Obama supporters. I have one question

darthtang aw

Active Member
Zman, now I get what you were driving at, the wording you used came across as if the Iraq theatre wasn't playing a part in the war on terror. My bad.
Ok, I am going to go way off track here.
There was bill that came through senate last year. It was voted for unanimously by all U.S. senators. The bill was a law that would allow the medical files of sexual abuse victims to be sealed to protect them. All the senators voted yes. ALL of them with one acception. Obama voted Present. Can someone explain this? Rylan does obama not care about sexual abuse victims, their privacy and safety from scrutiny?.
what is so hard for this guy about making a decision?
CHANGE YOU JUST HAVE TO BE PRESENT FOR!
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2497820
There was bill that came through senate last year. It was voted for unanimously by all U.S. senators. The bill was a law that would allow the medical files of sexual abuse victims to be sealed to protect them. All the senators voted yes. ALL of them with one acception. Obama voted Present. Can someone explain this? Rylan does obama not care about sexual abuse victims, their privacy and safety from scrutiny?.
what is so hard for this guy about making a decision?
CHANGE YOU JUST HAVE TO BE PRESENT FOR!
You are incorrect McCain and Clinton also "Not Voting" in other issues with regards to ----
Also, there is no "present" vote in the US senate
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00027
Note: I searched last year and am not finding that specific one you mention.
 

zman1

Active Member
Here is a good one for the Veterans
Statement of Purpose: To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00098
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
 

zman1

Active Member
Here are the senator's senate.gov web sites. Obama's is transparent since he's directly listing his voting record there and McCain's, Clinton's don't directly but you can find it by digging the bills. I would bet all three recently are not voting since they are campaigning and not in washington.
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/
http://clinton.senate.gov/
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/
Edit: You can find the other's easy by clicking the the Vote number on the left through Obama's web page.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2497950
Key words used "STATE Senator " not U.S. Senator. There is a Present vote in Il.
Yes, and a "Not Voting" in the US Senate.
Do you think they make Senator's vote before they leave the floor of the senate?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
OK argue semantics all you want. He was there for the vote and didn't push yes or no...........dude can't make a decision and he wants to be president?
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2497967
Yes, and a "Not Voting" in the US Senate.
Do you think they make Senator's vote before they leave the floor of the senate?
I was just correcting Darthtang AW. There is a differance between State and U.S. senate. There is a "Present" vote and just not voting in Il.. That by itself couldn't have happened last year as well. Everyone is about facts, unless it's contray to their view, I guess...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
the news story was last year, I just assummed so was the vote. I also didn't catch the State senator part...regardless of semantics what I said occurred.
 

zman1

Active Member
May be hard to understand - Politics - give and take
By Daniel C. Vock
'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers
In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either “yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.
The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.
“To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, that’s a stretch. But, it’s good politics,” said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party’s floor leader.
In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their “present” votes nearly every campaign season. “It’s always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote ‘present’ once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up.”
The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
“The ‘present’ vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue,” said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.
The Land of Lincoln isn’t the only state where lawmakers can register their displeasure without actually voting against a bill. Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas also allow “present” votes or similar options in at least one chamber, according to a recent review of chamber rules by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
 

zman1

Active Member
In Hawaii, where Obama grew up, legislators can cast a “kanalua” (a Hawaiian word meaning “doubt”) vote during roll calls, essentially a pass. But after going through the roll call two or three times, depending on the chamber, the “kanalua” vote eventually counts as a “yes.”
In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.
State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.
That’s not how U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) characterized it in a debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., this week.
“In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times ‘present.’ That’s not ‘yes,’ that’s not ‘no.’ That’s ‘maybe,’” she said.
Later, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) noted that members of Congress had to either vote “yes” or “no” or not show up.
“What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country?” he asked. “It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position even when it has political consequences for me.”
Those remarks angered Cullerton, who is also backing Obama. He stressed that voting “present” is different than not voting at all.
“There’s not one Republican, there’s not one member in the history of the General Assembly who is still alive today who would criticize voting ‘present.’ There’s not one member of the General Assembly who’s alive today who has ever not voted ‘present,’” he said.
Fritchey, the House Democrat who chairs a committee on civil law, said he often used the “present” vote when he thought a bill had constitutional or other legal problems.
That’s also the reason Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, gave during the debate for voting “present” on a bill he originally had sponsored.
“After I had sponsored it and helped to get it passed, it turned out that there was a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn’t be struck down,” he said.
Sometimes using “present” votes is part of a larger strategy.
For example, in what was supposed to be the last night of the legislative session in 2002, the leader of the Senate Democrats said he had been double-crossed on a budget agreement when a major new revenue source was left out. His caucus didn’t have enough votes to stop the whole revenue package, which included cigarette tax hikes, and the Democrats agreed to most of the bill anyway.
“I’m going to recommend to the members of this side of the aisle to vote ‘present’ until such a time as we see a total package that’s going to balance the budget for the year 2003,” state Sen. Emil Jones Jr. (D) told his caucus.
All told, 22 Democrats voted “present,” and the Republicans passed the measure. Obama was one of “present” votes, even though he earlier touted the cigarette tax hike at a press conference.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2497936
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tV-e2npzNo
no present vote? Someone needs to tell the news that.
Could it just have been, he generally agreed on the it, but fell it had legal or constitutional issues in passing. That from a constitutional law professor's position.
That's providing you read the previous article in whole.... It's doesn't lend itself to the bashing wearing blinders methodology but could be an alternative, correct?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Then when the bill comes back through you would see them vote yes or no on the issue...but he doesn't defend himself with that. And that would be the simple and straight forward defense, "I didn't like such and such, the changed it then I voted for the bill". simple response, but you don't get the from him.
I can understand the reasoning behind a present vote, but the bill always comes back through if it doesn't pass....and if all the members of the senate vote yes, what is the point of voting present .....it leaves you open to scrutiny.
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2498075
Then when the bill comes back through you would see them vote yes or no on the issue...
I don't expect you to understand Illinois
, but if you don't want to try, then stop using it when you think a "present" vote is wrong in your example.
Read it a more few times with an open mind.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW

http:///forum/post/2497820
There was bill that came through senate last year. It was voted for unanimously by all U.S. senators. The bill was a law that would allow the medical files of sexual abuse victims to be sealed to protect them. All the senators voted yes. ALL of them with one acception. Obama voted Present. Can someone explain this?


The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose
.
 

zman1

Active Member
Illinois also try's to take care of Veterans with more than rhetoric. If you enlisted from and came back to Illinois within 6 months of separation, you are eligible for 120 credit hours at any state university, there is no time limit when you can use it. The Fed VA is 10 years us or lose.
They have started IlVA medical benefits if you have been without insurance for 6 months. This medical cost is income based not sure of the level but they are planning on opening it up to higher income levels than the first trial.
 

bdhutier

Member
Illinois... I will never understand that state... I Barry thought the bill was legaly problematic, why didn't he just vote no? Seems politically convenient, not just to him, but to any member!
 

bdhutier

Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2498133
Illinois also try's to take care of Veterans with more than rhetoric. If you enlisted from and came back to Illinois within 6 months you are eligible for 120 credit hours at any state university, the Fed VA is 10 years us or lose.
The GI Bill is not a VA program. Most states have state-school tuition programs, usually related to Res/NG service.
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by bdhutier
http:///forum/post/2498135
Illinois... I will never understand that state... I Barry thought the bill was legaly problematic, why didn't he just vote no? Seems politically convenient, not just to him, but to any member!
If No was the only option--- Then you would understand he agrees with it mostly but dosen't agree with part of it. No, I think not, we would be hearing he JUST VOTED NO and dosen't care about victims too-
other states
Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri and Texas
also allow “present” votes or similar options in at least one chamber, according to a recent review of chamber rules by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
 
Top