Seems my last post, Spinelessness, had caused a stir. I received a comment from Charlie Turner himself, claiming that it is I who hasn’t done the research.
Perhaps you should take your own advice – do some research. As it has clearly been outlined, numerous times, in numerous outlets, a “present” vote in the Illinois state legislature is not the equivalent to that in the national legislature. Furthermore, as was made clear in the original article, Barack Obama voted present only 129 times out of the roughly 4,000 times he voted – about 3%.
As a journalist, we are constantly faced with weighing out what is the most important news and what the public needs to know. What this story is pushing toward is not a promotion of Obama, or a denigration of congressman Boehner, but an evaluation of the political rhetoric in this country.
I for one, am sick of the cheap character assassinations that have been leveled by both parties. I want to see robust discourse about actual issues and I think the public needs to know when their representatives are wasting time and money attacking party opponents on unsubstantial issues.
I would love to see Boehner address Obama’s tax plan. I would love to see him talk about his foreign policy. But instead, I’m forced to sit there and listen to him call Obama a “chicken shit” for doing something that Boehner himself clearly knows is not cowardly or weak.
I’m not an advocate for either party and if a democrat had issued such claims, that article would have been about him. I’m simply pushing for dignified, constructive speaking and an end to this half-true bullshit.
I am calling you out you wannabee-partisan-hack. You want to call yourself an “independent”, that you aren’t an advocate for either party, fine, but where were you when Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski called Sarah Palin a “Nazi Sympathizer”? It wasn’t just me who found it offensive, but even the ‘The Morning Joe’ crew over at MSNBC were disgusted with it. Where were you when that happened? What about when John Lewis compared the McCain/Palin ticket to George Wallace? What about when Joe Biden was villainizing Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, saying on numerous occasions that he wasn’t a “REAL” plumber? Oh no, you like to be selective about your “outrage” don’t you?
I will not back away from my past statements, I stand firmly behind what John Boehner said, that Barack Obama is a “chicken”, that he hasn’t shown the leadership necessary to be a President. Name one thing he has done in his political career that shows otherwise? I have read through those lists of accomplisments, they don’t exist. It is a collection of “voting with the herd” and pushing legislation that didn’t pass. Alex Koppelman from Salon.com wrote an article about those “accomplishments.”
Actually, Obama fought for universal healthcare generally, but when he encountered resistance, he settled for a compromise, a bill that only created a commission to study the possibility.
That sounds like a “chicken-shit” to me. Why don’t you do the research on those 4,000 votes he did cast in Illinois. The New York Times put out a nice article on it last year during the start of the Democratic primaries, but of course you didn’t read that one did you? Here is a sample.
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… 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.
How do you justify that? When even his own colleagues voted for it, a bill which would keep sex offenders behind bars longer, when he voted “present.” This isn’t about “legal ramifications”, this about being soft, this is about being a “chicken-shit” when he needed to step up and make a decision. If he really cared about the First Amendment, why not vote “no”? For that matter, what did this bill have to do with the First Amendment? That sounds like the ACLU trying to argue it is the right of pedophiles to have child pornography.
When he wasn’t voting “present”, he was following in lock-step with his party, something even Factcheck.org, a source I don’t usually trust, reported on.
He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s “broken with his party,” has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
He voted with his party more often than Senator Harry Reid, Senator John Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy, so explain how that isn’t being a “chicken”? This is what Fred Siegel also stated in his article, The illusion that is Barack Obama, so explain to me how that isn’t being “spineless”? The point is, this voting record, on top of the 129 “presents”, reflects a politician who is afraid to take a strong stand, someone who is “voting safe” instead of showing leadership.
When he wasn’t voting with his party, he was voting left of it. The Washington Times wrote an article about this, something you obviously didn’t read.
Mr. Obama’s left-leaning pedigree has concerned some of his party’s moderate and conservative members. Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma has publicly refused to endorse Mr. Obama, describing the presumptive presidential nominee as the “most liberal senator” on Capitol Hill… Although Mr. Obama has talked about working with Republicans, Mr. Boren said, “unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.”
How can anyone trust a politician with that kind of voting record? He can’t even support bipartisan legislation passed by his party, afraid of upsetting the liberal groups which support him, his ACLU-like constituency. More “safe” voting if you ask me.
You want to criticize my reporting, my research methods, when you “phone it in” by quoting Facheck.org? It isn’t just me, but several bloggers have questioned their accuracy, especially when they “debunked” McCain’s ad about Barack Obama voting for a bill which would allow for the teaching of sexual education to children. Yes, it is true that the legislation didn’t pass, but the infamous Senate Bill 99 did push sexual education for kindergartners. That’s something they refused to really mention in their article, instead trying to protect Obama by saying things like, “The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.” We have all seen how this “op-out clause” in education bills are ignored by schools across the country, so this is a flimsy excuse at best. Tell me, how can you trust a source for the facts when they have shown that kind of partisanship?
Problem is that you, like others in the main stream press, have decided to simply “copy and paste” your facts from biased sources, refused to hear both sides of the story, and report stories with a typical left-leaning slant. You spent your article discussing how people “felt” about these remarks, instead of challenging their validity, and when confronted, you quote some numbers which are irrelevant to the charge. It doesn’t matter that Obama voted “present” ONLY three percent of the time, it matters that this is just another part of his backbencher-like voting record. As John Boehner was saying, America doesn’t need a “chicken” in the White House, it needs someone who has shown not only REAL bipartisanship, but someone who can take a STAND on an issue. Your report ignored that point, instead of writing something meaningful, you decided to paint Boehner as a typical “vicious” Republican, just like how Obama and Biden having been painting McCain and Palin. How is that in the public’s interest? You’re pathetic.
The reason why you are a wannabee-partisan-hack instead of a full blown one, is that you will never achieve the fame other far-left reporters like Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Roland Martin, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have. The main stream press already has enough liberal reporting “Yes Men”, they don’t need another. Instead of setting yourself apart like Barbara West, you follow the crowd like a good “partisan lemming”. Don’t you dare talk down to me like I am some conservative attack dog.
I HAVE CRITICIZED the right-wing for their dependence on free market economics, I have stated the importance of government when the economy is in trouble, like when the housing market collapsed, but you, you won’t break lock-step with your left-wing constituency. I hammered Michelle Malkin and others for criticizing President George W. Bush and John McCain for supporting the federal bailout, what have you done to set yourself apart? Nothing, you refuse to do it, refuse to “rock the boat” at the risk of upsetting your colleagues.
I am a commentator who reports on the news, providing my own thoughts on the issues. I have never hid my personal bias, I don’t fake who I am to satisfy my readers. I don’t pretend to be a “balanced” journalist like you do, hiding your social-political beliefs, pretending to lack a partisanship in your reporting. Simply put, I am honest about what I write, that is a strength, while you are as dishonest and untrustworthy as most reporters are these days. But I guess that “dishonesty” is in the best interest for the public eh?
Pathetic… Downright pathetic…
UPDATE: I guess your “dishonest” reporting could help you get a job with the Los Angeles Times eh? Is suppressing the Khalidi party tape in the best interest of the public? I am thankful that we do have bloggers like Michelle Malkin who report on stories you and your colleagues refuse to…