OBAMA Supporters-- reasons why?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be helpful to look at Barack Obama's voting record. He has voted to support every piece of legislation John McCain has sponsored.

How can this be true? If you go to Thomas and from "Browse Bills by Sponsor" select McCain, you will get a list of the bills he sponsored. The vast majority have not moved beyond committee and except in cases where Obama is on the committee, Obama hasn't had an opportunity to vote on them, let alone vote in support.

There are plenty of examples that Obama would not support. For instance, S.2890 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday. Obama was very vocal during the Indiana campaign in opposing this idea (which Clinton supported).

The two did work together on ethics reform, but even that got derailed.

It is helpful to look at Obama's voting record. Its helpful to look at McCain's as well. Its especially helpful to look at the votes McCain has missed lately because he doesn't want to be forced to take a position. According to the Washington Post McCain has missed more votes than any other senator, including Tim Johnson who had a stroke and was hospitalized for some time. McCain has missed over 60%, so he's missed more than he cast. I guess one way to be a "maverick" is to avoid taking a position.

OK, first of all let's look at votes. In McCain's entire career as a senator he has had 17% of his votes being NO VOTES. In Obama's entire US senate career he has had 22% of his votes as NO VOTES. Who has more no votes? Obama.

BOTH Obama and McCain have had abysmal voting records if you look at the voting record beginning in Q1 of 2007 through the current quarter. Two highest quarters for each?

in 07Q4 Obama did not vote 89.4% of the time and in the most receent quarter Q2, he has not voted 85.5% of the time. McCain's two highest are 07Q4 and 08Q2 at 76.5% and 98.2% respectively. So if McCain is the #1 no voter Obama is taking a close second. The post was looking at the most recent quarter. It would have been fair and balanced if they would have accuratly reported that mcCain missed 98% of the votes while Obama missed 86% of the votes in the most recent quarter and if they had also pointed out the OBVIOUS is that these 2 a currently running campaigns and are not spending their time at the senate voting. Spin spin spin.

PLEASE check the spin of what you are reading in the Post and the LA times against the facts. These facts are published all over the place by non-partisan watch dog groups.

Real Clear Politics and GovTrack us are great places to start.

[Anonymous]

Forget about the issues for a second... I love his sense of optimism. He really inspires people and makes me believe that we can build a better future. I think our country really needs that right now.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The post was looking at the most recent quarter. It would have been fair and balanced if they would have accuratly reported that mcCain missed 98% of the votes while Obama missed 86% of the votes in the most recent quarter and if they had also pointed out the OBVIOUS is that these 2 a currently running campaigns and are not spending their time at the senate voting. Spin spin spin.

PLEASE check the spin of what you are reading in the Post and the LA times against the facts. These facts are published all over the place by non-partisan watch dog groups.

Real Clear Politics and GovTrack us are great places to start.

You actually misunderstood what the Post is reporting.

The Post's data was for the 110th Congress, or basically from January until now. So, it is not quarterly data. During that time period, McCain has the highest percentage of missed votes. He missed 353 or 60.4%. Obama missed 245 or 42%. Obama's was the third highest missed vote percentage. Between McCain and Obama was Tim Johnson who was hospitalized due to a stroke. All of the top seven except Johnson were presidential candidates and obviously, running for president would result in missed votes for a senator. However, McCain has missed almost 20% more votes than Obama during a time when Obama had a tough primary opponent and McCain was basically unopposed for much of the time. To put it another way, McCain has missed nearly twice as many votes as Hillary Clinton, so clearly McCain's absences are out of the ordinary, even for a presidential candidate.

I think the reason McCain is missing votes is clear: he doesn't want to take a position on controversial issues. Mr. "Mavarick" is trying to be a conservative to the Bush dead-enders and trying to be an independent to moderates. Its pretty hard to talk out both sides of your mouth when your vote on an issue is recorded. For instance, the cloture vote for the economic stimulus package fell one vote short. McCain was in DC, but missed the vote. McCain, whose military service and support for the military is legion, missed the vote on the newly proposed GI Bill. McCain is simply hoping that nobody notices the game he is playing.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The post was looking at the most recent quarter. It would have been fair and balanced if they would have accuratly reported that mcCain missed 98% of the votes while Obama missed 86% of the votes in the most recent quarter and if they had also pointed out the OBVIOUS is that these 2 a currently running campaigns and are not spending their time at the senate voting. Spin spin spin.

PLEASE check the spin of what you are reading in the Post and the LA times against the facts. These facts are published all over the place by non-partisan watch dog groups.

Real Clear Politics and GovTrack us are great places to start.

You actually misunderstood what the Post is reporting.

The Post's data was for the 110th Congress, or basically from January until now. So, it is not quarterly data. During that time period, McCain has the highest percentage of missed votes. He missed 353 or 60.4%. Obama missed 245 or 42%. Obama's was the third highest missed vote percentage. Between McCain and Obama was Tim Johnson who was hospitalized due to a stroke. All of the top seven except Johnson were presidential candidates and obviously, running for president would result in missed votes for a senator. However, McCain has missed almost 20% more votes than Obama during a time when Obama had a tough primary opponent and McCain was basically unopposed for much of the time. To put it another way, McCain has missed nearly twice as many votes as Hillary Clinton, so clearly McCain's absences are out of the ordinary, even for a presidential candidate.

I think the reason McCain is missing votes is clear: he doesn't want to take a position on controversial issues. Mr. "Mavarick" is trying to be a conservative to the Bush dead-enders and trying to be an independent to moderates. Its pretty hard to talk out both sides of your mouth when your vote on an issue is recorded. For instance, the cloture vote for the economic stimulus package fell one vote short. McCain was in DC, but missed the vote. McCain, whose military service and support for the military is legion, missed the vote on the newly proposed GI Bill. McCain is simply hoping that nobody notices the game he is playing.

Um, that's "Mr. MAVERICK" to you.

[Anonymous]

Hey, since we're quoting numbers - what's the $ total of earmarks Obama has sponsored vs. $ total of McCain sponsored?

[Anonymous]

How about Obama's earmarks for the good Father Pfleger?

[Anonymous]

http://sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6374202

Obama took $91 Million Dollars of Federal Money and spent it in Illinois. McCain has never taken an earmark penny.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6374202

Obama took $91 Million Dollars of Federal Money and spent it in Illinois. McCain has never taken an earmark penny.

McCain opposes earmarks because he believes they lead to corruption. However, as his involvement as one of the Keating 5 shows, earmarks are not the only way to be corrupt.

Obama has disclosed his earmarks (which he is not required to do). This sort of transparency removes most of the corruption threat because everyone can examine whether his earmarks are for good endeavors or for bridges to nowhere.

[Anonymous]

I voted for Obama in the DC primary, but did not contribute because I really was unsure which of the Democrats would make the best president. I would not spend money against Clinton, Edwards, Biden, etc.

I like McCain too. But not his politics. So I have already sent my first contribution to Obama to keep McCain from appointing another Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito. And to keep him from standing in the way of women's rights, gay rights, health rights, and a quick end to the occupation of Iraq.

So the answer to why I support Obama is
a) in the primary, it was just a gut feeling.
b) in the general election, because I want my country back.

Rich from Takoma

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6374202

Obama took $91 Million Dollars of Federal Money and spent it in Illinois. McCain has never taken an earmark penny.

McCain opposes earmarks because he believes they lead to corruption. However, as his involvement as one of the Keating 5 shows, earmarks are not the only way to be corrupt.

Obama has disclosed his earmarks (which he is not required to do). This sort of transparency removes most of the corruption threat because everyone can examine whether his earmarks are for good endeavors or for bridges to nowhere.

I have to comment here. Let's all understand what earmarks are. Your Federal tax dollars are supposed to support Federal programs. Earmarks are funds that benefit only one state or city or hospital, etc. and are added to a Federal Bill to "buy" that Senator's vote. "Good endeavors" should be supported by the state or city they benefit - or should be supported in a Federal Grant that benefits all similar programs, museums, etc. If they are not worthy of local funding, or if they do not have a broad benefit to the country at large, then money should not be "stolen" from the Transportation appropriation, to fund the Shedd Aquarium.

Obama did it, because "everyone was doing it." Hillary was even worse - 3 times his earmarks - but the fact is people, this money did not belong to them, it was Federal Money for Federal Programs that are supposed to benefit the entire country. If you have a really good cause or program, get state funding, file for a Federal Grant, get something passed - don't try to use your position as a Senator to cut in line for your individual state at the cost of Federal programs.

[Anonymous]

Yes, John McCain is a god because he doesn't do earmarks. One thing he's learned to do quite well is raise a whole bunch of money with no considerations for Campaign Finance Reform!! When it's his own presidential campaign, I guess he doesn't want to get all high and mighty about it, huh??? I find that interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, John McCain is a god because he doesn't do earmarks. One thing he's learned to do quite well is raise a whole bunch of money with no considerations for Campaign Finance Reform!! When it's his own presidential campaign, I guess he doesn't want to get all high and mighty about it, huh??? I find that interesting.

What you also might find interesting are the facts, or maybe not. The McCain Feingold bill reformed campaign finance by disallowing funds raised for one purpose (DNC or RNC) to be transferred to support local races, etc. Also, it requires scrutiny of direct mail fundraisers who say they're raising money for Traditional Family Values, and instead, use that money for postage to send out anti-gay and lesbian fear letters to older voters to get them out of their wheelchairs to vote in fools like Bush. It is not there to keep people from raising money for their campaigns. It just requires the fundraisers to use the money in the way in which they claimed they would use when they asked for it. Believe it or not, that has been a major thorn in the side of all the politicians, because they loved the freedom of sliding those $ wherever they wanted them. John McCain and Russ Feingold are not gods, but they sure did the public a good turn.

[Anonymous]

Obama's comments about fatherhood this weekend are profoundly important. He has a platform to effect change that is beyond McCain's reach, no matter what McCain has accomplished or endured.

[Anonymous]

I am an Obama supporter. My main voting issues this election are related to foreign policy. It would probably take pages to fully explain why I'm an Obama supporter, but in short, I think he has a better shot at correcting the horribly failed foreign policy we've seen over the last years. On foreign policy in particular, McCain really scares me, and I think he is much, much more hawkish than has been apparent so far.

With that said, I'm a bit worried about Obama's recent comments to AIPAC, particularly in relation to not dividing Jerusalem. That puts him somewhere to the right of Ehud Olmert, and basically almost everything I've read seems to indicate that some partitioning of Jersusalem has to be on the table to negotiate a real peace deal in the Middle East.

But I still have much more confidence in him that in McCain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an Obama supporter. My main voting issues this election are related to foreign policy. It would probably take pages to fully explain why I'm an Obama supporter, but in short, I think he has a better shot at correcting the horribly failed foreign policy we've seen over the last years. On foreign policy in particular, McCain really scares me, and I think he is much, much more hawkish than has been apparent so far.

With that said, I'm a bit worried about Obama's recent comments to AIPAC, particularly in relation to not dividing Jerusalem. That puts him somewhere to the right of Ehud Olmert, and basically almost everything I've read seems to indicate that some partitioning of Jersusalem has to be on the table to negotiate a real peace deal in the Middle East.

But I still have much more confidence in him that in McCain.

I see this as pure pandering to AIPAC. No one can seriously believe he thinks this, given his foreign policy advisors to date.