I have not made it any secret that I do not support Barack Obama even though I'm from his home state - Illinois. I have made statements how he never really took stands when he was in the Illinois Legislature, played the middle-of-the-road peacekeeper most all of the time, and told the electorate in Illinois when asked during his run for the Senate that he would not run for any other office only to decide to run for president one year later.
Well, the New York Times has an article today with a real point:
Obama’s Vote in Illinois Was Often Just ‘Present’
n 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.
Barack Obama being sworn in as a Democratic state senator in Illinois in 1997. He was first elected in 1996 and left in 2004.
In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.
Yes, he voted present in the political maneuver that both Democrats and Republicans use in the Illinois Legislature.
In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.
“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”
However, Obama also did it more often than these times. Of course, each time he had a legitimate excuse - "there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime"; "he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions"; "he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment"; "to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together"; or "he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities."
I admit that these are all legitimate reasons. [For the issues for which each of these responses were given, read the NYT article.] More than justifiability though is the political expediency that was behind each present vote. Sometimes there wasn't even an effort to hide it.
Since meeting Hillary Clinton in August, I have been leaning towards supporting her. However, there are things that I like about Biden, Edwards and even Ron Paul. The thing I like the most about them, despite what they may each say, is that they have experience. It's a powerful reason. They have the experience of dealing with Washington, connections with people who run the government from day to day, and the knowledge of the inner and outer workings of it.
I agree with Bill Clinton, even thought the cynics called him on it, when he said on Charlie Rose that he believes that Obama lacks the experience.
in addition to my hearing Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time...
oh, and i can't wait to hear Andrew Sullivan's take on the NYT article, if he makes one...
No comments:
Post a Comment