B.O. "voting" questions

[bugsNbows]

So, just to please our loyal B.O. fans here, I was wondering... if B.O. / Biden win, what will the great one do when he won't be able to vote "present" on some worldly issue? Using that tatic so often (in the Senate) may have been politically expedient at the time, but you've got to take a stance now big boy. Oh the inhumanity of it all. Good grief.

[burniegoeasily]

I loved when Giuliani pointed that out at the RNC.

[Fieldmouse]

Unfortunately, Obama only has to continue his very distinguished record of nothing by doing absolutely nothing once he gets into office because hewouldn't have to sign any bill that comes across his desk and they would still become law.

[burniegoeasily]

ORIGINAL: Fieldmouse

Unfortunately, Obama only has to continue his very distinguished record of nothing by doing absolutely nothing once he gets into office because hewouldn't have to sign any bill that comes across his desk and they would still become law.

And that is the scary reality of this election.

[Beau Ouiville]

Unfortunately, Giuliani got a lot wrong. A present vote has been called "a soft no". There's also something in Robert's rules about that in order to table a bill (and kill it) you have to have voted positively on it. Ol' Rudy just does not understand or is willing to misdescribe legislative procedure.

Then Rudy said Obama hung out with the Chicago Democratic machine and was slated for the IL legislature. As a matter of fact, Obama has always been an independent Democrat and was never part of the regular Democrats in Chicago or IL.

But I hate to let facts stand in the way of a nice soundbite.

"Obama has defended many of his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate as part of the larger legislative strategy of the Democratic caucus and not a failure of nerve or attempt to conceal his true sentiments from voters.

I'm not here to referee that claim. I'm here to say that there's only one word for the integrity of those who use the raw number of an Illinois legislator's "present" votes to draw a conclusion about him: Absent."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn-09-sep09,0,7209096.column

[kybuck20032001]

if present means (soft no) than I thinks less of him now. That's like saying I dissagree BUT DON'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW.

[Beau Ouiville]

ORIGINAL: kybuck20032001

if present means (soft no) than I thinks less of him now. That's like saying I dissagree BUT DON'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW.

Follow the link to the commentators explanation. That really provides a full exposition of the 'present' votes.

[Fieldmouse]

Then Rudy said Obama hung out with the Chicago Democratic machine and was slated for the IL legislature. As a matter of fact, Obama has always been an independent Democrat and was never part of the regular Democrats in Chicago or IL.

I wish you could back that one but however I know you can't. In fact no one can. Obama's records from the time he served in the the IL legislature have never been released and from what I understand the are in fact missing and may have been distroyed (or really being hiden). There are also other records that would be nice to have a look at but they too aren't available like what exactly did all those millions of tax payer money go when you were a "community organizer". How about his medical records? What about his application for the Illionois Bar? Did he lie on it?

[Alsatian]

The voting "present" issue may be a red herring. I've heard -- Giuliani's speech at the RNC -- that Obama voted present 130 times. What I didn't hear was how often he actually cast a yes/no vote. I heard somewhere that he may have voted some 1000 times yes/no. Believe me, I'm not an Obama supporter -- he is tax n'spend, anti-gun, weak on defense, liberal on social/cultural issues -- but I think this is a non-issue.

[James B]

The rumor that Obama is a different kind of Politition is the biggest batch of Bunk in this whole Campaign. If anything, he is even more FOS