Voters looking for a candidate who can make the tough decisions required by the Office of President of the United States may want to question first-term Senator Obama’s penchant for avoiding tough issues in the Illinios Senate by voting “present” rather than taking a principled stand:
In 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.
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.
The first thing you should note from the quote above is that it is from the NEW YORK TIMES, the Democrat Party’s Official Paper of Record and obvious, vociferous advocate for the election of Barack Obama. I guess someone forgot to tell the new guy that these types of stories on the paper’s favored sons are supposed to be spiked.
The second thing you need to take from the quote, and from the rest of the article, is that Obama is drawn to the politically expedient action rather than to the action which would demand him to make a principled stand one way or another. This, according to the Democrat Party, is “leadership.”
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.”
One thing we all know is that the President of the United States does not have the luxury of “avoiding the risks” of making a decision, especially in a crisis. What will an untested Barack Obama do when confronted with a critical international or national issue which needs a decisive resolution? It doesn’t look like making hard decisions in pressured situations is Obama’s strong suit. In fact, due to Obama’s lack of any type of executive experience whatsoever, noone knows what he will or will not do, including the Senator himself. This, according to the Democrat Party, is “leadership.”
Obama claims he represents “change we can believe in.” However, it appears that on critical issues he doesn’t really know what he believes, so why should Americans believe in him?
September 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure.
That pretty much sums it up. If the voters in Illinois were unhappy with him over thost present votes then they wouldn’t have elected him to the Senate in a landslide.
What you should be more concerned with is your candidate’s seeming inability to make a decision on key issues happening now.
McCain was for deregulating the financial services industry before he was against it.
McCain was against bailing out AIG before he was for it.
McCain thought the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” one day and then backtracks the next.
And now he wants to morph into John Edwards and take on the “Good ol’ boy” network in Washington.
Like Obama said, noting that McCain has surrounded himself with many of the top lobbyists in Washington, the “Good ol’ boy” network for the McCain campaign is called a staff meeting.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I know I’m preaching to the choir but Obama sucks.