Obama Is Still "Voting Present"

[Carole]

Some people are indecisive by nature. Then there are those who refuse to make a decision so they can't be blamed for the result. Barack Obama fits into that second category. During his run for his party's nomination, rival Hillary Clinton charged, "In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present'. That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe." The accusation of ducking the tough calls and refusing to take a stand was thought by many at the time to be nothing more than campaign spin. Now we know it wasn't. It's how this now-president tries to protect himself and his political career while avoiding his responsibilities.
The most recent example is in comments today from James Jones, the president's national security adviser, regarding the 'don't ask don't tell' ban on gays serving openly in the military. Mr. Jones said the president will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the ban. He continued, "I don't think it's going to be - it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately."

Candidate Obama promised to repeal the ban. During the campaign, he provided a policy statement to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group, pledging to repeal the exclusion and to invite back service members discharged under the law. Now, after winning their votes and the power to help keep that promise, his national security advisor says the president "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time." In other words...he's present.

Another ongoing example is the way President Obama is dealing with, or rather not dealing with, the war in Afghanistan. This was the war that Candidate Obama wanted to fight, "It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," he said during the campaign. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists." But now, nine months after he became Commander-in-Chief, he's still considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan, including pulling back, staying put and sending more troops to fight the insurgency. In other words...he's present.

Gays in the military, the war in Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the unemployment rate nearing 10%, so many important issues on which this country needs leadership. But instead of leadership we get empty promises, platitudes and Olympic distractions. Even health care reform, which Mr. Obama claims is his highest priority, has been left to his cronies in Congress. He has spent his political career to date in a quest for plausible deniability; refusing to take a stand and avoiding taking any action. His goal is obviously to promote and protect his own image, not to work on solving the country's problems. He is still nothing but...present.

 

[Telecaster]

I'm surprised no one wants to address this. Oh well...

As I said in another thread, this President is displaying a style I think is more prominently found in Progressives. They don't care how the country changes as long as it changes to give them the power in government. But there are other elements to this as well. He knows he's over his head and out of touch with the world he's entered, so he doesn't want to show his weakness' either. Therefore, very little decision making.

I'm thinking Limbaugh is right about the President. Pres Obama is nurturing chaos so as to assist him in bringing about change, aka a new centralized American government.

 

[American]

As it was obvious during the campaign, Obama is an amateur commander and administrator. He is an empty suit, with a tiny resume. Biden hasn't shown us anything either with all the hoopla over his "foreign policy" experience. Obama foreign policy has been a disaster.

 

[smartin]

What do you expect from a man who was all about show and no substance?

 

[Morality Games]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are indecisive by nature. Then there are those who refuse to make a decision so they can't be blamed for the result. Barack Obama fits into that second category. During his run for his party's nomination, rival Hillary Clinton charged, "In the Illinois state Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present'. That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe." The accusation of ducking the tough calls and refusing to take a stand was thought by many at the time to be nothing more than campaign spin. Now we know it wasn't. It's how this now-president tries to protect himself and his political career while avoiding his responsibilities.

Your point is impotent without context. First, what's the Illinois average for 'present votes', per congressional term? Then, what's the national average? Then, if there is a large disparity, what qualities of Illinois would set it apart from the rest of the nation that its legislative representatives seem compelled to vote present more often than the rest? Then, what was Obama's record at the Senate? What's the average there? And so on and so forth. Also essential would be information of "what types" of legislation Obama most frequently voted "maybe" on -- is there a pattern? Does the pattern make sense given the politics of the situation?

Going off intuition, I am inclined to call BS because 130 votes is not very many in a Congressmen's term.

As it was obvious during the campaign, Obama is an amateur commander and administrator. He is an empty suit, with a tiny resume. Biden hasn't shown us anything either with all the hoopla over his "foreign policy" experience. Obama foreign policy has been a disaster.

Part of me winces at the thought of having to sit through your opinion, but what aspect exactly has been a disaster?

Candidate Obama promised to repeal the ban. During the campaign, he provided a policy statement to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest U.S. gay rights group, pledging to repeal the exclusion and to invite back service members discharged under the law. Now, after winning their votes and the power to help keep that promise, his national security advisor says the president "has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time." In other words...he's present.

Another ongoing example is the way President Obama is dealing with, or rather not dealing with, the war in Afghanistan. This was the war that Candidate Obama wanted to fight, "It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," he said during the campaign. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists." But now, nine months after he became Commander-in-Chief, he's still considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan, including pulling back, staying put and sending more troops to fight the insurgency. In other words...he's present.

Gays in the military, the war in Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the unemployment rate nearing 10%, so many important issues on which this country needs leadership. But instead of leadership we get empty promises, platitudes and Olympic distractions. Even health care reform, which Mr. Obama claims is his highest priority, has been left to his cronies in Congress. He has spent his political career to date in a quest for plausible deniability; refusing to take a stand and avoiding taking any action. His goal is obviously to promote and protect his own image, not to work on solving the country's problems. He is still nothing but...present.

So, you provided an example of an issue which by its nature always gets put on the back burner in national politics, regardless of whether or not Obama is involved or not (lack of progress for the sake of homosexuals in the military is a networking problem, not a personality issue), and then spelled out a list of problems and controversies without clearly relating them back to Obama's alleged "voting presentness."

Okay.

I'm not going to address the Afghanaistan allegation because it is nonsense that is being handled in other posts. Unfortunately, not the easiest nonsense to dispel due to the general population's ignorance of the fundamentals of reality, but nonsense all the same.