By comparison:
The site in my post above seems to be co-mingling his state Legislative career and his current Senate career. I couldn’t find my earlier post when I searched earlier, so I missed the edit window, but just found it, here.
It more specifically breaks down the two as follows:
This 1 page pdf document outlines the bills he introduced while in the Illinois State Legislature:[ul][li]233 regarding healthcare reform[/li][li]125 on poverty and public assistance[/li][li]112 crime fighting bills[/li][li]97 economic bills[/li][li]62 education reform bills[/li][li]60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills[/li][li]21 ethics reform bills[/li][li]20 environmental bills[/li][li]15 gun control bills[/li][li]6 veterans affairs bills and many others [/ul] [/li]
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These include: [ul][li]The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law)[/li][li]The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law)[/li][li]The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, (passed the Senate)[/li][li]The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law)[/li][*]The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.[/ul]
It depends on if supporting facts are presented or not, friend.
You do know they fired him, right?
Right. Well, in this thread there were ample links to support what people were saying. So I guess all is well.
I noticed you just skipped right on over the post where I provided the clearer explanation right here in this very thread. And “being for it before [he] was against it” doesn’t even come close to the most basic understanding of the purpose of a ‘Present’ vote as it’s allowed and used in the Illinois Legislature.
Do you want to understand this issue, or do you just want to keep regurgitating Hillary campaign smears?
It has to be clear enough for (A) a soundbite, and (B) shutting up the RW-media yammerers.
I’m referring to how they will spin it. That’s the problem.
As for the *rest * of your post, :rolleyes:.
There were ample links that other people were making the same bitter denunciations as you.
The supporting factual evidence, however, was not “ample” or even tangible. See the difference? It does matter.
Aaah, so that’s what you meant by your characterization of it as:
Gotcha ya.
:rolleyes: indeed.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant both then and now. The movie we’ve seen is the one starring a Democratic candidate getting attacked by the RW spin machine. Fairness or accuracy doesn’t matter to those people, as you well know, but what they do is massively effective, as you also well know. It would be well for Obama to have a better response ready, and sooner, than Kerry had, as experience should make obvious. *That * is the entire point here.
Now please do yourself a huge favor and take a moment to read and understand posts *before * you decide if you’re going to denounce their poster for making them, okay?
This is so beautiful I think I’ll frame it here for future reference.
Thanks, ElvisL1ves!
I’ll take that as an acknowledgment that you indeed have no facts to contribute, or any willingness to discuss rather than denounce.
John McCain was against the tax cuts before he was for them.
The voting record gamesmanship isn’t going to work for McCain since he has a longer record than Obama and Hillary put together and it would be only too easy to cherry pick seeming contradictions. That tactic only works for candidates who have never been legislators themselves.
Just because you ignore it doesn’t make it non-factual.
Which means you’ve covered your ears and are going “na na na na na na na.”
Just because you enjoy a denunciation doesn’t make it fact-based. As I’ve tried to explain to you many times, without success.
Dio, the fact that the RW’s own candidate is more open to a criticism doesn’t prevent them from making it, in fact that’s an overpowering reason to make the accusation about the *other * guy first. That isn’t just Rove’s methodology, it’s been their SOW since Gingrich’s ascendancy.
Let’s not pretend they won’t try it again, no matter how righteous the Dem candidate may be in fact. The perception is all that matters in a campaign, and the perception of Obama is still being created in the broader public mind, simply because it can be - McCain’s image is much less mutable at this point - and, as this thread demonstrates, so is Clinton’s.
Sigh.
My recollection (and Wiki concurs) was that he resigned amidst a sex scandal. Forced? Maybe, maybe not, but not fired. Whatever. Immaterial to the issue at hand (or given that it’s Morris, should I say “at toe”?) anyway.
I remembered “forced out” - perhaps because Morris then *immediately * changed careers to Professional Free-Lance Clinton Denouncer. That, after all, is the light in which anything he’s said since must be viewed, including the cite above.
Post 215 – ElvisL1ves: "Obama’s record, by comparison [to Hillary’s, who voted ‘Yea’ on Iraq], suggests that he would have tried to vote “Present”.
Post 228 – Me: “What a disingenuous and disgusting display of ignorance.”
Post 231 – ElvisL1ves: "Shayna, I’m “ignorant’? Here’s some info for you on Obama’s “present” votes in Springfield.”
Post 232 – Me: “Yes, both you and the author of that article are ignorant. You have no idea how the Illinois Legislature works, why there’s a provision for a ‘Present’ vote, and what that vote is meant to portray and/or accomplish.”
Post 236 – ElvisL1ves: “I’ve already “brought more” than Shayna has.”
Post 241 – Me: “There’s a legitimate reason that Illinois even has the option to vote ‘Present’. It does serve a purpose besides your contention that it means he refused to take a stand one way or the other.”
Post 246 – ElvisL1ves: “Shayna, if you’re no longer interested in addressing anything I’ve actually said, then have a nice day.”
Post 296 – stolichnaya: “I’ve been reading about this present vote thing, and though I am inclined to give my man Barack the benefit of the doubt, I have yet to have it sufficiently explained to me, to the extent that I feel that I could explain it to someone else.”
Post 304 – Me: “would it help to have the word of other Illinois Legislators?” (link provided, with detailed explanation)
Post 356 – ElvisL1ves: “AKA “I was for it before I was against it.” Well, we’ve seen that movie before, and we know how it ends. You’re right, he does need a clearer explanation, and sometime soon, because the GOP spin machine has a proven approach at the ready.”
Post 366 – Me: “I noticed you just skipped right on over the post where I provided the clearer explanation right here in this very thread. And “being for it before [he] was against it” doesn’t even come close to the most basic understanding of the purpose of a ‘Present’ vote as it’s allowed and used in the Illinois Legislature.”
Post 367 – ElvisL1ves: “I’m referring to how they will spin it. That’s the problem.”
Ok, so are you now telling me that you have a clear understanding of the nuance and use of the ‘Present’ vote in the state of Illinois, accept that it was a legitimate vote for Senator Obama to have cast, and are now just concerned with how the Republicans will try to spin it?
You have evaded and dodged this issue throughout this thread. So if that’s now what you’re saying, I’d like to see you state so unequivocally.
Thanks.