Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Local Elections Roundup
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
I’ve heard that Jack Ryan’s 2004 opposition research report on Obama is floating around out there somewhere, and I’m wondering whether Nathan Gonzales got it because I highly doubt he pored over umpteen thousand Senate floor votes before he wrote this piece.
Still, Gonzales’ column is an interesting read. [Corrected because I didn’t notice that Rothenberg was reprinting a column whole cloth]
For example, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted “present” on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.
In 1999, Obama voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted “present” on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
In 2001, Obama voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the “born alive” bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote “present” on the bills instead of “no.”
And finally in 2001, Obama voted “present” on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.
If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.
Meanwhile, John Fritchey links to a column that has to be one of the most god-awful, over-thought, ridiculous thing ever written on this campaign which appeared in a supposedly mainstream publication.
Entitled “Why Daleys Endorsed Obama,” it offers up absolutely nothing of substance.
The New York Sun column gives us lots of cut and paste history: snow storms, labor negotiations, 1968 convention, Abner Mikva, Royko, Harold Washington, Lincoln, Walker and this…
Illinois history also explains the Daleys’ endorsement of Mr. Obama. The brothers learned not only from their father’s victories but also from his mistakes. They don’t want to look out of step with their times, as he did in 1968.
First of all, why is it that the Baby Boomers have to run everything through the prism of their youth? Why does everything have to relate back to that convention, or McGovern, or Woodstock or whatever?
The author of this goofy column never once mentions the fact that Daley is running for re-election and wants to show his critics he can still rack up huge numbers, and therefore needs to sew up as much black support as possible (see: Wal-Mart pandering, Olympics patronage) in a city where the black vote can ruin or make a white candidate. No mention that Obama has endorsed Daley over two black opponents, or that they both share the same media consultant (Axelrod). No consideration given to the fact that Obama’s statewide approval rating is in the 70s and his approval in Chicago is probably over 90. No ironic mentions of the fact that even though Obama endorsed Daley, his people are criticizing black leaders who endorse Hillary Clinton.
Instead, we’re treated to pure, unadulterated Baby Boomer crapola. Ugh.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 8:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Local Elections Roundup
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich:
As a journalist, you are always surprised at how lame most of you are. I, on the other hand, am never surprised by pablum and pure crap written by your peers ( and I use that term loosely). Most folks don’t understand urban politics ( the NY and SF markets may be the exception) and at least in NY, anything that gets printed has to be assumed as being penned by Hillary’s backers
Comment by The Horse Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:23 am
Are there any Illinois Democrats not for Obama besides Rahm? You don’t need any history to figure out Daley’s endoresement.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:24 am
As far as hard hitting journalists - The Sun Times endorsed Hal Baskin?????? I mean Shirley Coleman is no Arenda Troutman - who is? But a news entity endorsed a Gangster Disciple who was cuffed and booked for striking a Chicago Police Officer moments after he and his crew tried to ’shakedown’ Leo High School for his Englewood Politcal Task Force? It was in all the papers.
Elder Hal wanted ‘a taste’ of Leo High School’s 79th Street Project, and was shown the door.
Comment by Pat Hickey Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:42 am
We lost him! I actually thought that somehow we could cover Obama and keep up with everything. But after his announcement, EVERYONE has thoughts and comments about him. Worst, they are writing about him.
We are being exposed to drivel like the stuff you pointed out, and there are dozens of nonsensical garbage out there about Obama. I don’t know why I am surprised. He was on Oprah, after all. His campaign has entered a stage in which no one can control what is being said and spun. No wonder presidential candidates become increasingly vague and sour as time passes.
Boomers are so self centered and have been worshipped for so long by their parents and grandparents, they have lost touch with reality in many ways. Last month I read another Boomer generated Obama comment that refered to the Boomer generation as the “watermelon in the python”. Sorry to break the news to you guys, but the Grim Reaper and Mother Nature has reduced your watermelon to the size of another generational orange. But that is the state of mind for so many Boomers - it is ALL about them.
Now that we are seeing a presidential candidate that cannot be comfortably roped into the Boomer generation, (they try to put him “at the end”), Boomers are passing judgement on a guy who didn’t experience Kennedy, Vietnam, MLK, Gomer Pyle and The Beatles.
As we can see, their yardstick no longer works.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:45 am
“Ugh” - “UNadulturated Baby Boomer Crapola…”…let me just tell you, you young whippersnapper - our crapola is totally ADulturated. If it’s a generational war you want, then, let me go change my Depends and I’ll be back at the keyboard sooner than you can say George McGovern!!!
Comment by Senior Senor Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:45 am
George McGovern.
lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:48 am
Hey Rich, the column on “present” votes was written by Nathan Gonzales, not Stu Rothenberg. fwiw
Comment by Reality Check Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:49 am
Corrected, thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:50 am
No problem … but it’s Gonzales, no ‘T’. And he works for Rothenberg, so it’s not really a reprint per se. But now I’m being nitpicky.
Comment by Reality Check Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:54 am
Yes, I saw that too. LOL. Trying to do too many things at once today.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 9:56 am
Miller,
Remember, I just find them, I don’t do quality control
Comment by Rep. John Fritchey Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 10:00 am
The piece in Z Mag is not so lame & has some substance
The Obama Illusion
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
Comment by rd or knot Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 10:01 am
‘Instead, we’re treated to pure, unadulterated Baby Boomer crapola. Ugh”
Inagoddavida sells life insurance and that sweet spot of seven geezers road-loading with water in a convertible, while sanpped into their Depends.
It was aTIMe of HOPE , baby! Acid Reflux my A$%!
Comment by Pat Hickey Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 10:01 am
I think it’s going to be pretty risky to attack Obama on the “present” votes. Unlike some politicians who don’t remember what they did and why, Obama probably does remember those votes and the policy issues behind them.
His explanation for the votes will allow him to defend an unabashedly liberal voting record while still seeming like a moderate.
For example, the parental notification of abortion bill passed the House with an amendment a lot like Fritchey’s bill that allows a minor to notify (specified) adults other than her parents. By voting present, Obama gets to explain that he supports the concept of a minor telling her parents about an abortion, but that the bill should have been passed with more options.
The same kind of reasoning holds true about the other votes.
Besides, who is going to attack him on parental notification (or the other issues)? Certainly not Clinton, who doesn’t want to look radical on the issue of choice. Edwards might, but his campaign message is geared more to Reagan Democrats rather than social liberals.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 10:03 am
the Other Anonymous –
The knock against Obama is that he punted. If he’s going to be President, he’d better learn how to explain why he vetoed something that he supports as a concept but not as written in the bill. Because there’s no “present†stamp in the Resolute desk.
He spoke so eloquently about making “tough decisions†at his announcement. Looks like another example of him not practicing what he preaches.
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 11:03 am
With a year to go this wall to wall Obama coverage is on the far side of overkill. What’s next? His daily caloric intake and an accounting of what he eats when on the road campaigning?
I’m heading out to find some Peter Pan that hasn’t been removed from the shelves. Eating it can’t be as painful as all of the Clinton/Obama coverage.
Comment by Papa Legba Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 11:19 am
If I start from the proposition that 75% of the legislation that goes through Springfield is knee jerk, react to the headlines crapola then I can’t fault Obama without knowing more about each package of crapola.
That said, Obama faces a real challenge in trying to govern from the center. The middle is often the muddle when it comes to legislating and Washington is nothing but a muddled up mess. Vision involves something far more radical than anything I have seen in Washington and I am reluctant to have much hope that any candidate can transform this maladaptive dinosaur into a rapidly evolving, tiny mammal.
Comment by vole Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 12:14 pm
Obama’s present votes are disturbing.
as stated in the Zmagsite article, he
chose Lieberman to be his “assigned”mentor,
that is truly disturbing. rd or knot, thanks
for the link, the article is very fact filled.
Comment by amy Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 2:18 pm
vole,
I don’t think Obama will be governing from the middle. His record is pretty clear: he is a liberal. What makes Obama seem a “moderate” is that he uses moderate rhetoric and justifications for liberal policies.
Grand Old Partisan (kind of) identified the real challenge for him should he become President Obama. As GOP points out, the President must sign or veto every bill. He has no other option (except, maybe, the pocket veto).
I don’t think it’s going to be a big problem for a President Obama to veto bills that are currently on the conservative agenda. He will have a large enough bully pulpit to explain his veto.
The real challenge for him will be if conservatives take his objections to a particular bill seriously, and send him up a version of the legislation that meets his objections. In the case of, let’s say, parental notification laws, what does Obama do if a bill like the Fritchey bill (expanding the category of responsible adults in addition to parents who can be notified) reaches his desk? And let’s say that bill is not the result of a compromise sought by pro-choicers?
How he handles such a situation would say a lot about whether he will really change politics in Washington.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Friday, Feb 16, 07 @ 2:36 pm
Obama’s speech and young voters…
The burden of Obama being catapulted into the national spotlight with his 2004 Democratic Convention speech is that people expect him to give similar rock star performances every time he makes a major public address. Expectations couldn’t have been hi…
Trackback by Where there's a Will, there's a way Sunday, Feb 18, 07 @ 4:08 pm
The first post-boomer candidate…
I got a similar impression during Barack Obama’s speech in Springfield that I first thought about when reading his book. He has a post-boomer perspective. I don’t mean that he’s going to ignore baby boomer issues. A recent post Rich……
Trackback by Where there's a Will, there's a way Sunday, Feb 18, 07 @ 4:26 pm