Thread: Vetting Obama-Your Right To Know

Originally Posted by Julie

There are anywhere from 10-13% undecideds in each state, that include alot of women who would like the truth as well. I agree with you that there is something else behind the voting of that bill, but the question is what?....and how do we find it?

I suppose one could research the Illinois senate's archives.

A footnote on claims by opposing parties. Would you have tut-tutted Obama for voting "present" 160 times while in the ILL senate? Turns out it's a common political tactic in the Illinois senate. Otherwise, he voted yea or nay more than 3,500 times. Let's see...that means he voted present .04percent of the time. Wow. I doubt you'll catch McCain pointing an accusing finger at Obama over that in a debate.

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

OK, if I drop the opinion part I think we are asking the same question. There may have been something else in the bill that he didn't like, so what was it? Keep in mind though, pro abortioners can't really care about the baby at all or they wouldn't be for abortion. They look at it as the mothers right to do as she pleases in regards to her baby. I know the bill that you speak of since it was spurred due to babies being born alive because of botched abortions, and then allowed to die. Now why would a die-hard, pro-abortionist care if the baby lives in that situation? Please tell me if I'm missing a point here or off topic, but I think this is a very valid point.

I am at a loss as to what was in the bill.

As for pro-choice folks, I don't understand their moral viewpoint. I see nothing in nature or the collective wisdom of the ages that makes abortion on demand right under all circumstance. The argument that it's a woman's body and she can decide what's best for her makes no sense to me. On the contrary she is the steward of a new human. Bringing it to term is her natural responsibility.

Back to Obama....

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I suppose one could research the Illinois senate's archives.

A footnote on claims by opposing parties. Would you have tut-tutted Obama for voting "present" 160 times while in the ILL senate? Turns out it's a common political tactic in the Illinois senate. Otherwise, he voted yea or nay more than 3,500 times. Let's see...that means he voted present .04percent of the time. Wow. I doubt you'll catch McCain pointing an accusing finger at Obama over that in a debate.

I understand some reasoning for voting on bills, especially when issues are inserted in bills at the last minute, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. However, when Obama stands before his voters and acclaims he will not back the FISA bill, then vote affirmative for it, that is political suicide, especially when the end doesn't justify the means.

Originally Posted by Julie

...when Obama stands before his voters and acclaims he will not back the FISA bill, then vote affirmative for it, that is political suicide, especially when the end doesn't justify the means.

Suicide is too strong a word. I'll go with gamble. He's gambling that moderates will be attracted to his "reasonable" support for measures designed to stop terrrorism before it starts. He hopes to persuade disappointed supporters that it was a choice between 2 smelly fish and he went with the least smelly.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

He hopes to persuade disappointed supporters that it was a choice between 2 smelly fish and he went with the least smelly.

Which is exactly what each politician is faced with voting on a bill. That is the "same old politics in Washington," and you have to know how to best deal with it. A decent energy bill is important, and for Obama to "change Washington," he has to have enough influence, and backing, to pass decent bills. If not, you end up voting for the "lease smelly" of the two, which makes Obama NO different than any other politician in making change in Washington.

Cheney's energy bill Obama voted for he claims because it had alot of alternative energy funding in it However, he passes the smelly part of it (big tax cuts to the oil companies), off to McCain, and McCain didn't even vote for the bill. Incredible.

On a different note, the Obama campaign is denying House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, a speaking role at this month’s Democratic National Convention — a move those close to the powerhouse Harlem congressman view as a spiteful snub. You know him, the guy who controls tax policy in the United States. Rangel was told that the 78-year-old congressman’s support for Clinton earned him a place at the end of the line behind Barack Obama’s loyalists — even if Rangel played a crucial part in prodding Clinton to abandon her presidential bid in June.

So, same ole politics? Obviously so.

Payback? Obama snubs Rangel - Glenn Thrush - Politico.com

On March 13, 2008, Obama voted yea to the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 4309 to S.Con.Res. 70:
To create a reserve fund to ensure that Federal assistance does not go to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists. Motion to Table Agreed to (58-40) Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois

That would probably kill his hispanic vote.

ah, here we go, the Alternative MinimumTax:

Voted yea 3/13/08 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4189 to S.Con.Res. 70

To repeal section 13203 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 by restoring the Alternative Minimum Tax rates that had been in effect prior thereto. Barack Obama - U.S. Senator for Illinois

Does anyone know what the rates were prior to 1993? I'll post this in Shek's "Obama's Tax Policy" thread.

Originally Posted by Julie

Which is exactly what each politician is faced with voting on a bill. That is the "same old politics in Washington," and you have to know how to best deal with it. A decent energy bill is important, and for Obama to "change Washington," he has to have enough influence, and backing, to pass decent bills. If not, you end up voting for the "lease smelly" of the two, which makes Obama NO different than any other politician in making change in Washington.

The public attitude toward politics is largely born of ignorance. There are politicians and there is politics. It's like a hairdresser who can't do a do without messing it up and, on account of that, the public scorns the art of hairdressing. Politics in its pure form is the art of compromise. Compromise is necessary because there are diverse groups in the country who have opposing views. If all these group faithfully stuck to their guns and refused to support a bill unless it had 100% of what each wanted in it, then no bills would ever get passed and we'd have legislative gridlock. It's the role of politicans to find a common ground by plying the principles of politics--I'll give way on this if you give way on that. General lack of understanding of this and the shenanigans that individual politicians get into, e.g., bribes, ethical lapses, etc. etc. that give politics a bad name. In truth we all do politics all the time. That is to say, we compromise often in life to make the wheels turn better. So, let's dispense with the digs at politics...

Cheney's energy bill Obama voted for he claims because it had alot of alternative energy funding in it However, he passes the smelly part of it (big tax cuts to the oil companies), off to McCain, and McCain didn't even vote for the bill. Incredible.

Got an article on this?

On a different note, the Obama campaign is denying House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, a speaking role at this month’s Democratic National Convention — a move those close to the powerhouse Harlem congressman view as a spiteful snub. You know him, the guy who controls tax policy in the United States. Rangel was told that the 78-year-old congressman’s support for Clinton earned him a place at the end of the line behind Barack Obama’s loyalists — even if Rangel played a crucial part in prodding Clinton to abandon her presidential bid in June.

So, same ole politics? Obviously so.

Yeah, part of the art of politics is letting a past opponent know you have a long memory. Guess Rangel won't get a chance to plug his I-Love-Me library project on national TV. Of course, there may be an Obama bias against old line blacks coming on to blast the evil white government.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Yeah, part of the art of politics is letting a past opponent know you have a long memory. Guess Rangel won't get a chance to plug his I-Love-Me library project on national TV. Of course, there may be an Obama bias against old line blacks coming on to blast the evil white government.

That is typical old style politics, but I call it cutting your nose off the spite your face, or better yet, taking your eye off the ball. So what if Rangel backed Hillary, that's democracy, and nobody should be penalized for it. Rangel plays a very important role with the direction of this country, and this tit-for-tat stuff is so childish.

Originally Posted by Julie

That is typical old style politics, but I call it cutting your nose off the spite your face, or better yet, taking your eye off the ball. So what if Rangel backed Hillary, that's democracy, and nobody should be penalized for it. Rangel plays a very important role with the direction of this country, and this tit-for-tat stuff is so childish.

Old style-new style politics; it's all the same with a different hemline. I agree, Rangel is an important man in Congress and NYC. What goes around, comes around. At this point of the game, Obama should not be holding grudges against top dogs in his own party. I have a hunch he'll get some kind of speaking slot at the convention.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Got an article on this?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Obama Distorting Facts on Cheney Energy Bill
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Congress, Energy, McCain
The AP alerted me to an interesting story. Let’s begin with part of Barack Obama’s current speech about energy:

“President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, ‘Cheney, go take care of this. Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook.”

Here’s the problem. Look at the vote on the 2005 Energy Bill, which Obama is now trying to tie to John McCain. Obama voted for it. McCain voted against it.

Obama says he voted for the bill because it gave so much funding to renewable energy. McCain opposed the bill because he said, at the time, it included too many tax breaks for energy companies.

Obama’s current message distorts the facts. A new kind of politician? Not in this case.

Donklephant » Blog Archive » Obama Distorting Facts on Cheney Energy Bill

Originally Posted by Julie

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Obama Distorting Facts on Cheney Energy Bill
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Congress, Energy, McCain
The AP alerted me to an interesting story. Let’s begin with part of Barack Obama’s current speech about energy:

“President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, ‘Cheney, go take care of this. Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook.”

Here’s the problem. Look at the vote on the 2005 Energy Bill, which Obama is now trying to tie to John McCain. Obama voted for it. McCain voted against it.

Obama says he voted for the bill because it gave so much funding to renewable energy. McCain opposed the bill because he said, at the time, it included too many tax breaks for energy companies.

Obama’s current message distorts the facts. A new kind of politician? Not in this case.

Donklephant » Blog Archive » Obama Distorting Facts on Cheney Energy Bill

Thanks, Julie. Useful. I am going to send thru the McCain network out my way.