|
Again with the “Present” votes?
Friday, Oct 10, 2008 * Yesterday, the Washington Post ran one of the better analyses I’ve seen yet of Barack Obama’s history in the Illinois Senate. You should definitely go read the whole thing. While it covers some overly familiar territory (poker games, clashes with black Senators, white friends, etc.), it is overal quite nuanced - until it gets to the end…
Nobody thought the votes would be an issue because “Present” votes are pretty common in the General Assembly. * I requested the following charts from a Democratic entity. The first has the summary of the top seven “Present” voters in the Senate during the time Obama was in Springfield…   As you can see, almost every one of those Senators is (or was) highly respected at the Statehouse. Here’s the breakdown by year. Click the pic for a larger image…  Obama’s “Present” votes appear to closely track with other Democrats on the list. So, while Obama certainly had more “P” votes than lots and lots of other Senators, he wasn’t out of line with people like Vince Demuzio and John Cullerton. * One more thing. Former GOP Sen. Steve Raushenberger has repeatedly made an issue of Obama’s “Present” votes and once told me that his total was nowhere near Obama’s. In fact, the Democratic researcher found that Rauschenberger voted “Present” 82 times between 1997 and 2004. That isn’t too far below Obama’s total.
- Posted by Rich Miller
|
LIVE session coverage...
 |
|
|
- anon - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:50 am:
Note the very high total of “present” votes for Sens. Geo and Petka in 2003. Does anyone know the story behind that?
- Been There - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:57 am:
You can spin it anyway you want, but except for the protest votes, I think most legislators vote present because they think they are appeasing the proponents of the issue. The effect is the same as voting against their bill but they are not throwing it directly into their faces. Always ticks me off when the legislator tries tell you he wasn’t really against your bill and look, I voted “present”, not “no”. I would rather they just skip the vote entirely and blame it on a bad bladder problem.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 10:57 am:
Much ado about nothing.
- DzNts - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:02 am:
What’s interesting too is that the other democrats were part of the leadership - which could lead to an argument that Obama was following caucus direction instead of taking on members of his own party on key issues. It’s a specious argument, but an interesting view.
What would be more damning would be to actually focus on the “no” votes or the “yes” votes and what those votes meant to taxpayers and small businesses. Taking a stance on judgement is okay, but voters are more interested in relevancy than campaign rhetoric. How did Obama’s votes impact people? That seems to be more important than voting present.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:15 am:
Whoever votes “present” anytime during their tenure in office, is doing their citizens a disservice.
They elected a leader, not a facilitator. When you run for office, you are supposed to stand for something. When legislators refuse to commit to a “yes” or “no” vote, they are telling us they can’t do their jobs.
It is clear. We expect our legislators to defend against critics regarding their votes. This ensures that debate is heard, and that decisions are made. For too long we have allowed elected officials to wiggle and dance cowardly around state issues. When they do this, this prevents citizens from giving the legislature direction through their votes.
Obama can never gain a mandate because he never stands for anything. He has gone 180 whenever it is politically possible. The real reason a majority of voters are now supporting him is because he deliberately votes “present” on most issues. While this may be politically smart, it is short-sighted. Voters don’t know what they are voting for, Obama refuses to tell the truth about where his convictions lay, and nothing is gained.
“Present” votes indicate a individual unwilling to lead or tell the truth. It is a tool of a legislator that prefers white lies to hard debate. No wonder people are so tired of politics today. They are tired of all the glorious rhetoric.
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:27 am:
I’m not too sure about the relevance of the present issue. As far as his state senate record is concerned, attention ought to be paid to three things:
1. Initiatives he sponsored.
2. How he voted on issues such as tax increases, giveaways and pork.
3. How often he voted with Republicans and against a majority of his own party (relevant because he keeps claiming to have such a stellar record of “bipartisanship”).
That’s entirely fair game. I don’t think you find a single senator without at least one “present” vote during the course of a full term. They all do it so as not to offend someone they do not support on a specific issue.
- Just asking - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:36 am:
“almost every one of those Senators is (or was) highly respected”
Why do you have to single out Hendon like that? :)
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:39 am:
lol
Perhaps there’s too much assumption on your part?
- 47th Ward - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:41 am:
Vanilla Man,
The world is more neopolitan than your post leads us to beleive. It isn’t just vanilla and chocolate, there is plenty of strawberry out there too.
Saying something like, ““Present” votes indicate a individual unwilling to lead or tell the truth” displays an alarming lack of knowledge about the legislative process.
- Captain Flume - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 11:56 am:
== Allies said many of his other “Present” votes reflected his tendency toward analysis and precision: He voted “Present” whenever he liked a bill but felt uncomfortable with its wording, they said. ==
I really get offended at hearsay being reported as fact. And if it is not being reported as fact, then why report it? How can that assertion be corroborated? It can’t, anymore than the assertion he voted present out of cowardice. It’s just speculative journalism. Grrrr!
I say he voted “present” out of political expediency, the same as other “present” votes by other legislators.
- My Opinion - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 12:33 pm:
You said it 47th ward! I agree
- South Side Mike - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 12:35 pm:
Whiplash,
===3. How often he voted with Republicans and against a majority of his own party (relevant because he keeps claiming to have such a stellar record of “bipartisanship”).====
Dead on. I would love this analysis for both IL and US Senates. And I don’t think you would have to have even 25% “maverick” votes to be considered independent. I would accept 5-10% of disputed votes (that is, over 67% of one party in favor of the measure and 67% of the other party opposed) for showing willingness to work with other parties. Neither party is correct 100% of the time. Maybe Obama could demonstrate even a single example of this during his 30 minute informercial right before the election.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 12:46 pm:
As the linked article points out, and I agree, Obama was widely known to vote for state Senate GOP bills when almost no other SDem would.
- Toni H. - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 1:13 pm:
Just because Obama’s Present votes track with the other Democrats doesn’t make it right. Pick a side - yes or no and vote!
- Ken - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 1:47 pm:
Come on! Just because others voted present doesn’t make it right or justifable. Your argument is weak.
Obama is suppose to be a leader. Leaders lead, not vote present.
As President he would not have any chances to vote present, because he felt “uncomfortable with the wording.”
Rich, you try to portray him as deep a deep analytical thinker. PLease!!
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 1:52 pm:
He’s not running for the state Senate now. So, tell me how, exactly, those “P” votes would make him a worse president?
I can think of a few, but I’d like to hear what you think.
- Captain America - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 2:05 pm:
Meaningless drivel - inside baseball, that most voters won’t know about and don’t care about.
- Been There - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 2:47 pm:
In a nutshell, you need 30 votes to pass something in regular session and 38 for when a super majority vote is needed. If you don’t vote yes, you didn’t support the bill. End of story. All of his present votes should just be lumped in with his no votes or not voting votes when analyzing his record.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 2:54 pm:
==The world is more neopolitan than your post leads us to beleive. It isn’t just vanilla and chocolate, there is plenty of strawberry out there too.==
Well, duh! You can always find strawberries if you look hard enough. It is not their job to turn everything into strawberries. That’s not leading - or even being an adult!
It is their job to make a decision, then tell us why they made that decision. If it is a difficult one to make, then tell us that. But to vote present on any bill is a sham and any legislator doing it shouldn’t be in office.
Certainly not running for president.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 3:43 pm:
VanillaMan, c’mon.
You seem overly outraged about this whole voting present thing. It’s like you just figured out that Illinois legislators have the optiona (hint: it’s the yellow button).
Legislators are asked to decide on tens of thousands of votes on the floor, covering many complicated procedural and substantive issues. Every day. These aren’t always black and white decisions. This isn’t Tom Brokaw’s world anymore, where intensely complicated issues can be boiled down to Yes or No.
We’ve been over this here, many times, and the title of this post reflects that. For most of the controversial present votes, Obama has already explained his vote. Try paying attention. Your outrage is misplaced and would be better served focused on the economy instead. Or the war.
- Ken - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 3:51 pm:
Voting represents a pattern of indecision and leadership. We don’t need a President who is indecisive.
Obama talks little about his voting record,either in the state senate or US senate. What he has is very very liberal.
Acting like he voted present, because other voted that way deflects real analysis of his voting record, Rich. Let’s see you put his voting record up on key issue and see how he stacks up.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 4:23 pm:
===Voting represents a pattern of indecision and leadership. We don’t need a President who is indecisive.===
That’s a stretch. Was Adeline Geo-karis indecisive? Ed Petka? Anything but. Nobody else on that above list, in fact, could be considered indecisive.
What you’ve done is plugged pre-approved spin into a particular situation. And it’s proved supremely goofy in proper context.
===What he has is very very liberal.===
So, you go from indecisive to very, very liberal. Pick a lane, man.
===Acting like he voted present, because other voted that way deflects real analysis of his voting record, Rich.===
So, now the Present votes don’t matter?
Ken, you are all over the freaking map on that one.
PS: I wouldn’t be so sure that his state Senate voting record is purely liberal, however. Like the linked story points out, he voted for a lot of GOP bills. Did he vote for most of the liberal bills as well? Sure. But his overall record is far more nuanced than your simplistic, contradictory, hyperpartisan “analysis.”
But, hey, you win the prize for most confusing talking points comment of the day. Congratulations.
- Captain Flume - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 5:04 pm:
It also stands to reason that anyone who has only served in the legislature will have made no-decision decisions like “present” votes. A chief executive can’t make the “cowardice/expedient/still-studying-the-issue” decision. Why? Mainly, because there is no one else to carry the load, there are no fellow chief executives to spread the blame, or structure the vote. That fact, not surprisingly, is one reason our current state chief exec has such a difficult time governing. I wonder whether either of our major presidential candidates will buckle under having to make a real decision every time one must be made.
- some former legislative intern - Friday, Oct 10, 08 @ 6:10 pm:
As Been There said, Yes is the vote that matters, that actually is a vote to change things. No, Present, Exc/NV, all have the same effect as a No vote. That being said, why not just vote No? When you vote Present, you at the very least look indecisive.
I recall, during my days down there, being sent to look through old roll calls to count the number of Present votes and Absents a certain Representative had in order to make him look wishy-washy. They are fair game.
My feeling on the Present issue is that it should only be used for when you have a conflict of interest with a bill. I don’t know its original intent, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was it.
All that being said, it is true that none of this will work against Obama. It is very inside baseball type of stuff and has been tried in the past against him on several occasions with little success. The only way it would work is if people found him voting Present on major issues–i.e. school reform, Illinois FIRST, etc. A decent ad could be made out of that, showing him to be unable to take a stand on the critical issues of the time. However, for most votes, its nothing.