post a retraction.

ObamaNation seems to suffer many delusions.

[MADem]

16. Why is it 'bashing' when someone points out that the collars and cuffs do not match?

"Do as I say, not as I do" isn't an appropriate or credible strategy for leadership or confidence-inspiring consensus.

And you might not like that, but it is the truth. It doesn't matter if the candidate is Clinton, Edwards or Obama, when they say one thing, and do another, it's only the lockstep ideological, unquestioning glassy-eyed fools who don't say "WTF???"

Not answering the questions isn't going to make them go away. And this behavior raises questions. Best to deal with it now. He should make his views crystal clear, and not try to have it both ways.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

23. Edwards is my favorite, but I don't post a lot about him, because...

I don't like to get my hopes up about him. I think most likely he'll lose in the end. I also don't read a lot about him because I've been sold on him all along. He's the most liberal of the front-runners, that's why he's my favorite, and it's as simple as that. So there you have it, there are reasonable reasons why someone might not post much about their favorite candidate.

[calteacherguy]

26. Voting "present" in the Illinois legislature is equivalent to a "no" vote

This is because for legislation to pass, a majority of elected representatives must vote yes, not just a majority of those voting.

[SoxFan]

29. As is the case in most legislatures

I'm starting to think we need to post a copy of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure on DU.

Legislative politics is a confusing, byzantine game. What looks cut and dried usually is not.

I've had people jump on me for voting "yes" on a noxious bill. What they didn't understand is that when a bill comes to the floor with a negative vote in committee, the pending motion is "Inexpedient to Legislate". A "yes" vote is a vote to support the committee recommendation to kill the bill. Yes is no, no is yes.

Oddly enough, in NH, while legislators can not individually vote "present", a committee, in effect, can. A bill can emerge from a policy committee (Criminal Justice, Judiciary, Health and Human Services, etc) "Without Recommendation". It is very rare, and it usuall occurs when a divisive issue deadlocks a consensus oriented committee. In the NH House, that means you will occassionally see it coming out of Criminal Justice or Commerce, where there is a fair amount of civil discourse and bipartisanship. You would never see it coming out of the food-fight committees like Election Law.

[MethuenProgressive]

30. He lied when he said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up," in his book?

Obama himself said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"
At somepoint, ObamaNation will have to accept that his past words are an allowed topic.

[zulchzulu]

17. How the NYT article today called a 3% pattern of voting "present" Often was a bit odd

I think the real story is that the Times also reported on the Clintons' double-dipping with contributions above the Obama story where they referred to his voting "present" as "Often".

I think somebody made some calls to the Editor...lives in NYC, plays sax, always was against the war, yunno...that guy...

[AtomicKitten]

19. arms are being twisted across this country as we speak

[Cha]

24. "Recycled repucon talking point"..

"Going after Obama on the “present” votes, especially in places where his vote was advised by progressive advocates, is stooping pretty low for the Clinton campaign."

“Criticizing Obama on the basis of ‘present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of the process,” said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence."


Thanks for this, TeamJordan.

[babylonsister]

28. And here her spouse is telling us she's a 'world class genius'.

He might want to rethink that. ;-)