Obama 'present' votes on choice don't add up

[Little Star]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-present-votes-on-_b_84312.html

I thought I'd take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.

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. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.

Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. 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.

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.

- Bonnie Grabenhofer
IL NOW State President

******MUCH MORE AT LINK*******

[DURHAM D]

1. Interesting - I am certain no Obama supporter will respond to this.

They just don't like facts when they diminish their false image.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Then we should keep it kicked! n/t

[killbotfactory]

2. Yeah, why listen to those losers at planned parenthood

What would they know about choice?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004

Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."

"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

3. This is very different sounding then his public stance.

Dos not seem like he was very strong in his convictions here.

[Lucinda]

4. Thanks for this!

Bookmarking to read tonight.

[robbedvoter]

5. I guess the former clarification has just been clarified.

[Rock_Garden]

6. This needs to be widely circulated, don't you think?

[Barack_America]

7. Please NO MORE TAYLOR MARSH!

Her credibility is shot after having been called out by the Las Vegas Sun.

Thanks.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. NOW is still fucking lying about this.

They will never get another dime from me.

[DURHAM D]

11. How much were you giving them - I will triple the amount. n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. $135 last year.

I'll triple the amount that I give to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

They don't lie.

[DURHAM D]

14. How I see it - NOW is an organization for strong tough women.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL for the past twenty five years - an organization for women when they are ready to move on from Junior League.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Excuse you?

Tell that to the faces of the strong tough women who run PP and NARAL in my state. After they've eaten your lunch, you may have reason to rethink that opinion.

And I'll defer to them on matters regarding reproductive choice over a bunch of political hacks who pull dirty tricks in a primary campaign.

[DURHAM D]

27. What state is that? n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Arizona

PP of Arizona's Public Policy Director is Michelle Steinberg. 602-277-7526

NARAL Arizona's is Eleanor Eisenberg. 602-291-1541 (BTW, Eleanor is a Civil Rights attorney and the former ED of the ACLU in Arizona. Now there's a bunch of frivolous ladies-who-lunch :eyes: )

Why don't you call both of those women and let them know you think they, and their members are in "an organization for women when they are ready to move on from Junior League."

Be sure to report back how those phone calls go.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. Crickets. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Made those calls yet? nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. "The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts."

Imagine that. Someone lied to cover for BO.

All of this is going to come back and bite someone in the ass. Lies always catch up to you.

[Barack_America]

12. You really don't understand this, do you?

"The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts."

Right. To protect DEMOCRATIC legislators in conservative districts. The Republicans were giving names like "Protection of Born Alive Infants" to pro-life, anti-choice legislation. The Republican strategy was to get the Democrats to vote NO on those bills and then use the name of those votes against them in upcoming elections. The strategy was that "Present" votes could not be used against Democrats in this way. That's why Planned Parenthood asked Obama to encourage the legislators to vote present, even though he himself was set to vote NO.

[tritsofme]

15. Don't kid yourself. Obama was not in a district that any sane person would classify as conservative

The South Side of Chicago isn't exactly a big GOP support center if you didn't know.

So this "excuse" doesn't cut it.

[killbotfactory]

16. Which is why voting present would give cover to people in conservative districts

But what the hell would planned parenthood and NARAL know?

[tritsofme]

17. Cover to do what?

If the "big Chicago liberals" like Obama are voting no on this legislation and downstate and suburban moderates vote present then a contrast can be drawn and you have your cover.

When safe-district Obama votes present for crap like this it is cowardice, and NOW is not afraid to call him on it.

[Barack_America]

20. Your argument is then with Planned Parenthood, who drafted the strategy...n/t

[Barack_America]

19. It wasn't to protect him. It was to protect his colleagues.

That is explicitly stated in the Planned Parenthood release. Planned Parenthood turned to Obama to lead the the "present" vote push, because they knew that his colleagues held him in high regard and would follow him.

By the way, the plan worked. And many Democratic seats were saved.

[tritsofme]

21. Abortion politics doesn't work in Illinois.

If a Republican wants to mount a serious statewide challenge (we have no state-wide elected GOP officials today) he has to be pro-choice.

The last three GOP governors here were all pro-choice.

In the 1990s the GOP knuckledraggers thought they could play politics like we lived in Alabama, and they introduced crap legislation like that.

They were rewarded with permanent minority status.

The present "strategy" probably didn't save a single seat.

[Barack_America]

24. Then draft your complaint letter and send it off to Planned Parenthood.

It was their plan, after all.

[ellacott]

22. They don't want to understand this

This has been explained for months are people are still trying to make an issue of it.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Dead bodies as a result of Hillary's YES vote on the IWR are piling up.

[Barack_America]

25. We'll be at 4,000 by the end of next month.

And God knows how many Iraqi citizens.

It's just awful.

[Nailzberg]

26. What a crock of shit.

Number one reason I support Obama over Clinton is her use of this misleading oppo research against Obama. How can I believe anything she says to me when I know from my own experience this argument is false.

[BlackVelvet04]

28. and twice was a no vote on

abortion issues in the United States Senate

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)
Date Bill Title Vote
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV
09/06/2007 Prohibiting U.S. Assistance for Groups that Support Coercive Abortion NV
03/17/2005 Unintended Pregnancy Amendment Y

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

On, and here are the votes on environmental issues. Virginians really appreciate his NV on the off shore drilling issue.

Environmental Issues
(Back to top)
Date Bill Title Vote
12/14/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) NV
12/13/2007 Energy Act of 2007 NV
12/11/2007 Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies Amendment NV
11/08/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 NV
06/21/2007 Energy Act of 2007 Y
06/21/2007 Alternative Energy Subsidies Y
06/14/2007 Offshore Drilling in Virginia NV
06/14/2007 Clean Energy Achievement Criteria Y
12/21/2005 Removal of ANWR Provision from HR 2863 Y
11/03/2005 ANWR Amendment Y
09/13/2005 EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule Y


and Health issues:



Health Issues
(Back to top)
Date Bill Title Vote
12/14/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) NV
12/11/2007 Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies Amendment NV
11/07/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies NV
11/01/2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) NV
10/23/2007 Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies NV
10/18/2007 Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions NV
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
09/27/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization NV
08/02/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Y
05/07/2007 FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment NV
11/03/2005 Medicaid Generic Drug Amendment Y
11/03/2005 Medical Assistance and Prescription Drug Amendment Y
11/03/2005 Hurricane Health Care for Survivors Amendment Y
10/27/2005 AIDS Drug Assistance Program Amendment Y
03/17/2005 Medicaid Amendment N




What the hell does he get paid to do? Not vote?

[Little Star]

31. Shit! That is quite a list. Those no votes must not have been important.

:sarcasm:

[damntexdem]

30. Edwards is out. It's Obama or Hillary.

And I can't stand Hillary's positions and votes. So for me, it's Obama.

Bye, bye.

[JuniperLea]

32. Which ones didn't you like?

Because she voted just like Obama 94% of the time.

[Jim Lane]

34. Request for clarification (addressed to Obama critics)

Under the rules of most public legislative bodies, as well as the rules of most nonprofit boards in which some of us have participated, a vote of "Present" would be substantively different from a vote of "No", in that a vote of "Present" would not help to defeat a bad proposal. In that framework, Obama's "Present" votes seem to show a lack of courage.

That framework is inapplicable, however. We've learned from this fracas that the Illinois State Senate operates under different rules. A vote of "Present" helps to defeat the bill precisely as much as a vote of "No" would. The two have the same practical effect.

Is that correct?

I find it very frustrating that the Obama critics keep raising this attack point over and over but can't seem to address that fundamental issue. In the absence of any denial, I'm assuming that what we've read about the odd rules in Illinois are true, but I really would like to hear the Obama critics' side of that issue.

If the assertion about the body's rules is correct, then it's just a psychological thing about how best to phrase one's opposition to the bill. Apparently the Illinois advocates of reproductive rights disagreed about which phrasing was best. Obama chose to side with NARAL and Planned Parenthood instead of with NOW, but it doesn't seem like a terribly important distinction either way.