Re: NBC: 10 questions for Obama


"EStreetJoe" <estjukes@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9ed7c88c-aa1f-4fe5-8443-7434e47fcfcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 4, 1:17 pm, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
<Calvin.Jones.and.the.13th.Apos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

3.) I think he means the Illinois State Senate, not the US Senate.
And as far as why he voted present, I don't know the answer to that.


Saw the answer to that on CNN a couple of weeks ago.
Voting "present" instead of 'yea'/''nay' (for/against) is a ploy of
forcing further negotiations on a bill where you don't fully agree
with aspects of it. Since a present vote isn't counted as vote for or
against, the bill won't have enough actual votes to pass/fail, thus
forcing further negotiations.

Not true. a present vote is a vote against, or at least has the same effect.
In Illinois, you need a majority of votes cast - so a vote of 28 "yes", 20
no and 11 "present" loses 31-28


The "present" vote was often used on abortion bills. Here is a Salon piece
from a few months ago - cutting and pasting is easier than summarizing in
this case:

"Present" tension

Lynn Harris


The real story behind Obama's abortion votes -- and his critics.

There has been some grumbling about Sen. Barack Obama's handful of
"present" -- as opposed to "no freaking way" -- votes on yucky abortion
measures in the Illinois Senate. There's also been some grumbling about the
grumbling. And, as the Washington Post notes, it all got louder -- in the
form of "last-minute gambits ... to influence voters" -- right before Super
Tuesday. Let's take a moment to clarify what's going on so that you can
decide whether grumbling's in order for you, too.

Here's the deal. Obama voted "present" 129 times (out of about 4,000 votes
cast) over about eight years as a state senator in Illinois -- one of the
few states where legislators can vote "present" to indicate a procedural
disagreement. "Present" is sometimes used as a means of objecting to details
of a measure that one supports in principle -- and, of course, as a means of
dodging an on-the-record yes or no. (But for all intents and purposes, a
"present" counts as a "no," because it does not count as a "yes" that would
move the bill forward.) The Clinton campaign and Illinois NOW have faulted
Obama for his "present" votes on such abortion-related gems as a minors'
parental consent requirement and the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
Said one Clinton campaign mailer: "A woman's right to choose ... demands a
leader who will stand up and protect it."

But was Obama hiding behind that big yellow button -- or playing out a
broad, perhaps even more noble, reproductive rights strategy? Earlier
criticisms of Obama's "present" votes did not mention that they were all
part of a bigger plan. As Obama supporter Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote in an
e-mail responding to Illinois NOW, "The facts are clear -- in the Illinois
state senate, choice advocates asked strong pro-choice legislators like
Senator Obama to vote 'present' on Republican-designed bills like a ban on
partial birth abortion to protect a woman's right to choose," she wrote,
adding, "Senator Obama has always had a 100 percent pro-choice rating [from
NARAL], and he is the only candidate running for President who stood up and
spoke out when South Dakota passed an incredibly restrictive ban on
abortion."

Fine. But why not "no"? According to Illinois Planned Parenthood president
Pam Sutherland, the group feared that several senators waffling under
Republican attack would cave and vote yes. They persuaded Obama to vote
"present" as a means of encouraging the waverers to do the same -- thus
preventing the bills from scoring the majority votes they needed to pass.
Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood's Chicago affiliate,
explaining it last night on HuffPo, makes the plan sound even grander: "When
Obama was an Illinois state senator he worked with Planned Parenthood to
develop a strategy combating a series of extreme anti-choice measures
designed to paint pro-choice legislators into a corner. Obama and numerous
other state senators voted 'present' on these bills in order to protest the
politicization of the health and safety of Illinois women. As a matter of
fact, Senator Obama wanted to vote 'no' on these bills. But, he stood with
his colleagues in protest against the anti-choice extremists who controlled
the Illinois Senate at the time."

Illinois NOW still doesn't like it. (Note to selves! Feminists not always in
lockstep!) The group didn't support the "present" strategy then, and it
doesn't support it now. "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with
the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful
anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn't provide a platform
from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a
woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable," Illinois NOW
president Bonnie Grabenhofer wrote in an e-mail. "The Present strategy was
devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts.
Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted
No with very little negative consequence in his district."

That didn't seem to bother Illinois NOW in 1998 and 2002, when it endorsed
Obama (and other legislators) after their present votes, Trombley notes. "It
is only after years have passed that Illinois NOW has changed its mind," he
says. "I don't know why Illinois NOW has changed its opinion of Barack
Obama, since his record has remained the same, and since his time as a state
senator, he has only demonstrated a full and steady commitment to choice."

Here's a bonus plot thickener: Longtime women's rights and reproductive
justice advocate Lorna Brett Howard has said, in a YouTube video that's
making the rounds -- and appearing on a blog at BarackObama.com -- that she
jumped ship from Clinton to Obama after the former, citing those "present"
votes, called him soft on abortion. She knows what she's talking about, she
says, because she was president of Chicago NOW when Obama was in the state
Senate (1997-2004). There's just one problem, says Illinois NOW: "Lorna
Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the
time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the
92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn't
been a member since 1999." (Obviously, the two did overlap, so this doesn't
mean Howard's entire statement -- most of which, ultimately, is her
opinion -- is, as Taylor Marsh charges at HuffPo, "pure fabrication," but
yeah, that math is clearly a bit misleading.)

Anyway. That's the story. Make of it what you will: Mountain? Molehill?
Obama's "present" votes, cannily pragmatic or lame? If "cannily pragmatic,"
then is he not the Man Who'll Change Politics that he says he is? Should we,
while we're at it, worry about his law-nerdily understated support for Roe
as worded? Or the fact that -- if you ask me -- neither Dem seems to get
that even parental consent with judicial bypass is unacceptable, too? Or
should we quit splitting hairs, given that anyone's better on, well,
everything than John "'Moderate' My Ass" McCain?




.

Loading