Another Democratic Voice Against Obama

[silverscreenselect]

From a Democratic anti-Obama website, a post that probably comes closer to describing my feelings about this election than anything else out there I've read.

http://tinyurl.com/3hmrr9

We haven't become right wingers overnight. We haven't abandoned our commitment to liberal/progressive principles. We aren't Hillary fanatics who can't get over losing and want to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

We believe in principles, ethics, and country over party.

[sunflower]

I usually avoid the political posts but something drew me to this one.

I have to agree, as a registered Democrat, that captures how I am feeling during this election season.

[NellyLunatic1980]

We believe in principles, ethics, and country over party.

Now that was the best laugh I've had all week.

[Bob Juch]

From a Democratic anti-Obama website, a post that probably comes closer to describing my feelings about this election than anything else out there I've read.

http://tinyurl.com/3hmrr9

We haven't become right wingers overnight. We haven't abandoned our commitment to liberal/progressive principles. We aren't Hillary fanatics who can't get over losing and want to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

We believe in principles, ethics, and country over party.

Isn't that what the loyalists said in 1776?

[Rexer25]

ya know, when I opened the link, I hoped I might find a reasoned, well-measured article about why a Clinton supporter won't vote for Obama. The article even says there's not much difference between the positions of the two. Instead it's just more of the emotional, sour-grapes type writing that Hilary supporters have thrown into the blogosphere since anyone dared oppose her corona..., um, I mean nomination. It sounds like you wrote it yourself, SSS.

Except I bet there weren't any little spittle marks on the screen.

[15QuestionsAway]

From a Democratic anti-Obama website, a post that probably comes closer to describing my feelings about this election than anything else out there I've read.

http://tinyurl.com/3hmrr9

We haven't become right wingers overnight. We haven't abandoned our commitment to liberal/progressive principles. We aren't Hillary fanatics who can't get over losing and want to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

We believe in principles, ethics, and country over party.

You and the blogger appear to be insane.

But setting that aside for one moment, voting for McCain is an affirmative decision that is a repudiation of your supposed principles.

If you were truly principled, and have so much disdain for Obama that you can't vote for him, either don't vote, select a candidate that does reflect what you want (say, the Green Party candidate) or write in Hillary.

If you do end up voting for McCain, you are either a closet supporter of the Republican platform, Joe Lieberman, or in serious need of mental help. Or any combination of the three.

I say mental help, because it's obvious that your Obamaphobia forces you to have two conflicting ideas in your head that you can't resolve, ie, that you hate Obama but you are a supporter of Democratic principles. So, of course you go out into the mediaverse and collect right-wing talking points to salve your brain.

Frankly, I couldn't give a Zimbabwean dollar what you do in November. But as a valued member of this community who constantly needs to vent his spleen here about this, I'm concerned.

[silverscreenselect]

If you were truly principled, and have so much disdain for Obama that you can't vote for him, either don't vote, select a candidate that does reflect what you want (say, the Green Party candidate) or write in Hillary.

Voting for third parties, write-in candidates or deliberately not voting for President is the equivalent of voting present. There are only two people who have a chance to be elected President, and I feel it is my responsibility to vote for the better of the two candidates.

One area in which I differ from many of those on the right who oppose Obama is that I do not believe that he has a liberal agenda (radical or otherwise). I believe he has no agenda other than getting himself elected and getting the perks, privileges and power that come with that. He was smart enough to realize that the only way for a black man to advance anywhere in today's political world (other than being a Lieutenant Governor or state Attorney General) is as a Democrat. So he paid lip service to a lot of the Democratic principles, taking care to give himself plausible distance and deniability whenever he could. I find it hard to believe that he will exert any effort whatsoever to advance a Democratic agenda once elected. You won't see health care reform; you won't see energy reform; you won't see meaningful tax code reform.

One thing that does distress me a lot is the attempt to label me as insane or deluded. This campaign has brought out the worst in the Democratic party with pro-Obama sorts (more often) and anti-Obama sorts hurling the most vicious slurs. I've been accused of being a racist (on several occasions) or a closet Republican.

In my seven years on this Bored, I've had numerous disagreements, sometimes heated, with BiT, Flock and the rest of the right wingers. I don't recall any of them using such language to describe me, and I hope I haven't gone overboard in attacking them. I may think they are wrong, misguided or using faulty logic, but I wouldn't dream of labelling them insane... or racists or whatever other type of slurs that have been hurled my way and those of others who won't fall in line behind Obama.

Win or lose, this election marks an extreme low point for the Democratic party.

[danielh41]

If you were truly principled, and have so much disdain for Obama that you can't vote for him, either don't vote, select a candidate that does reflect what you want (say, the Green Party candidate) or write in Hillary.

Voting for third parties, write-in candidates or deliberately not voting for President is the equivalent of voting present. There are only two people who have a chance to be elected President, and I feel it is my responsibility to vote for the better of the two candidates.

One area in which I differ from many of those on the right who oppose Obama is that I do not believe that he has a liberal agenda (radical or otherwise). I believe he has no agenda other than getting himself elected and getting the perks, privileges and power that come with that. He was smart enough to realize that the only way for a black man to advance anywhere in today's political world (other than being a Lieutenant Governor or state Attorney General) is as a Democrat. So he paid lip service to a lot of the Democratic principles, taking care to give himself plausible distance and deniability whenever he could. I find it hard to believe that he will exert any effort whatsoever to advance a Democratic agenda once elected. You won't see health care reform; you won't see energy reform; you won't see meaningful tax code reform.

One thing that does distress me a lot is the attempt to label me as insane or deluded. This campaign has brought out the worst in the Democratic party with pro-Obama sorts (more often) and anti-Obama sorts hurling the most vicious slurs. I've been accused of being a racist (on several occasions) or a closet Republican.

In my seven years on this Bored, I've had numerous disagreements, sometimes heated, with BiT, Flock and the rest of the right wingers. I don't recall any of them using such language to describe me, and I hope I haven't gone overboard in attacking them. I may think they are wrong, misguided or using faulty logic, but I wouldn't dream of labelling them insane... or racists or whatever other type of slurs that have been hurled my way and those of others who won't fall in line behind Obama.

Win or lose, this election marks an extreme low point for the Democratic party.

You know, there's nothing wrong with being a closet Republican....

[danielh41]

If you were truly principled, and have so much disdain for Obama that you can't vote for him, either don't vote, select a candidate that does reflect what you want (say, the Green Party candidate) or write in Hillary.

Voting for third parties, write-in candidates or deliberately not voting for President is the equivalent of voting present. There are only two people who have a chance to be elected President, and I feel it is my responsibility to vote for the better of the two candidates.

One area in which I differ from many of those on the right who oppose Obama is that I do not believe that he has a liberal agenda (radical or otherwise). I believe he has no agenda other than getting himself elected and getting the perks, privileges and power that come with that. He was smart enough to realize that the only way for a black man to advance anywhere in today's political world (other than being a Lieutenant Governor or state Attorney General) is as a Democrat. So he paid lip service to a lot of the Democratic principles, taking care to give himself plausible distance and deniability whenever he could. I find it hard to believe that he will exert any effort whatsoever to advance a Democratic agenda once elected. You won't see health care reform; you won't see energy reform; you won't see meaningful tax code reform.

One thing that does distress me a lot is the attempt to label me as insane or deluded. This campaign has brought out the worst in the Democratic party with pro-Obama sorts (more often) and anti-Obama sorts hurling the most vicious slurs. I've been accused of being a racist (on several occasions) or a closet Republican.

In my seven years on this Bored, I've had numerous disagreements, sometimes heated, with BiT, Flock and the rest of the right wingers. I don't recall any of them using such language to describe me, and I hope I haven't gone overboard in attacking them. I may think they are wrong, misguided or using faulty logic, but I wouldn't dream of labelling them insane... or racists or whatever other type of slurs that have been hurled my way and those of others who won't fall in line behind Obama.

Win or lose, this election marks an extreme low point for the Democratic party.

Although I do agree with you that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting present. I have affiliated with America's Independent Party (because, darn it, the Republican Party just isn't right-wing enough for me), but I can't not vote for McCain. In my view, a vote for any others would be a vote for Obama, and I just can't abide that...

[eyégor]

From a Democratic anti-Obama website, a post that probably comes closer to describing my feelings about this election than anything else out there I've read.

http://tinyurl.com/3hmrr9

We haven't become right wingers overnight. We haven't abandoned our commitment to liberal/progressive principles. We aren't Hillary fanatics who can't get over losing and want to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

We believe in principles, ethics, and country over party.

Isn't that what the loyalists said in 1776?

This comment was meant to be a joke, right?

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Voting for third parties, write-in candidates or deliberately not voting for President is the equivalent of voting present.

I hope this isn't intended as a misleading attack against Obama's "present" votes a la the Republican Convention.

[silverscreenselect]

Voting for third parties, write-in candidates or deliberately not voting for President is the equivalent of voting present.

I hope this isn't intended as a misleading attack against Obama's "present" votes a la the Republican Convention.

Talk is cheap. Eventually, a politician has to decide if the public interest is better served if a bill becomes law or if it does not. A present vote allows a politician to avoid taking a position on an issue. It deprives those who voted for him of representation. It may be allowable under the rules, and there may be some situation under which it is justified, but to do so over 100 times is just part of a larger pattern of avoiding being pinned down on specific issues. It's interesting how so many of Obama's records from his time in the state legislature have disappeared so all we have now is his own explanation of these non-votes ten years after the fact.

[Thousandaire]

"The stupid voters fall for it."

That says it all. That's why Democrats lose elections.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Voting for third parties, write-in candidates or deliberately not voting for President is the equivalent of voting present.

I hope this isn't intended as a misleading attack against Obama's "present" votes a la the Republican Convention.

Talk is cheap. Eventually, a politician has to decide if the public interest is better served if a bill becomes law or if it does not. A present vote allows a politician to avoid taking a position on an issue. It deprives those who voted for him of representation. It may be allowable under the rules, and there may be some situation under which it is justified, but to do so over 100 times is just part of a larger pattern of avoiding being pinned down on specific issues. It's interesting how so many of Obama's records from his time in the state legislature have disappeared so all we have now is his own explanation of these non-votes ten years after the fact.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that voting present is different from taking a position on whether a bill becomes law or not.

[danielh41]

I hope this isn't intended as a misleading attack against Obama's "present" votes a la the Republican Convention.

Talk is cheap. Eventually, a politician has to decide if the public interest is better served if a bill becomes law or if it does not. A present vote allows a politician to avoid taking a position on an issue. It deprives those who voted for him of representation. It may be allowable under the rules, and there may be some situation under which it is justified, but to do so over 100 times is just part of a larger pattern of avoiding being pinned down on specific issues. It's interesting how so many of Obama's records from his time in the state legislature have disappeared so all we have now is his own explanation of these non-votes ten years after the fact.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that voting present is different from taking a position on whether a bill becomes law or not.

My understanding is that voting "Present" on a bill is for all practical purposes a no vote. But he can claim that he didn't vote no, thereby doing what SSS mentioned, "avoiding being pinned down on specific issues."

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Talk is cheap. Eventually, a politician has to decide if the public interest is better served if a bill becomes law or if it does not. A present vote allows a politician to avoid taking a position on an issue. It deprives those who voted for him of representation. It may be allowable under the rules, and there may be some situation under which it is justified, but to do so over 100 times is just part of a larger pattern of avoiding being pinned down on specific issues. It's interesting how so many of Obama's records from his time in the state legislature have disappeared so all we have now is his own explanation of these non-votes ten years after the fact.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that voting present is different from taking a position on whether a bill becomes law or not.

My understanding is that voting "Present" on a bill is for all practical purposes a no vote. But he can claim that he didn't vote no, thereby doing what SSS mentioned, "avoiding being pinned down on specific issues."

A present vote IS a no vote, and it's recognized as such. It also sends the added message that if some things are changed about the bill, the "present" voter would consider voting for it.

I fail to see how that is a way of "avoiding being pinned down on specific issues", or that there's anything else wrong with it.

[SportsFan68]

That really annoys me because I still believe that we can tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth and win elections. If we are right and our policies are the best ones for this nation, and our candidates will make the best leaders, we shouldn’t have to spin, twist, distort or lie about the facts.

That's from the referenced article.

I thought that too, and ran for local office on that basis. And lost. The other candidate broke every environmental promise she made, almost from the day she took office. I don't know if you describe that as spinning, twisting, distorting, or lying. Whatever you call it, she did it.

Outside groups, probably the RNC, are running attack ads against Mark Udall every day. They are spinning, twisting, distorting, and lying about the facts. If they win, that will be the reason. Mark is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And if he loses, that will be the reason. We'll have a person who's fabulously qualified to be a U.S. Senator teaching Political Science at DU or someplace because the spinning, twisting, distorting, and lying were so successful.

I've made no secret of my objection to Palin. I believe that McCain is now hugely in debt to the far right for jump-starting his campaign with this neophyte. SSS says that with Obama, "I find it hard to believe that he will exert any effort whatsoever to advance a Democratic agenda once elected. You won't see health care reform; you won't see energy reform; you won't see meaningful tax code reform." I think you will. But if you won't, neither will you with McCain. The far right, which I believe now owns his campaign, and his Presidency if he somehow gets elected, won't let him.

[15QuestionsAway]

...One area in which I differ from many of those on the right who oppose Obama is that I do not believe that he has a liberal agenda (radical or otherwise). I believe he has no agenda other than getting himself elected and getting the perks, privileges and power that come with that. He was smart enough to realize that the only way for a black man to advance anywhere in today's political world (other than being a Lieutenant Governor or state Attorney General) is as a Democrat. So he paid lip service to a lot of the Democratic principles, taking care to give himself plausible distance and deniability whenever he could. I find it hard to believe that he will exert any effort whatsoever to advance a Democratic agenda once elected. You won't see health care reform; you won't see energy reform; you won't see meaningful tax code reform.

Basically, what you're saying is that Obama's not liberal enough for you. So how does voting for McCain advance your agenda?

It strikes me as projection when you describe Obama. I can easily make the argument that McCain is only in it for the prize, based on the changing of his views (less moderate, more kowtowing to the right), and the selection of his running mate (hey it's a twofer - she has two X chromosomes, maybe the Hillary supporters will come our way and I get the religious right way excited!)

Again, I'd say there's nothing wrong with "voting present" (ie, writing in Hillary) if that reflects your views. How else are we going to get better politicians if everyone is always voting for the least bad choice? Vote your principles - you'll ultimately feel better. Especially if you're in a state that is strongly leaning one way or the other.

I'd still argue that voting for McCain is in direct contradiction to your interests and will put the country farther away from what you would like to see.

Also, because it's important I say this, assuming Obama wins, he may not be able to pursue his agenda (the one he sets out on his web site, which I happen to believe he wants to achieve), because the Treasury has been drained by the war and now the potential finance sector bailout. Not because he doesn't want to do stuff, but because his fiscal hand may be forced by circumstances. I believe this is straight out of the Grover Norquist/Karl Rove school of "shrink government down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub".

I hope I'm wrong. Bernie Sanders and others are right when they say that those who have benefited from the last eight years should be the ones to pay for any bailout - those being the top 1% of income (and capital gains) earners. And/or levy a stock sale transaction tax, as is done in other countries - Wall Street then pays to fix Wall Street.

It's nothing personal - your posts show that you're deeply upset by Obama, and I just want to give you another way of looking at things that fits with how you feel.

[silverscreenselect]

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that voting present is different from taking a position on whether a bill becomes law or not.

My understanding of a present vote is that it counts for the purposes of determining if a quorum is present, but not for whether a bill becomes law. If the vote on a bill is 55 yea 44 nay and 1 present, then it is a 55-44 vote and not 56-44 or 55-45. By voting present, you take no position as to whether you believe the bill should become law, so it is not the equivalent of a no vote. In the case of a 50-49 vote, then a present vote may well be the equivalent of the deciding vote either way, but otherwise it doesn't count.

If enough people who "opposed" the bill but might vote for it if changes were made vote present, then the bill becomes law despite their "present" votes. And of course it's very convenient we don't have any records of Obama's state legislative tenure so he's now able to explain away the present votes any way he wants to.

After the fact, you are free to explain what your present vote "meant," but the fact remains that you failed to take a position one way or the other on whether the bill should become law.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that voting present is different from taking a position on whether a bill becomes law or not.

My understanding of a present vote is that it counts for the purposes of determining if a quorum is present, but not for whether a bill becomes law. If the vote on a bill is 55 yea 44 nay and 1 present, then it is a 55-44 vote and not 56-44 or 55-45. By voting present, you take no position as to whether you believe the bill should become law, so it is not the equivalent of a no vote. In the case of a 50-49 vote, then a present vote may well be the equivalent of the deciding vote either way, but otherwise it doesn't count.

If enough people who "opposed" the bill but might vote for it if changes were made vote present, then the bill becomes law despite their "present" votes. And of course it's very convenient we don't have any records of Obama's state legislative tenure so he's now able to explain away the present votes any way he wants to.

After the fact, you are free to explain what your present vote "meant," but the fact remains that you failed to take a position one way or the other on whether the bill should become law.

I'm not sure where you're from, but in Illinois, your understanding is incorrect. If there are 100 people voting, it takes 51 yes votes to pass something. If there are 45 yes votes, 30 no votes and 25 present votes, the bill goes down. So it is functionally equivalent to a no vote.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I'm not sure where you're from, but in Illinois, your understanding is incorrect. If there are 100 people voting, it takes 51 yes votes to pass something. If there are 45 yes votes, 30 no votes and 25 present votes, the bill goes down. So it is functionally equivalent to a no vote.

What I wrote sounds a little confusing to me. For a vote to pass, in addition to a quorum, you need a majority of the votes cast, not just of "yes" or "no" votes, but of ALL votes.

[Timsterino]

From a Democratic anti-Obama website, a post that probably comes closer to describing my feelings about this election than anything else out there I've read.

http://tinyurl.com/3hmrr9

We haven't become right wingers overnight. We haven't abandoned our commitment to liberal/progressive principles. We aren't Hillary fanatics who can't get over losing and want to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

We believe in principles, ethics, and country over party.

Steve, I have been reading your posts for a while now and I have been concerned. You would rather vote for McCain simply because Obama beat Hillary Clinton?

Don't get me wrong, during the primaries I was a huge Hillary supporter. As far as I was concerned she was the one for me. But the primaries ended and we have Obama. At the end of the day, the ideals are the same. At the end of the day, I might not agree with everything he says or some of his tactics but I believe in him.

Switching to McCain would be against everything I believe in. I can not do that in spite of my gal not winning. I just can't. How can you?

[Bob78164]

I'm not sure where you're from, but in Illinois, your understanding is incorrect. If there are 100 people voting, it takes 51 yes votes to pass something. If there are 45 yes votes, 30 no votes and 25 present votes, the bill goes down. So it is functionally equivalent to a no vote.

What I wrote sounds a little confusing to me. For a vote to pass, in addition to a quorum, you need a majority of the votes cast, not just of "yes" or "no" votes, but of ALL votes.

That's how it works in many state legislatures (including California's) -- for a bill to pass, it must get "yes" votes from a majority of the membership. But that's now how it works in Congress. In the Senate, 2-1 with 48 "present" votes is enough to approve the bill. --Bob