COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Barack Obama, Visionary, a Pussy Under Fire.


Yea right, this is the guy that will provide determined leadership for the United States of America. Light on experience, he is also light on courage. Just what we need.

Obama’s Vote in Illinois Was Often Just ‘Present’

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and CHRISTOPHER DREW NYT
Published: December 20, 2007
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.”

Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, even if it means telling people the “hard truths” they do not want to hear.

Mr. Obama’s aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy.

“No politically motivated attacks in the 11th hour of a closely contested campaign can erase a record of leadership and courage,” said Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s spokesman.

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama’s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast “no” votes.

In other cases, Mr. Obama’s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills.

In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”

The vote on the juvenile-justice bill appears to be a case when Mr. Obama, who represented a racially mixed district on the South Side of Chicago, faced pressure. It also occurred about six months before he announced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign against a popular black congressman, Bobby L. Rush.

State Senator Christine Radogno, a Republican, was a co-sponsor of the bill to let children as young as 15 be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on or near school grounds.

The measure passed both houses overwhelmingly. In explaining his present vote on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Obama said there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime, though he acknowledged that the bill had fairly unanimous support.

“Voting present was a way to satisfy those two competing interests,” Ms. Radogno said in a telephone interview.

Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said political calculation could have figured in that vote.

“If he voted a flat-out no,” Mr. Mannard said, “somebody down the road could say Obama took this vote and was soft on crime.”

Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences. They did not explain why he did not just vote no.

Lawmakers and other Illinois officials said the present vote was devised to enable lawmakers to recuse themselves from voting on bills that present personal conflicts. It can also be used in the routine day-to-day wrangling in the legislature.

In at least 45 instances, Mr. Obama voted with large numbers of fellow Democrats as part of the tactical skirmishing with Republicans over the budget.

Seven other times, he voted that way as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills.

Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes.

Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures.

“He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled.

But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights.

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills.

“It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. “In fact, it was the exact opposite.”

In other present votes, Mr. Obama, who also taught law at the University of Chicago while in the State Senate, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions.

Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.

Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill passed 112-0-0 in the House and 58-0-1 in the Senate.

In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum.

State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges.

The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s.

“I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed, the campaign said, that the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it.

Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.


37 comments:

  1. Pussies on Fire:

    War is Hell
    World Orgasm Day to Promote Peace in War-Torn Countries

    WHO? All Men and Women, you and everyone you know.

    WHERE? Everywhere in the world, but especially in countries with weapons of mass destruction and places where violence is used in place of mediation.

    WHEN? Solstice Day - December 22, at 06:08 Universal Time (GMT)

    WHY? To effect positive change in the energy field of the Earth through input of the largest possible instantaneous surge of human biological, mental and spiritual energy.
    (Students of Petraeus and the Surge)

    ReplyDelete
  2. 46 Million Morons

    Little wonder that Winfrey, a long time Obama admirer regarded as the most influential woman in the US and whose TV talk show reaches 46 million people a week - 75 per cent of them women - should be recruited for a more active role.

    She began duties on Sunday by invoking the memory of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech while addressing a crowd of 29,000 at a football stadium in Columbia, South Carolina.

    "We don't have to just dream the dream any more," Winfrey said. "We get to vote that dream into reality. I believe that now is the time for somebody like Barack Obama."

    Nor did she forget to push the faith button: "It's your time to seize the opportunity to support a man who, as the Bible says, loves mercy and does justly."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Obama also thinks that terrorism is caused in the arab world by poverty....

    yawn...

    not a pussy,

    a retard

    ReplyDelete
  4. 7.2 Billion Dollar aid for the Palis, as they continue to lob missiles into Israel Daily.
    ---
    Good for the "peace

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pussy or not it appears that not even a star of Opra's magnitude can put Obama ahead of Hillary. So he may have to settle for the Veep spot.

    Meanwhile, Rudy loses his national lead and is hospitalized. Where's Newt? Can the G team rally?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good for the "peace

    Yes, the peace of Islam. The peace that surpasses all (of GWB's) understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  7. we are living in interesting times...

    the palios have attacked with rockets and mortars israel 2740 times in the last 12 months...

    the usa UPPED it's donations to them to 550 MILLION this year alone..

    this year, the palios have stated that they will never recognize israel as a "jewish state"



    hmmm.....

    now what i find really interesting is that the WEST must fund the fucking palios...

    where is all that oil wealth going?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The money is recycled into the US economy, according to whit's favorite radio show interview, with the Stratfor man.

    Only place those mussulmen and Chicoms can get a decent return on thier investment. The monies given to the palistinians are not investments but a payoffs, tribute payments.

    The mussulmen do not pay tribute to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It seems we are faced with two choices regarding the Palestinians - kill them or try to buy peace. The past method has bordered on simply killing them (well pen them up as tight as possible) but that doesn't seem to be working.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, Obama really made Illinois politics sink to a new low. Poor poor citizens of Illinois. They'd sooner aggrandize Al Capone than let the poor endangered in a fruitful murder capital protect themselves.

    Fear not, Citizen! Look to the blue lights to help you in your time of need!

    When the Party asks me to step aside, I'll build a conspicuous political machine and challenge Daley. I'll be the Fujimori of Chicago, I tell ya!

    Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  11. ahhh, arm the poor, so that's what you Chinese mean by the "iron rice bowl"? Here I thought it had something to do with food and warmth for all instead of a warm gun under every pillow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doug: World Orgasm Day to Promote Peace in War-Torn Countries WHEN? Solstice Day - December 22, at 06:08 Universal Time (GMT)

    Well, Solstice came early this year!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oprah would be much better than Karen Hughes.

    She's been in the media crosshairs before and seems invulnerable now, more so even than Putin. She's never had to off anyone. Her cult of popularity embodies an ascendant new culture in African American society. Embodying family values and American philosophies of self sufficiency and achievement, she's a powerful counterpoint to any and all anti-Americanism.

    Oprah for Secretary of State!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ash,

    Do the urban poor have the same security needs as all other parts of society?

    No doubt some security needs are shared between the poor and non-poor.

    No doubt there is a dilemma in so allowing them to possess an individual means of protection, insofar as it may decrease security elsewhere. (similar dilemma w/ drug legalization; kill gangs, raise up Big Cocaine beside Big Tobacco etc; inevitably very powerful global actors, but in theory constrained by the law, like most gun toting citizens)

    No doubt that policies that compromise a persons ability to self-sustain security are probably harmful, leveraging only luck against a threat instead of a stronger capability for defense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, ash.

    Core dictum of Chinese political solutions

    Mao's Little Red Book illuminates the current generation of Chinese leaders educational background.

    ReplyDelete
  16. hmmm, hu, maybe we should apply that approach to the Pali problem...basic security for the poor and dispossessed amongst us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Where the palis were best armed, Gaza, they are no longer dispossessed, ash.

    So right you are.

    That after gaining possession of the green houses, they destroyed them, is on them, not the previous possessors.

    Indeed, where the Palis are unarmed, as in Lebanon, they are still dispossessed, the majority of the Palis rufugees in the land of their birth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The West is doing itself a great disservice by supporting and subsiding the Jihadi enemy.

    Sharanski has it right: "You don't need to fight them. You simply need to stop supporting them."

    ReplyDelete
  20. We in the west seem to be subsidizing both sides of that conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Palistinians are not jihadi, mat.
    Or Israel would not be subsidizing them.

    That is plain as day, in these days of the "War on Terror" and irreconciable Islam.

    When even the Israeli are subsidizing Palistine it is further proof, once again, that the Palistinians are not jihadi.

    Israelis should look to their own house, before criticizing mine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Muslim Pussies on Fire in England
    The name Mohammed is expected to become the most popular name in England and Wales by 2008, the Daily Telegraph reported on Thursday.

    The name, according to the report, was second only to Jack in 2007, which has been top for the last 13 years. 6,772 boys were called Jack and 6,387 were called Mohammed or a variant.
    Muslims account for 3% of the British population, which amounts to approximately 1.5 million
    people.


    With apologies to the Library Censor

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rising immigration fuels 26-year fertility high
    By Emma Henry and agencies
    Last Updated: 1:59am BST 08/06/2007

    Rising immigration and older mothers have fuelled a 26-year high in the number of children women are having in England and Wales.

    More older women are having babies
    Figures released by the Office of National Statistics show the average number of children has risen for a fifth straight year to 1.87, the highest rate since 1980.

    The last decade has seen a 77 per cent increase in births by mothers born outside of the UK, with the figure climbing to almost 150,000, or over a fifth of all babies, last year.

    As Britain's demographics change, Mohammed is expected soon to replace Jack as the most popular boy's name. It has already pushed Thomas into third place.


    Other stories ell the tale that over 20% of all English pregnancies end prematurely, by abortion

    Women in London are most likely to abort a pregnancy. Almost a third (32.5%) of all conceptions in the capital are terminated, compared with fewer than a fifth (19.1%) in the east of England.

    None of the easily available articles breakdown the abortion rates by religious creed.

    How does Islamic dogma view abortion?
    Is Islam pro-life or is pro-choice pregnancy termination a viable option for mussulwomen?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The CIA tells US that

    Religions:
    Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1%, other 1.6%, unspecified or none 23.1% (2001 census)


    So, it seems that 2.7% of the population accounts for a tad over 20% of the births.

    It's a cultural choice they make, no doubt of that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. NO! Say it isn't so...special treatment of a lobbyist...--

    MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
    Thu Dec 20 2007 10:56:57 ET

    Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

    McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

    The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

    MORE

    The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation.

    The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

    Rutenberg, along with reporter David Kirkpatrick, has been developing the story for the last 6 weeks.

    Rutenberg had hoped to break the story before the Christmas holiday, sources reveal, but editor Keller expressed serious reservations about journalism ethics and issuing a damaging story so close to an election.

    McCain campaign officials Rick Davis, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are also said to have met with the NEW YORK TIMES in an effort to halt publication.

    Developing...

    Under the telecommuications bill a municipality cannot consider the health questions when giving cosideration to the site of a tower,etc. Some of the people in our church were concerned a rely tower nearby might fry, for example, pregnant women and foetai in yonder apartment complex,, but no, we learned we mustn't talk about such things, it is not allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'd imagine if they feel there is hankypanky, Rat, they just kill mother and child, just a quess. If a women isn't a full human being, what could a foetus be?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Interesting, bob, what the Imam says:

    Islam considers our bodies as a trust, which we have to preserve and maintain. It also confirms that the fetus is the creation of Almighty God. No one, not even the mother, has the right to get rid of it unless its presence threatens the life of the mother. For in that case, Islam allows abortion within those limits only.

    As a matter of fact, Islam encourages procreation when necessary. But it leaves the door open for birth control. Thus we are told by some companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, that they used a method of birth control during the time of revelation. The Prophet knew about it and yet he never asked them to stop using it. We have to confirm here that it is basic in Islam to believe that having children is not decided by parents but is part and parcel of God's will and sole action. All that people can do is to try their human means leaving the decision to God.


    2.7% of the people producing 20% of the live birth babies.
    Makes you wonder about the choices made by the other 97.3% of the population of England.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Who deserves to control the future, but those who have real faith in it?

    In merry ole England.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Looks like the muslims and Ronald Reagan pretty much on the same page on the issue, on paper anyway.

    But what if the young lady has run out without an escort, what then? To stone, or not to stone?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bobal: If a women isn't a full human being, what could a foetus be?

    I think someone from the Bureau of Sabotage ought to introduce a number of ultrasound imaging devices into the Islamic world, and let things take their natural course. All the girl-fetuses will be aborted, and that will be the end of that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You assume, Ms T, that the Muslims are as apostate and secular as the current crop of Christians, Buddhists and Communists

    While presenting no visible basis for that assumption

    ReplyDelete
  32. 2.7% of the people producing 20% of the live birth babies.


    Here we see the beauty of the soft, cultural jihad. The Muslim masses migrate to the Dar al-Harb. The Saudis build them super-Mosques to attend and populate the mosques with radical Imams to spread the "peace". And the indigenous peoples of the Dar al-Harb reproduce at well below the replacement rate. No wonder Amadinejad is smiling all the time. Why fight a shooting Jihad? Twenty-five to 50 years and it yours without a fight.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Or Israel would not be subsidizing them."

    Israel is a vessel of the US. The US is a vessel of the Saudis. That's not a criticism, that's a statement of fact.

    ReplyDelete