Deflect, deflect, deflect. It’s always them, never her.
“Your statements are in error.”
“Your statements do not appear to correspond to the facts as presented on site/reference/citation X.”
“Your statements appear to be talking points taken from Site Y that have been debunked on Site Z.”
In each case, there is no accusation of “falsehood” by the poster which carries the clear connotation that the poster deliberately misstated the point(s).
I think you are not thinking of “clout” the same way I am. Usually, political clout comes from trading favors with others and taking advantage of long-term relationships. I don’t mean this in a negative way, necessarily…it’s how our political system works, for better or worse. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Or, well, maybe you can, but then I think you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle of how stuff gets done in Washington, and how elections work out the way they do.
Recognizing the very small value that “Me, too,” posts bring to a debate, I’m hesitant to post one here.
But I have been emeshed in frustratingly maddening exchanges where it’s been clear to me that I was explaining things clearly, and my opponent was … er… not doing that, seemingly deliberately. At those times, it was a rare but prized treat to have a spectator pop in and confirm my view of things.
So – Shayna – you have cogently and clearly explained your position, complete with cites and with a clearly-held understanding that your point is, although not definitive, pretty damn strong. Your chief opponent here has not done that, and it’s clear to everyone reading this.
I would have more respect for the insistence on “FACTS!” if the facts weren’t a niggling, petty, and patently Clintonian fine line between cheating and merely navigating around the rules in an obviously duplicitous manner. I eagerly await Elvis to tell us if she really considers the Hillary strategy of winning by lawyering in delegates from states where Obama didn’t even have his name on the ballot and strong-arming superdelegates is – if not “cheating” by whatever rulebook she’s got – but, indeed, honorable, honest, above-board, fair, and best for the Democratic Party. While you’re at it, please tell me why the nonsensical attacks on Obama are, in fact, not shrill and desperate. Facts only, please – and I retain the right to define “facts” in a manner that suits my argument.
cricetus, are you referring to ElvisL1ves as “she”? I’m pretty sure you need to remove the “s” from that pronoun.
Yep. My bad.
Thank you very much, Bricker. I do appreciate the recognition.
Hmmm, Elvis, I seem to recall a few years in between, but again, whatever. I obviously did think it is of minor relevance that he has worked with them for years and with that intimate knowledge of them has been so critical of them so consistently since. Take of that what you will, the facts that he puts forth are still accurate and consistent with what I have been stating ever since she first tried to claim the “experience card” … What experience? What accomplishments? What solutions? What has she actually done? The answer is nearly nothing which stands in stark contrast to the actual working towards solutions that Obama has accomplished.
Hello again, Rick. I wanted to come back and respond to the underlined portion of the above, specifically.
If you are not familiar with Abner Mikva (though I’d take a bet that you are), he spent ten years in the Illinois House of Representatives, served as a United States Congressman for another 10 years, and served on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1979 until 1994 when he retired. I hope you’d agree that he’s pretty qualified to weigh in on the ‘Present’ vote controversy.
Here’s what he had to say in an article he wrote for the New York Times yesterday. . .
A bit more definitive now?
Indeed I am familiar with Judge Mikva – about fifteen years ago at a DC gathering I had an extended conversation with him over Conservative vs. Reform Judaism; he has a daughter that’s a rabbi in the Reform tradition. He is a principled and scrupulously honest man, but in all fairness I have to say that it’s my understanding he’s also an adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.
Now, to recap what I see as the controversy – another poster here offered up an opinion piece from the “real clear politics” site which said, in effect: “In the Illinois Senate, ‘present’ vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don’t want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose.”
You responded with various pieces of information from people who are extremely familar with the Illinois legislature, who said, in effect: “The ‘present’ vote can and often is used to express a nuanced position that a ‘no’ vote does not – favor for the bill’s underlying subject but oppsition to its specific terms, as an example.” Imagine a bill mandating that state employees are given a 6% boost in their pension, with the extra pension fund money being invested in Chinese microcap. A legislator that favors the pension increase but disfavors the Chinese investment strategy may vote ‘present’ to signal this position.
There’s no question that the latter view is the correct one - so in that sense, yes, your point IS definitive.
Your opponent, were he capable of a more nuanced argument himself, would probably argue that Senator Obama’s votes were not intended to express such nuanced positions, but for the more base purpose of covering his political ass.
In other words, there’s no question that ‘present’ CAN, and often DOES, mean a nuanced position more complicated than ‘no’ or ‘yes.’ What is not yet shown definitively is what Senator Obama meant by each one of his ‘present’ votes.
We may infer from his overall record, however, that he’s not the kind of politician that seeks cover; he has in other cases unabashedly taken strong positions on similar issues. This, to my mind, makes the more benign interpretation of his ‘present’ votes the odds-on favorite. But, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am forced to admit that it’s not definitive.
The following was added as a postscript to the article in question:
He could try to argue it, but I would demand proof of such a contention. Especially given the testimonial evidence of Senators who have worked with him, who all attest to his seriousness with regard to his votes, there appears to be no evidence to support such a claim. Pure partisan speculation doesn’t cut it, you have to be able to back it up. In this case, I doubt anyone can, because no one except his opponent in this race is out there saying he wasn’t a careful and considered legislator.
And if you’re concerned that the sources who are coming out to explain the practicality and often necessary use of the ‘Present’ vote in Illinois are all Obama supporters, I’d like to direct you to this video testimony from Lorna Brett Howard, former President of Chicago NOW, and former Hillary Clinton supporter, who was OUTRAGED when Hillary Clinton disseminated misleading information in Iowa and New Hampshire, claiming Barack Obama’s ‘Present’ votes on legislation related to a woman’s right to choose, meant he was “weak on choice.” She doesn’t say “this is about his ‘Present’ votes”, but the piece of direct mail she’s referring to was based on that contention.
Now, you may not agree with her on the subject matter, but here she is disputing that particular lie. Part 1 Part 2
Except for the fact that nothing in his history, and none of the testimony about his dedication and commitment to honest and ethical legislative practices, and the fact that he does not have a reputation of shying away from tough issues, and the fact that NO ONE can come up with a single example of a ‘Present’ vote that was to “cover his political ass,” I’m not sure what you’d be looking for to find it definitive.
I regard “definitive” as synonymous with “settled” or “beyond doubt.”
If someone makes a claim, such as your opponent did, the burden falls to them to provide the evidence. In that sense, his speculations are simply that - gratuitous assertions devoid of proof. As my high school debate teacher was fond of repeating, “A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.”
But when it comes to characterizing fact as “definitive,” “settled,” or “beyond doubt,” then the burden shifts. It would be on you to show that your proffered explanation is not simply “likely,” or even “most likely,” or even “highly likely.” No, to carry that burden you would need to show that facts admit to no other rational explanation. This, you cannot do, because it would require evidence that cannot be provided. The fact is that it’s possible Senator Obama made those votes to cravenly cover his political ass, despite not shying away from other such votes or issues. It’s unlikely, highly unlikely, but even if he had issued a statement prior to each and every vote the counter-argument would be that he was simply lying.
In short, the argument now is: however remotely unlikely, it’s possible that voting present was intended as a political cover.
I don’t see a way to rebut that. But let’s put it this way: it’s more likely that global warming is not caused by human activity than Obama’s ‘present’ votes were a matter of political cover.
Precisely. The burden is on them, and they have clearly not carried it.
Ah, but I did not make that claim, so the burden has not shifted at all.
You contended that the evidence wasn’t definitive in your opinion.
I provided a further cite and asked if that made it more definitive for you.
You responded, ‘No’.
I inquired as to what you would be looking for to tilt you towards ‘definitive’ and you said, “the facts admit to no other rational explanation.”
I don’t agree with that strict limitation, given that it seems irrational to me to dismiss all of the actual evidence we do have, all of which leads to the conclusion that Obama did not use the ‘Present’ vote to cover his political ass.
However, again, I’m not making the claim that the proof should be considered ‘definitive’, merely asking what would make it so, to you. You are certainly free not to be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence. However, since I wasn’t making a claim, only trying to ascertain what criteria you’d use to come to your conclusion, I don’t believe I carry any burden of proof.
Actually, that seems to have been the argument from the start, except that our friend ElvisL1ves didn’t appear to subscribe to the remote unlikelihood of it being political expediency, he just characterized it entirely that way.
But perhaps we’re picking nits at this point. The object lesson was, how are ‘Present’ votes used in the Illinois Legislature, does a ‘Present’ vote indicate a lack of moral courage, and did Senator Obama shirk his responsibilities as an Illinois Legislator by utilizing this option on a miniscule percentage of the votes he cast?
He cast over 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate. He voted ‘Present’ (which we’ve all learned now IS actually a NO vote, with an explanation) on 130 of them. Of those 130, 50 were sanctioned by the Democratic party. That leaves 80 ‘Present’ votes in question, meaning 2% of his votes might deserve some additional scrutiny, which is hardly representative of his overall record of steadfast commitment to getting (what he feels is) good legislation passed.
What’s vile and unconscionable is this kind of crap coming from the Clinton camp, when she knows better, or should. . .
It is patently false to claim that a ‘Present’ vote “avoids yes-or-no stands”. A ‘Present’ vote is a ‘No’ vote. And they offer up no evidence whatsoever that Barack Obama’s ‘Present’ votes, specifically, were “to avoid yes-or-no stands”, or that he “had taken the easy way out.”
They know that’s not the purpose of the system in Illinois. And they’ve made a claim that they can’t back up, which to me is the bottom line.
On the subject of whether Clinton’s done or not, I note that today’s Gallup and Rasmussen trackers have Obama leading Hillary by 49%-42% and 47%-43%, respectively amongst Dems nationally.
Before we certify death, note that Obama’s lead in Wisconsin has for the past week been consistently around 5%. Many times before, Obama’s actual vote was below what the polls indicated, so an Obama victory in WI is by non means a certainty. He has closed the gap in TX somewhat but still trails, and he has a lot of work to do in Ohio. If he goes 0-3 for this group, momentum may shift back to Hillary. I hope it doesn’t happen and don’t think it will, but never underestimate the Clintons in a fight.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed. First off because keeping the “momentum” will be important and secondly because I think WI might be a good indicator for how Ohio can go with enough work. But I’ll be feeling edgy until late tomorrow night when they have The Land of Cows & Cheese tallied up.
To me? To paraphrase Jerry McGuire, you had me at ‘present.’ I have absolutely no doubt that if Senator Obama meant to say ‘no,’ on a given bill, he would have voted ‘no.’ He voted ‘present’ on bills to send a particular message about the bill.
No, and hell no.
Yes.
Excellent, then we agree. YAY!
Now hie thee back here, where we have extended you a personal invitation, complete with enticing perks! 