Obama's 'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers

[mckeown1128]

...Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

I suggest the link but here is a sample of the 'present' vote in Illinois.


“To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, that’s a stretch. But, it’s good politics,” said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party’s floor leader. In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their “present” votes nearly every campaign season. “It’s always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote ‘present’ once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up.”

The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose. “The ‘present’ vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue,” said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.

That’s not how U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) characterized it in a debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., this week. Those remarks angered Cullerton, who is also backing Obama. He stressed that voting “present” is different than not voting at all. “There’s not one Republican, there’s not one member in the history of the General Assembly who is still alive today who would criticize voting ‘present.’ There’s not one member of the General Assembly who’s alive today who has ever not voted ‘present,’” he said.

Fritchey, the House Democrat who chairs a committee on civil law, said he often used the “present” vote when he thought a bill had constitutional or other legal problems. Sometimes using “present” votes is part of a larger strategy.

More including some examples given at the link:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863

[alteredstate]

1. Kicked and recommended! n/t

[LittleClarkie]

2. Thanks for this

But I suspect some are distorting on purpose. Even so,

kick

rec

and

bookmarked.

[babylonsister]

3. Recommend. I knew it, you knew it, there are people here who aren't

interested in the truth.

[kevsand]

4. It'll be interesting to see how people try to spin this one.

It's so frustrating to be on the ground here in Illinois and know all of this stuff as a matter of course but still see people deliberately twist it beyond all recognition.

[mckeown1128]

5. They won't spin. They will just ignore...

Kicks and Recs sometimes go a long way.

[kevsand]

6. Well, you've got both K&R from me... /nt

[CTLawGuy]

7. lalala

I hate Obama lalalala

facts don't matter to me lalalala

oooooooooooh he voted "present" lalalallala

[IndyOp]

8. I am not now an Obama supporter. I support Edwards. I support this post, though.

Obama addressed this issue to my satisfaction in the South Carolina debate.

Enough. :eyes:

[dogman]

9. "He stressed that voting “present” is different than not voting at all."

That is what he does as a US Senator. I was polled recently on the votes of my Congressional representation. I knew how Durbin had voted, and I knew how Hastert had voted. I could not answer how Obama had voted because the voting record in my local newspaper usually states "did not vote" for Obama. Maybe if he is elected President, I will get full representation in the Senate again. Though after the Obama experience, the voters may choose a GOPer next time.

[jasmine621]

10. Wasn't it Edwards who made the biggest issue about voting "present?"

Yet folks will bash Hillary for it.