Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

About those “Present” votes * Updated x3 *

Posted in:

Illinois
Obama

* The Tribune had this bit today on Hillary Clinton’s latest attack on Barack Obama…

[Clinton] also raised a new front on the issue of Obama’s use of “present” votes — rather than “yes” and “no” votes — on legislation when he was in the Illinois Senate, including on measures that dealt with Republican-led efforts to restrict abortion rights. […]

Obama has defended his “present” votes on abortion-related bills in the Illinois legislature, contending it was part of a strategy fashioned with abortion-rights advocates to help give some Illinois Senate Democrats political cover and to avoid looking harsh by casting “no” votes that would create a re-election risk.

But the Tribune earlier this year found few lawmakers remembered such a strategy and many of those who joined with Obama to vote present were, like him, in politically safe districts.

* Maybe only a few members the Tribune contacted remember this ploy, but I do. It was specifically designed by Planned Parenthood to counter Republican Senate President Pate Philip’s barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002. The Tribune missed the point - and by not contacting the groups involved, flubbed the story.

Besides passing bills he supported, Pate’s idea was to cause a controversy by splitting “moderate” Democrats away from the abortion rights groups, thereby causing a rift on that side, and, more imporantly, to put some political targets on the hot seat. So, as they also did in the House a few years back, Planned Parenthood was encouraging “Present” votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well.

* For instance, Senate Bill 1661, introduced in 2002, would have created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”

Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child’s behalf for damages…

The bill passed with 31 votes, but it received 11 Present votes. Among those voting “P” were Republican Senators Christine Radogno and Adeline Geo-Karis. Moderate Democrats voting “P” were Molaro and Viverito. Sen. Pat Welch, a perennial political target who was finally defeated in 2004, also voted Present.

A companion bill, SB 1662, was also hugely controversial at the time…

Defines “born-alive infant” to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

The roll call on that proposal was pretty much the same as the other one.

* Was the strategy a success? Planned Parenthood claims it was, but the bills still passed the Senate and not all politically vulnerable people stuck to the program. Sen. Debbie Halvorson voted “No” on both of those bills in 2002, when she was up for reelection, but voted “Present” the year before on pretty much the same legislation, SB 1094 and SB 1095

* Pam Sutherland of Planned Parenthood said today that Pate Philip “couldn’t use those votes against the moderates or against pro-choice people.” Sutherland also slammed Clinton. “Having come from Illinois, she doesn’t understand Illinois politics.” And Sutherland had this to say in today’s Sun-Times…

“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

Also, none of those aforementioned bills made it to a floor vote in the House, a development that surprised and angered some pro-life activists who had believed that Speaker Madigan was an ally, or at least a sympathizer. It shows you just how controversial these bills were, because Madigan had allowed pro-life bills to the floor before that package of legislation was introduced.

* Despite all this, Present votes, particularly repeated Present votes, are almost always fair game in campaigns. I’ve seen them used time and time again. So Clinton’s attack is perfectly understandable and within the bounds of political tradition (unlike that kindergarten nonsense), even if her facts are off on this one. The Tribune’s coverage played right into her hands.

*** UPDATE 1 *** Perhaps the Tribune should have looked at their own paper’s archives. Eric Zorn covered this very same issue well over three years ago…

“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,’” Sutherland said. “The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present’ that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue.”

Sutherland said this tactic makes the “present” vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.

Hat tip: ArchPundit, who adds…

The irony is that pro-life groups in Illinois attacked him for killing later versions of these bills when he was a Committee Chair by not letting them out of committee.

*** UPDATE 2 *** Alan Keyes claimed that Obama’s voting history on that particular legislative package was why he was recruited to run in the first place…

Last year, however, BAIPA regained prominence when State Senator Barack Obama’s vote against allowing babies born alive to be deemed as “persons” made statewide headlines during his run for U.S. Senate. Republican candidate Alan Keyes repeatedly told the press he accepted the invitation to come from Maryland to run against Obama based primarily on Obama’s vote on the BAIPA while in the State Senate.

Obama recently stated that if the state legislation were to be identical to the federal language, he would vote for passage.

He went on to say, “I believe that position should be the one Democrats should take,” [pro-life activist Jill Stanek] reports Obama said to her in January while on a visit to the Capitol.

*** UPDATE 3 *** Zorn has now reposted his entire column on this issue. It had disappeared from the Intertubes, but you can read it here…

Obama’s “present” vote on that bill is one Hull is attacking him for in a flier decorated with rubber duckies.

Sutherland just laughs. “We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present’ on that one,” she said. “It was all done to pull `present’ votes off the fence.”

Obama confirmed Sutherland’s account of the legislative strategy and said, “No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was.”

“Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of the process,” said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 2:36 pm

Comments

Why do reporters often settle for the “but I called around and nobody that I talked to knew/remembered/etc.” excuse? That is a tactic used much too often in this he said/she said atmosphere of lazy journalism.

Thank you Rich for filling in the void of quality reporting.

Comment by GoBearsss Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 2:44 pm
I have seen several stories talking about Hilary dropping in Iowa polls and going big negative….and so far the pundits preceive it is backfiring on her. This seem sto be more support for that position.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 3:06 pm
Oh please, not another round of the Obama abortion “present” votes. You’d think the Trib could save money and just rerun the ones they and everyone else did four years ago from the Senate race.

Next thing you know, we’ll have a bunch of stories about … gasp … Obama doing drugs as a youth.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 3:34 pm
So Obama’s excuse for voting “Present” is that he was following orders fom special interest group lobbyists?

Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 3:52 pm
You guys are falling for it again!

This is not about voting “Present”, it ties into yesterday’s story about how Obama has always planned to run for president, but instead pretends he had no ambition for the Office.

The “Present” voting patterns lend addtional credibility to this story, doesn’t it? It shows that even while sitting in the Illinois Senate, Obama had chosen to avoid voting on issues that would paint him into a corner for a presidential run.

Debate all you want about his excuse, what Clinton is doing is showing Obama’s game plan for the White House, even before 2004.

Obama wants us to believe he isn’t a game player, but if you take a look at what a normal guy does, Obama’s need to write, what, two personal memoirs before he is even 45 years old is nuts and smacks of personal obsession of his public image.

Obama brings the situation upon himself by pretending to be virginal. Clinton is simply showing how preposterous Obama’s “Doris Day” image is.

Clinton is writing Obama’s biography, just like any good candidate does for their opposition.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:06 pm
In 2001, Obama had just come off his loss to Bobby Rush. I seriously doubt he was thinking presidency at that point.

It’s odd that some of you conservatives (like VM) who wouldn’t believe Hillary on anything else would buy into her crapola on this.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:13 pm
Rich,
I didn’t kmow VM was conservative!

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:17 pm
[…] And, in fact, according to Rich Miller it wasn’t just a caucus strategy but a strategy devise by Planned Parenthood, which opposed Pres. Phillips’ divisive measures. Sayeth local PP head Pam Sutherland, “The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did.” Rich has much more on the history of that time in the Illinois State Senate — including updates to his original post noting that Sen. Obama has been routinely attacked by conservatives like Jill Stanek, Fran Eaton and a Marylander named Alan Keyes for blocking similar anti-abortion bills in later years. […]

Pingback by Is HRC getting desperate? « Illinois Reason Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:18 pm
—The “Present” voting patterns lend addtional credibility to this story, doesn’t it? It shows that even while sitting in the Illinois Senate, Obama had chosen to avoid voting on issues that would paint him into a corner for a presidential run.

Errr…he killed the bills in committee when he became Chair by not calling them for a vote–he put himself in the position of being the ONLY one responsible for killing the bills after that.

That doesn’t seem like an avoidance scheme.

Comment by archpundit Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:18 pm
The other thing everyone needs to remember is that in the Illinois legislature, a “present” vote has exactly the same effect as a “no” vote, since a constitutional majority is required to pass bills. So, if the politically correct vote on the abortion bills was “no”, if Obama voted “present”, regardless of the reasons for the strategy, he voted “correctly.”

Interestingly, part of the Clinton attack was to suggest that the present votes were a “duck” and that as President, you don’t get to “duck.” But read the Constitution - the President DOES get to duck, if he/she thinks it’s strategic to do so - it’s called a “pocket veto.”

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:19 pm
Obama has a pattern of not voting and not just
on the abortion bills. look at Safe Neighborhoods,
look at some environmental and banking things.

there is something up with him. his record should
be completely liberal because of Hyde Park.

he is/was parsing. accept his foibles if you
accept his good things.

and, accept that he is currently not showing up
to work in the Senate, because if Hillary had
missed the number of votes that Obama has,
you’d be all over her.

Comment by amy Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:25 pm
Oh, even better, let’s re-examine Safe Neighborhoods because that hasn’t been done enough. Here’s a tip, he missed a key vote! Probably means he’s pro-gun.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:39 pm
Actually, it means he’s “pro-grandmother” or “pro-hawaii.” lol

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:40 pm
The best is the one where he and Hendon voted together present. I was wondering if that is how they counted their votes as they were about to fight…

Comment by archpundit Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:53 pm
Hillary’s poll numbers are falling. She’s probably not going to win in Iowa, which puts a serious crimp in her posture of inevitability. So she’s attacking regardless of the merits of the argumnet on the theory that some mud is bound to stick. A majority of Democrats are not happy that Hillary is the likley nominee because she is the weakest candidate in the general as a result of her very high negatives.

A loss in Iowa could lead to other losses. Democrats disaffected by Hillary could coalesce around a candidate who appears potentially able to defeat her rather than supporting their first choice.

Given that Obama killed the subject bills when he had a chance to do so, the attack is easily refuted.

Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 4:56 pm
“It’s odd that some of you conservatives (like VM) who wouldn’t believe Hillary on anything else would buy into her crapola on this.”

I’m pointing out that she is selling the public on this story. I don’t buy anything Clinton sells!

No Bill, I am not conservative. I am realistic.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 5:02 pm
Two words “Comeback Kid”. When she gets really desperate, she’ll listen to Bill.

And everyone here is missing a key point. Obama’s claim to fame is “I am different”.

Now, we see he’s another sneaky pol who says one thing and does another. Taking orders from special interests and “having a strategy” instead of plainly voting is what 99% of politicians do. Not someone who is “different”.

You go, girl *^^*.

Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 6:54 pm
Hillary just needs to shut up. The more people get to know her, the less they will like her. If she fools around and loses in Iowa, that would give Obama a pretty big bump.

Comment by Shelbyville Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 8:54 pm
Blah, blah blah, now let’s talk about his lukewarm support of gay rights and his double talk on this subject…clay feet…

Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 9:06 pm
Ill bet folks in his IL Senate district arent supportive of a womans right to choose, but he didn’t want a no to get in the way with his future political ambitions–and how is this strategy different than Hillary’s or any other pol? He takes orders from Planned Parenthood and no money? He may win Iowa, but I say its downhill from there.

Comment by anon56 Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 9:15 pm
Taking orders from a lobbyist/special interest group? Are you guys all that out of touch?

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 10:34 pm
Now, now. Let’s not paint them with such a broad brush.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 4, 07 @ 11:08 pm
Nice try at making excuses for Obama on his abysmal actions and nonactions on the Born Alive bills, but it won’t work.

Rich, the Born Alive bills were not presented thanks to “President Pate Philip’s barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002.”

Rich, those bills ripened organically. I went public in July 1999 on Christ Hospital aborting babies alive. Born Alive was presented on the national level in July 2000. Meanwhile AG Jim Ryan was researching whether the induced labor abortion procedure was legal in IL, which he finally determined it was.

So Sen. O’Malley crafted 3 bills and presented them for the first time in the Judiciary Committee in March 2001.

The cornerstone bill was identical to the federal bill with this tag:

“A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”

And what’s wrong with that?

I met Obama for the first time in the Jud Committee, when I testified. He said he opposed all three bills for fear they impinged on Roe v. Wade. He voted no on all 3 in committee. Still, they passed.

On the floor, he was the LONE senator speaking against them. Here was this supposedly constitutional expert’s ridiculous argument:

… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

Still, he upgraded his votes to “present.” He was a coward.

Born Alive on the federal level passed in July 2002 (unanimously in the Senate 98-0; in the House overwhelmingly by voice vote). Kennedy and Boxer spoke in its favor on the Senate floor. NARAL went neutral.

After that, I found it even harder to believe the ignorance of disputing IL legislators on the cornerstone bill in particular. They were way too beholden to Planned Parenthood. Neither they nor PP had any savvy on this issue. To support infanticide is over the top.

The Born Alive bills went through the Senate Jud Committee again. This time, Obama’s words were transcribed. He said:

“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”

Obama voted “no” in committee again. And again on the Senate floor he was the LONE senator speaking against them. And this time he voted no for the bills.

In November 2002, Dems got control of the Senate, and Obama became chair of the Health & Human Services Committee, where the Born Alive bills were sent when introduced the third time in 2003 (demonstrating they weren’t part of a Pate strategy). He killed them in committee.

In March 2004 Obama won his US Senate primary. He never voted IL for the Born Alive bills again.

But he actively opposed them all three times he had the opportunity.

Comment by Jill Stanek Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 5:15 am
Rich said, “Also, none of those aforementioned bills made it to a floor vote in the House, a development that surprised and angered some pro-life activists who had believed that Speaker Madigan was an ally, or at least a sympathizer. It shows you just how controversial these bills were, because Madigan had allowed pro-life bills to the floor before that package of legislation was introduced.”

No, that’s not what happened. I don’t know if this is still Madigan’s rule, but at the time he only allowed 2 pro-life bills to be introduced a session. I said in my last post that neither pro-abort legislators or Planned Parenthood demonstrated savvy on these infanticide bills. Well, neither did pro-life lobbyist Ralph Rivera, who already had his 2 bills picked and didn’t understand the Born Alive tide. He gave thumbs down to Madigan on Born Alive.

Comment by Jill Stanek Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 5:20 am
Obama’s five excuses for opposing Born Alive in IL:

1. During a debate against Keyes in March 2004, Obama rationalized: “Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade, which is why 21 other senators, Democrat and Republican, why the Illinois Medical Society objected to the bill. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.”

(Actually, never did more than 10 senators oppose Born Alive. And there absolutely is no such amendment on the federal Born Alive bill.)

2. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

3. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because “physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.”

4. At Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, “the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons. Obama said there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee.”

5. He also thought “the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman, but that he does not see himself as supportive of abortion,” reported the Leader.

Comment by Jill Stanek Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 5:23 am
One final point. The Trib and Sun-Times seem to describe two different reasons for Obama’s “present” votes on abortion:

Trib: Obama has defended his “present” votes on abortion-related bills in the Illinois legislature, contending it was part of a strategy fashioned with abortion-rights advocates to help give some Illinois Senate Democrats political cover and to avoid looking harsh by casting “no” votes that would create a re-election risk.

Sun-Times: On the abortion bills, legislators who supported women’s rights to the procedure were encouraged to vote “present” on bills that would have required parental notice before minors could obtain abortions and that would have barred what abortion foes call “partial-birth” abortions, a leading abortion-rights advocate said. The goal was to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills.

The Trib indicates Obama’s “present” votes were to provide personal political cover. The Sun-Times says they were to entice moderates from an “aye” to a “present.”

Which was it?

Either way, all this demonstrates Obama is beholden to special interest groups despite normal sensibilities. Even most pro-choicers oppose infanticide or partial birth abortion.

Comment by Jill Stanek Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 6:23 am
I cant beleive stanek is allowed to post here

Comment by anon56 Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 6:54 am
I’m surprised you don’t support the doctrine of fairness. I thought all liberals did. It goes both ways, you know.

Comment by Jill Stanek Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 7:07 am
Thanks, for the history lesson Jill. So what you are saying is that Obama voted correctly on those bills. Thanks for clarifying that.By the way, I’m glad you still remember back when you had a real job (nurse) before you became a shill for a special interest group.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 7:52 am
I have to agree with Bill’s last comment on this one.

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:15 am
Jill Stanek: Whenever a liberal has a weak argument, he/she will resort to personal attacks. Keep up the good work and do not allow the “bite me brigade” to discourage you.

Comment by Patriot Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:15 am
Patriot,
I don’t have any argument, weak or otherwise, on this red herring debate. I just don’t like Jill. Oh and by the way, Bite me.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:29 am
Thank you for illustrating my point, Bill.

Comment by Patriot Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:40 am
This whole debate is too general. Can we have some more inside baseball.

Comment by Phil Sekalewski Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:46 am
“Patriot”
You’re welcome. I sure am glad that you are retired and no longer spreading your right wing propaganda around impressionable minds. It must be frustrating for you with Reagen dead and Pate a funny afterthought. You should probably try joining the 21st century. Enjoy that pension that the “liberals” fought for.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:47 am
being fair has nothing to do with your posted statements…if you were fair you would support women making their own reproductive health decisions,

that’s what I call fair–now, GO AWAY

Comment by anon56 Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 8:54 am
So, what would you do if you found dying children lying in a soiled linen closet?

Nothing?

Because these children were not “wanted” by their mothers? Because you support a mother’s choice to do this to their children? What is the matter with you?

Your ugly comments about Jill Stanek are shameful. You cannot claim to favor protecting children, but allow helpless children to die alone in hospitals. Jill was a nurse. Since when do you think it is acceptable for a nurse to not assist the helpless and dying.

Your political views have eaten away your hearts and your minds regarding this important issue.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 9:15 am
…and your political views are so skewed and possibly fueled by religious fanaticism that you feel motivated to invade other people’s lives and interfere with their rights to make choices regarding their own bodies.
You are all for spouting (wrongly) the constitution when it comes to gun owners rights but ignore it when it comes to women’s rights. By the way, why is it that most pro-”life” advocates are also the most ardent supporters of the death penality. Seems like a contradiction but that has never stopped you in the past.

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 9:25 am
Bill appears to be one shill complaining about another…

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 5, 07 @ 9:50 am
[…] Read here. […]

Pingback by Former IL PP Member - Hillary Has Facts Wrong On Obama’s ‘Present’ Votes « Think On These Things Friday, Dec 21, 07 @ 9:20 am
[…] As for the last bit of Turdblossom’s bs, those very “Democratic interest groups” already have explained that Sen. Obama’s ‘present’ votes (as with the ‘present’ votes from others) was part of a concerted effort to thwart bad bills while also giving vulnerable Dem colleagues cover. It’s a non-issue once one takes the 5 seconds needed to … think about it. (Besides, if Sen. Obama was so off on those matters in the state lege, why’d his conservative detractors here in Illinois oppose his moves instead of questioning them as Mr. Rove is.) […]

Pingback by Turdblossom’s “Concern Trolling” Echoes Clinton « Illinois Reason Friday, Jan 11, 08 @ 12:49 pm
[…] Miller: “Maybe Only A Few Members Of The Tribune Contracted Remember This Ploy, But I Do;” Planned Parenthood “Was Encouraging ‘Present’ Votes By Some Of Their More Loyal Members In Order To Encourage The Moderates To Vote That Way As Well” To Combat Republican Tactic Of Breaking Moderates Away From The Pro-Choice Movement. Rich Miller wrote, “Maybe only a few members the Tribune contacted remember this ploy, but I do. It was specifically designed by Planned Parenthood to counter Republican Senate President Pate Philip’s barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002. The Tribune missed the point. Besides passing bills he supported, Pate’s idea was to cause a controversy by splitting ‘moderate’ Democrats away from the abortion rights groups, thereby causing a rift on that side, and, more imporantly, to put some political targets on the hot seat. So, as they also did in the House a few years back, Planned Parenthood was encouraging ‘Present’ votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well.” [Capitol Fax Blog, 12/4/07] PRO-CHOICE LEADERS PRAISED OBAMA FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON CHOICE […]

Pingback by Is President Obama Pro-Choice Or Pro-Life? Let Him Tell You « Story Balloon Thursday, Jul 16, 09 @ 8:20 pm