<p>It shouldn’t matter whether the bills were major, minor or in between. How many days can you just go to work and sit at your desk and do nothing before you are fired…can you do it 1x amonth for the entire year? Politicians asked for the job, nobody drags them into the arena and force them to do it. They are failing for not stepping up to the plate. Each bill was made for a reason, thus they owe it to their constituents and vote on it, since it affects them.</p>
<p>Obama has never been interested in “doing the job”. At each step of the ladder, he’s started campaigning for the next higher elected office immediately after winning the one before. That’s why he has no record of accomplishment.</p>
<p>bulletandpima: Yes, I agree, my point was that saying “but he only voted present on a relatively tiny number of bills!” is disingenuous since only a relatively tiny number of bills are important/controversial.</p>
<p>I do remember the media talking about this back in March, and if I recall some of the bills were important/controversial and it was implied that he voted present to protect himself for future political reasons, which is why people were making hay out of it</p>
<p>I just found this from the NYT
</p>
<p>“How many days can you just go to work and sit at your desk and do nothing before you are fired”</p>
<p>Whether you are fired depends on whether you’re following your boss’s instructions. I, my family, and my neighbors were his boss, and it was up to us to decide whether he was doing his job properly. Believe me, we wanted him to do whatever Planned Parenthood and NARAL thought was best. I view my employee’s choice to make long-term strategic decisions about how to help the causes I care about as fulfilling his job description – quite the opposite of doing nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t you talking about Hillary?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is doing nothing when you say I am here physically, but I am going to sit in the corner and not do a single thing or say anything. How is that making long term strategic goals? In other words you could have placed a cardboard cut out for him when he voted present.</p>
<p>“How is that making long term strategic goals?”</p>
<p>Because it’s a smart move not to hand your enemies more ammunition than you have to. Here’s a sort of hypothetical. Obama was elected to the state Senate as a pro-choice candidate by a passionately pro-choice constituency. Some pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood and Naral work with sympathetic legislators to plan a unified strategy for achieving their goals. A bad bill comes up and it is definitely going to be shot down, no matter what – it’s dead in the water. Naral calls up some of its allies and says, “Listen guys, we don’t need your “no” vote on this; we think you have potential to promote our ideas in higher office someday, so we hope that you’ll vote present even though we hate the bill.” The allies say, “That sounds like a good strategy; I’ll hold my vote till the end just to make sure that the bill is killed.” Hanna the constituent says, “Thanks guys! I really appreciate the way you’re looking at the big picture.”</p>
<p>“In other words you could have placed a cardboard cut out for him when he voted present.”</p>
<p>A robot could vote yes, too; that doesn’t mean it’s doing its job. The question is WHY he’s doing what he’s doing. Is it a wise strategic move to hold back? Sometimes, yes, it is. Kind of like how the coach might sit his best player on the bench during the third quarter. He wants to make sure the star player is ready for action when the team really needs him.</p>
<p>Okay Hanna let’s use your hypothetical situation. If it is a bad bill than vote it down, hold a press conference and explain where in the bill the legislators went astray. In this day and age where everyone googles, with media coverage he can sit there and shoot anyone down, saying I voted against the bill as I stated many years ago b/c of XY and Z</p>
<p>Let’s use McCain as an example he voted against the tax cuts back in 01. He went on record that he was for the cuts, but could not support the bill since spending limits would not be tied to it. McCain was dogged with this in the beginning of his campaign by the media, but the issue has dropped dead in the water…why, b/c there are soundbites that the media has found stating this exact reason…this would be true for Obama also if he did the exact same thing.</p>
<p>Obama wants change, I applaud him for it, but he has played the game to his advantage and that is why Hillary attacked and the media (albeit the conservative right) have glommed onto it. Hillary got slammed for many of her votes, but at least she voted instead of us wondering why Obama didn’t. </p>
<p>Finally, what you are saying is he is using his votes for strategic purposes…wow that makes me feel comfortable from a candidate who is going to change Washington. Notice 36 times he was the only one or a handful, in other words everyone stood up, but him. That is not strategic, that is either a person who is too afraid to answer to the constituency or has already figured out that vote might cost him politically. It is like him attacking Hillary for voting for the war, she did with many other dems, he wasn’t there and had not received the national intelligence…let’s assume now he was there with the intelligence would he vote present (remember 50 times he did present as part of a strategy)…I love the fact that politicians are doing it as part of a strategy, playing with my life as part of a party strategy is gross and disgusting…this is why I will not vote for any incumbent…NOT ONE. I figure if we toss them all out on their ears and get new politicians we can’t be that much worse off. Think of how beautiful it could be if we could get rid of lifetime politicians…that would be a happy day…it would also send a very clear message to DC that we as Americans aren’t buying what they are selling</p>
<p>“Notice 36 times he was the only one or a handful, in other words everyone stood up, but him. That is not strategic, that is either a person who is too afraid to answer to the constituency or has already figured out that vote might cost him politically.”</p>
<p>How do you know everyone stood up but him? How do you know the majority whip didn’t get the Democrats together and say, “How many of you are in safe seats? How many are getting ready to retire, or you know you don’t want to run for higher office? OK, we only need 40 ‘no’ votes to kill the bill, so you six vote ‘present.’ See you next week.”</p>
<p>How is this “playing with your life” or anyone’s life? I, the constituent, got the result I wanted, and the rising stars in the party didn’t have to use up political capital on a meaningless symbolic vote when a good outcome is already guaranteed.</p>
<p>Hanna let me get this right you prefer the candidate who does the politically expedient thing than a candidate who votes for what he/she thinks is morally right?</p>
<p>I thought Obama was about change and getting rid of politicians that did this!</p>
<p>My quote was from NYT I don’t know the back door deals.</p>
<p>You are right he didn’t play with my life, but as a president he will be playing with my life. Just so you know I am definetly, positively Pro-life, and I am a practicing Catholic (even a CCD teacher) I still would have preferred him to stand up on his principles than say present. No vote should ever be symbolic. Again let’s go back to corporate world…can you imagine a SR VP of a Fortune 500 Company, saying…you all duke it out, I am going to sit on the sideline, b/c I might tick off some of you or our shareholders with my opinion? </p>
<p>I am bothered that you see politics as manipulation when you state he didn’t use his political capital. Sorry when they are sworn in it is to protect all of us, not just NARAL, or Pro-life. </p>
<p>I want a president who can state I voted against my party, but for my constituents. I want a president who can prove that they took the punches…again let’s use McCain he now is known as a RINO b/c he went against the repubs from Rumsfeld (called for his firing a long time b4 he resigned), and tax cuts…he fell on his sword for his beliefs…IMO I think you believe that is stupid since it hurt him politically and he lost capital to use.</p>
<p>“Sorry when they are sworn in it is to protect all of us”</p>
<p>No, no, he was sworn in to protect all of US – the residents of his district. If your pro-life views determined his votes, he’d be derelict in his duty to US</p>
<p>“he fell on his sword for his beliefs”</p>
<p>You don’t see the difference between falling on your sword to protect beliefs that are under attack, and falling on your sword to protect beliefs that are100% safe?</p>
<p>One is heroic. The other, yes, is stupid.</p>
<p>The Obama spinners join CC! He dodged tough votes that might either cost him his seat or lose him support at the next political level. He did it. You can excuse it by saying that violating your principles once in a while is acceptable, or that he had some good political “inside baseball” reasons, but it’s all just spin. The only REAL reason it matters is that Obama has climbed up on a big “I’m more ethical than thou” hobbyhorse and proclaimed he’s the New Guy with the New Ideas and the New Way to do things. In reality, he’s just another politician. He might, in fact, be a very good politician, and might make a fine president, but he’s nothing new, and nothing exceptional. Once again, Americans show that they are just as credulous in the face of political advertising and marketing as they are in buying shampoo.</p>
<p>“violating your principles”</p>
<p>Which principle was violated? He promised that he’d get into office and make sure pro-choice bills move forward. He did that. What principle says that a good bill has to pass 91-9 instead of 90-10?</p>
<p>“he’s the New Guy with the New Ideas and the New Way to do things”</p>
<p>I don’t know what that means to you, but I know what it does NOT mean to me; I did not take it as a promise that he’d cause there to be no deals made in Congress. Aside from the fact that he wouldn’t have that power as president, I don’t even view it as a desirable goal. Legislatures function by compromise. Compromise means both sides giving a little. If you can’t give a little and still be a man of principle, then it’s impossible for a man of principle to function in a legislature. I don’t think I’m being particularly credulous here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t he want to take credit for supporting something that he passionately agrees with? According to sources quoted by NYT, it was because he would have had to pay a political price to do so. Sounds like a garden variety politician to me? He might be a politician that agrees with you more than most, but still, just another politician.</p>
<p>
That’s my main problem. People thinking he’s the messiah. He’s a politician like all the rest, he’s been planning his ascent to the highest level for a quite awhile.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a>
The photo with the article above persuaded me to vote for Obama, after being very angry about the way Clinton has been treated and Florida voters discounted. His wife looks like angry, but he looks tired and saddened. There is something in his face that made me believe he is in this for service rather than power. He is not angry at Hillary for not conceding on Tuesday night. And then, while the pundits have harshly treated her, Obama continues to compliment her. I would dismiss this as politics and an attempt to win her voters ( among which I stand), but the photo shows me otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? Major League Baseball players also plan their ascent to the highest level for quite awhile and we pay them millions of dollars and great respect when they make it to the big leagues. Why shouldn’t a candidate seeking the highest office in the land get the same? Well, at least the respect part. </p>
<p>Do we expect politicians to just wake up one day in middle age with the sudden desire to be elected to high office (and the skills, connections and money to make that happen). Sheesh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Difference is I can choose to use my money and buy a ticket! Politicians don’t allow me to choose whether or not I want to spend my money…I am dictated and legally forced through taxes to buy the ticket at their price.</p>
<p>I will not take anything away from the sport, but please tell me the last time Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Roger Clemmes, Derek Jeter or Mike Piazza had an effect on the global world? They worked to get there, but the only people they truly effect are gamblers…how does Iran play into the game of baseball</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but like everyone else, you get to choose with your vote, and I have every confidence that you will exercise that choice with all diligence;).</p>