« Media Distorts for McCain - AGAIN | MsJoanne's Blog | Media Ignores McCain's 600 lb Mental Elephant »
Obama's Senate Accomplishments: HERE'S THE BEEF!
Much has been made of Obama’s lack of accomplishments, that he hasn’t done anything, that he’s an empty suit, and all the other inexperience meme’s you can think of.
I wonder, do you find the following empty? And thank you Helenann at DailyKos for your efforts! I quote her in full below (Note that I changed the formatting and order of some of the data for ease in reading. Nothing else was changed.) :
********************************
It has really been bothering me - the charges that Obama is all talk and no action. Those of us who support him and have reviewed his record know there is no basis to this charge, but just to make sure, I went to the Congressional Record (www.thomas.gov) and did a search for bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Senator Obama in his three short years in the US Senate. I searched the 109th and 110th Congresses which cover the years 2005-2007.
In a nut shell I found:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
* Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
* Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
* Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
* The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
* Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
* Foreign Policy (10 bills)
* Voting and Elections (9 bills)
* Education (7 bills)
* Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
* The Environment (5 bills)
* Homeland Security (4 bills)
* Discrimination (4 bills)
And the full details including bill numbers? Keep reading. I promise you will be impressed!
Not only do I ask you to Recommend this should you like it, but bookmark either this TPM page or this page with details for future reference - for the next time someone asks YOU: "Where's the beef?" Don't let the slime machine win!
I wonder, do you find the following empty? And thank you Helenann at DailyKos for your efforts! I quote her in full below (Note that I changed the formatting and order of some of the data for ease in reading. Nothing else was changed.) :
********************************
It has really been bothering me - the charges that Obama is all talk and no action. Those of us who support him and have reviewed his record know there is no basis to this charge, but just to make sure, I went to the Congressional Record (www.thomas.gov) and did a search for bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Senator Obama in his three short years in the US Senate. I searched the 109th and 110th Congresses which cover the years 2005-2007.
In a nut shell I found:
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.
His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the areas of:
* Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills)
* Health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills)
* Consumer protection/labor (14 bills)
* The needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills)
* Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills)
* Foreign Policy (10 bills)
* Voting and Elections (9 bills)
* Education (7 bills)
* Hurricane Katrina Relief (6)
* The Environment (5 bills)
* Homeland Security (4 bills)
* Discrimination (4 bills)
And the full details including bill numbers? Keep reading. I promise you will be impressed!
Not only do I ask you to Recommend this should you like it, but bookmark either this TPM page or this page with details for future reference - for the next time someone asks YOU: "Where's the beef?" Don't let the slime machine win!
Advertisement
Rec'd. It's so easy to lie about someone, so difficult sometimes to get people to pay attention to the facts. Thanks for putting this out.
July 31, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Raider! I assure you, the pleasure is all mine!
July 31, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really want to understand Obama, check out how much spam the Obamabots on TPMCafe post under any diary critical of the lying con-man Barack Obama...
For example, at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/would-you-buy-a-used-car-from.php
That's the real message of Barack Obama: "My friends can scream "God damn America!" but everybody else should just shut up!"
July 31, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really are a hateful motherfucker, aren't you? Let me gues: you're --
Republican?
Wingnut?
Sociopath?
McSlime?
July 31, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the above!
July 31, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamabots always run out of arguments after "He's better than McCain," and then it's "motherfucker" this and "motherfucker" that.
It says a lot about the sort of people who support Obama that they spew out the grossest possible insults, and then accuse anyone who doesn't worship their hypocritical Messiah Barack Obama of being "hateful."
But they still can't explain why the lying con-man Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill when he was campaigning in Wisconsin, and flipflopped after he already had the votes of all those Feingold supporters.
"I already got your votes, suckers! Now I can play a different game, and there's nothing you can do about it."
July 31, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It says a lot about the sort of people who support Obama"
This comment says evenmore about how ignorant these wingnuts are about how diverse Obama's supporters are...
To pigeonhole all of us into one stupid word (Obamabots) suggests the worst kind of prejudice, the kind that says "anyone who disagrees with me is identical to everyone else who disagrees with me.." regardless of how much we "bots" tend to disagree with each other about every issue, like political DNA, we are each individual, but despite our differences we are agreed that Obama is by far the better candidate than Johnny FlipFop.
So McSame's suporters think we are all the same, i would suggest that if you took a roomful of Bots and a roomful of McCainites, the difference in diversity would be startling, to say the least.
remember the Clinton impeachment? remember the two sides of that aisle? Picture in your mind the republicans, all white, all men, all wearing the same monkeysuits... then picture the Democrats, and their diversity in comparison.
History will look back on that defining moment with a magnifying glass that reveals just how "botic" republicans are, compared to Democrats.
No offense to the good hearted R's among us, you know who you are. But this creep (my Grandad was on the Committtee to Re Elect The President in the early 70's, so I say "creep with all due respect) is not a good-hearted anything, and seems bent on trashing Obama for purely political reasons.
More Republican "botics", accusing us of thier own worst traits.
McCain supporters are just supporters, but we are "bots" who drink kool-aid? Hypocrite!
I suggest that if anyone is delusional, it is those intractable Republicans who believe in McCain as a maverick, even as he employs the very rogues who trashed his wife, his family and his character in SCX in 2000. They almost ruined him once already in the pre-presumptive nominee era, and still he gives them day to day control of his campaign.
You can keep fooling yourself into thinking the diverse array of characters who support Obama are somehow all the same.
But as for the rest of us, "we won't get fooled again."
August 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To pigeonhole all of us into one stupid word (Obamabots) suggests the worst kind of prejudice..."
Jepo7 was in such a hurry to insult anyone who criticizes Obama that he didn't bother to look through this thread, where I discussed the difference between Obamabots like Jepo7 and reasonable supporters of Barack Obama like kirrix, Lamont, and the author of this blog, MsJoanne.
Jepo7's assumption that anyone who criticizes Obama must be a Republican likewise displays exactly the sort of "prejudice" that he pretends to find in my post, and if he had bothered to read the thread he would know that I support Ralph Nader, not John McCain.
August 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it is right to bash republicans that way. I'm a republican. This guy is obviously off his meds or something.
July 31, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, my rule is never to respond to some racist, hate-filled post, but alas, yours just screams for an answer. I understand how uncomfortable it is for McCain supporters to have to cope with his hopeless rhetoric and his nasty tongue but that is McCain's problem, certainly not ours. Further, McCain is fudging the truth these days so he has definitely left his straight talk express. And one only has to look at the disgusting ad his campaign just sent out and one knows it is full of subliminal racist scare tactics. But although we are sad McCain suffered these sorts of insults himself, we still are not falling for any racist crap his campaign hands out. I guess we could resurrect the black baby ad his Republican detractors ran against him, but then Obama would throw us out as supporters because he has noble standards and he does not believe in that sort of crap.
July 31, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has "noble standards"...
Harharharhar!!!
This is the guy who threw his grandmother under the bus when he was trying to explain 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America!" church.
This is the guy who sold out the Fourth Amendment after he promised to filibuster the FISA bill.
The only "standard" of any kind that Obama has is "What's good for ME right now?" and after Obama answers that question, nothing else really matters.
The Democrats could have nominated a decent person with real principles, like Chris Dodd or Wes Clark, but instead they ran a ridiculouis circus of primaries and ended up with the lying con-man Barack Obama.
July 31, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course Obamabots like myJJ always play the race card whenever any kind of criticsm of Obama appears.
Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill, and anyone who remembers that promkise is a racist.
Obama pretended to oppose NAFTA, and as soon as Clinton was gone, NAFTA didn't look so bad, but anyone who remembers anything the hypocrite and liar Obama ever said is probably a racist, because no one except racists could possibly recognize Obama as the great Messiah of Bullshit and Broken Promises.
Playing the race card over and over and over and over against Hillary Clinton won the primaries for the hypocrite and liar Barack Obama, but it may not be quite so easy to play the same card in the general election. Even the MSM is beginning to recognize Obama's little rhetorical tricks for what they are, and under the rhetoric there's nothing but ambition and resentment.
July 31, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. Are those of us who make pro-Obama posts Obamabots? Or are there actual programs you think people are running. I happen to be fervent Obama supporter because I believe in his policies and McCain (whose service to this country I respect) appears to me to be growing senile. This isn't some "McSenile" attack. This is an honest assessment. He refers to countries that no longer exist, changes the order of events of history, and and then lies about it to try and cover. Yes, Obama is a politician. If he weren't, he wouldn't be in politics. But I simply can't trust John McCain.
July 31, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
August 1, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kirrix says "I happen to be fervent Obama supporter because I believe in his policies."
Which "policies" would those be?
The main "policy" of any President is supposed to be defending the Constitution... It's the main ingredient of the oath they swear at their inauguration. But Obama broke his promise to filibuster the FISA bill, which abrogates the Fourth Amendment.
Maybe you like Obama's "anti-war" policy... which include on often-repeated threat to bomb Pakistan if the CIA shows him "credible evidence" that al Qaeda leaders are hiding in some village. This craziness would destabilize our only ally in the region even more radically than Bush/Cheney have done, with the probable result of putting a coalition of Islamist parties in charge of Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The rest of Obama's "antiwar" policy consists of moving our soldiers into Afghanistan as fast as we move them out of Iraq, for a continuation of the pointless slaughter of civilians in a shit-hole which about a dozen would-be empires have failed to "pacify" in the last 2000 years.
Maybe you like Obama's economic policies, which include a no-mandate healthcare plan that the liberal economist Paul Krugman, who knows more about the economics of healthcare than anyone else, says just won't work: Obama is "doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points."
Obama's only policy is getting himself elected, and when anyone points out his flipflops on FISA, NAFTA, gun-control, tax policy, and all the rest of it, all his supporters really have to say is "He's better than McCain."
A pile of dog-poop is also better than McCain, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the Oval Office.
August 1, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kirrix also asked "Are those of us who make pro-Obama posts Obamabots?"
Kirrix doesn't fit the profile of an Obamabot because he or she took the trouble to post an actual argument for supporting Obama, however mistaken it may be.
Typical Obamabot posts on this thread include...
"Sorry, ignorant Republican complainer, it ain't gonna happen."
"This guy is obviously off his meds or something."
"You really are a hateful motherfucker, aren't you?"
There are also some violently hostile posts from anti-Obama posters, unlike the typical exchanges during the primaries, when pro-Hillary bloggers were driven off sites like Daily Kos without fighting back in the same language.
This is just a continuation and intensification of the most divisive campaign in the history of the Democratic Party.
Obama played the race card surreptitiously and his surrogates played it overtly again and again and again against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the MSM gave them a free pass for all of it, but that pass has apparently expired, and even low-brow outlets like ABC are beginning to recognize Obama's race-baiting for what it is.
August 1, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really cringe when fellow Obama supporters act like that. I believe there are others like me out there. Sorry we don't say something more often. Problem is it's hard to do anything about it without feeding trollish activities.
Wish the Obama campaign had someone actually out and about the internet, publicly identified as being from the Obama campaign, disavowing such behavior, because I believe it hurts the cause. I don't buy the excuse that the original posters are confrontational, if they are, so what, Obama himself is not for that kind of confrontation in reaction.
Especially hate the spamming technique someone used on your thread.
August 1, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Lamont.
Some of Obama's fanatical supporters have managed to change the whole tone of the liberal blogosphere... I wrote about Obamabots suppressing discussion on Daily Kos here, with numerous examples, and for a sample of their slightly different techniques for suppressing criticsm of Obama on MyDD, check out the "comments" under this diary.
August 1, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
...sounds more and more like a sore loser who blames the winner for their disappointment, rather than recognizing that "popular" democracy requires at least a modicum of acquiescence to the majority rule.
We have here either a Republican troll or a bitter Naderite who, like his idol, believes their opinion outweighs a thousand others, just because it is theirs.
Spew on, bitter loser, your words will land on deaf ears.
August 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jepo7 says...
"Spew on, bitter loser, your words will land on deaf ears."
Isn't it convenient that whenever I link to examples of mindless ugliness posted by Obamabots on websites devoted to political discussion, yet another Obamabot provides yet another example!
There's really no way to defend the Obamabots who post literally "empty comments" all over Daily Kos whenever anyone criticizes Obama, so when I link to a diary that collected 50 "comments" that were nothing but a typographical doodad in the subject line, posted for nothing other purpose than interference with free discussion, all the Obamabots can dream up to say is "Your words will land on deaf ears"... as if tuning out everything you don't agree with is some sort of intellectual accomplishment.
I already know that Obamabots are deaf to anything but praise for their hypocritical Messiah Barack Obama, but there's still just barely enough time for the super-delegates to nominate a decent person with real principles, like Chris Dodd, instead of turning over the awesome power of the Presidency to a megalomaniac like Obama and all his ugly friends.
August 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo: The thirteenth line of my previous post (about Obamabots posting literally "emptry comments" on Daily Kos) should be "...posted for no other purpose than interference with free discussion..."
August 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is useful for me, thank you...:)
July 31, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes, another avatar change! Thanks for the post.
July 31, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only one change. I thought I would update my profile.
This year IS all about change, no? :-)
July 31, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant that Scientific changed his today, too. Or recently.
I love what you've done with your pixels. :-)
July 31, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. Nevermind. (Said in my best Church Lady voice)
July 31, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I changed my recently, too. Heh. Sometimes one just has to make that kind of change.
July 31, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
mine* ... edit feature, please?
July 31, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Helpful post! Thank you. Please note that John McCain has the highest no-show record in the Senate: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
While HRC and Obama also have high no-show records, they are significantly lower than McCain's. Remember that the two of them were busy with a heated campaign this year and McCain had it all but wrapped up at the beginning of this year.
July 31, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to give McCain a break. It's hard enough for someone in the early 40's to keep up with campaigning and voting. For those in their 60's, like Hillary it was still harder. But for McCain, how do you expect him to keep up his campaigning schedule AND be a senator?
Actually it is almost fair to ask is he still a senator with his recent record of nonvoting even on very, very important votes---such as votes he claims he voted for but wasn't there?
Now this isn't bashing McCain at all, so far. He IS old; and one is generally not as strong at 72 as at 46, period. OTOH, since McCain has suddenly become a flagrant liar about most everything and can't remember that Yugoslavia is no longer a country and doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, etc., how can anyone take the RISK of voting for him?
July 31, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's biggest "accomplishments" in the Senate were reversing his previous blather about NAFTA, FISA, gun-control, and public campaign financing within a few weeks of having the nomination in his pocket, and it was all one big FU to the progressives who had supported him against Clinton.
The con-man took your money, and as he drove away, he gave you the finger! FU, sucker!
That's the closest thing to the real Barack Obama that we'll see until after he gets elected, if he gets elected.
The fact that Obama signed up along with twenty other Senators as a co-sponsor of one minor bill or another doesn't mean much compared to selling out on every major issue.
July 31, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MAJOR issue is McCain or Obama.
Period.
July 31, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So all Obama has to be is better than McCain? A pile of dog-poop is better than McCain, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the Oval Office.
And Obama hasn't quite been nominated yet. There's still time for the super-delegates to insist on a Democrat with real principles, like Chris Dodd.
July 31, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, ignorant Republican complainer, it ain't gonna happen.
July 31, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that counts as an "issue," then civic involvement has indeed gotten pretty cynical.
July 31, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man...not you again! I thought you went back under the bridge. (alert..please don't feed)
July 31, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it say about Obama that so many cowardly little pseudonyms try to shut down discussion by clogging threads with spam, or posting feeble-minded insults that ignore any substantial criticism of the lying con-man Barack Obama?
But Obama's shrinking numbers in the polls show that a lot of people are wising up to the sociopathic Messiah Barack Obama, and realizing what kind of jerks support him.
Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill when he was campaigning in Wisconsin with Feingold, and the Obamabots can't think of a good explanation why he flipflopped and sold out the Fourth Amendment.
After they say "God damn America!" there's nothing left but spam.
July 31, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't imagine you ever listened to the ENTIRE Wright sermon (the 10 minute version).
Didn't think so.
If you had, you would have gotten the context.
Stop getting your news from Fox and the like.
July 31, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I listened to Jeremiah Wright ad nauseam, and there's no possible context where "God damn America!" sounds good to me, but for Obamabots and the rest of Obama's hate-America entourage, it's just business as usual.
On the other hand, it's the one and only consistent element in support for Obama...
If you hate America, if you think "God damn America!" sounds sweet because of context, then your vote belongs to Barack Obama.
July 31, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what I thought. Mr. Uninformed with a staunch opinion. Priceless!
Go away and come back when you can talk intelligently -with INFORMED opinions.
July 31, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have way more patience than I do. I would have unleashed both barrels on this uninformed asshole by now. Trolls - Can't ignore them and can't bury them in the backyard.
August 1, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Filthy language is always the hallmark of a weak argument. Sad to say that sort of stuff happens on both sides of the argument but when I see filth, I simply NEVER read what is posted, whether for or against my thinking. Just too filthy.
July 31, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jacob, have not seen you on the TPM before but I have a question. I am not going to try and convince you that Obama is better than Dodd, as he was one of my first choices for Pres, but what policies and issues do you really care about? Of the four candidates who are running for Pres, Nader, McCain, Barr, and Obama, who would you say comes closest to your views? Obviuosly no one person is going to be the perfect candidate for everybody but I do think it is important to realize whic candidate comes closest to meeting your own personal threshold!
Does anybody have McCain's record over the same period, bills he sponsered and co-sponsored or what not? Also does anybody have his record when he first came to office, or his first two terms to compare against Obama's?
July 31, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Q: "Of the four candidates who are running for Pres, Nader, McCain, Barr, and Obama, who would you say comes closest to your views?"
A: Ralph Nader.
July 31, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's also the Green Party candidate: Cynthia McKinney.
July 31, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if Nader represents your views, why don't you spend some time extolling those views on this blog and trying to change our minds with some serious, thought provoking comments instead of spewing this mindless, idiotic drivel. If you did your homework, you would understand that the FISA bill brought the courts BACK into the process - it did grant CIVIL immunity to the telecoms but NOT criminal - THAT is still on the table and Obama is well aware of it.
Now tell us what about Nader appeals to you so much?
August 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
So roughly 97.5% of the bills that Obama sponsors or co-sponsors have been rejected. Since his own party controls Congress, that's not too impressive!
July 31, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
His party controls Congress by ONE: Joe Lieberman.
Stunning in your ignorance.
July 31, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
AND, I might add, that was only since 2006.
You can have your own opinions, but your own facts. And those are facts.
You like Nader, fine, vote for him.
Buh bye now.
July 31, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I will add that the Senate is only in session about 150 days per year (and he has been campaigning a lot of that time), so your stats claim that Obama is sponsoring more than 1 bill per day. Now, is it realistic to think he could even READ that many bills, let alone contribute anything meaningful to them?
July 31, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Obama shows up to vote! McCain has missed more votes than any other Senator.
Apologist for your Republican scumbag. Nice. Proud Anti-American you are.
July 31, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK idiot, let me point the obvious out to you because it seems to have escaped you. It is NOT anti-American to support a political candidate and engage in political debate. What IS anti-American is attacking other's patriotism for expressing their views. If you had any class, you'd apologize, but I don't expect that.
July 31, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry that your candidate, the one you apologize for, is running an incredibly anti-American campaign - and all his media stooges are supporting all the bullshit that Obama was raised in a madrassa, that he's a secret Muslim, that he's a scary black man who is angry and going to get even with whitey, that he is an elitist, that he is arrogant, that he doesn't have a clue.
Get a clue. Who was it that questioned the patriotism of all American's if they spoke out against this administration? Oh, right, THE GOP! Remember the Dixie Chicks?
What I am sorry about is that the GOP exists right now. And that your bomb, bomb, bomb Iran candidate is sleezy and disgusting, and a total liar.
That, I am terribly sorry for.
July 31, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are sorry, a sorry, sad, pathetic, loser, who thinks blaming nameless 'republicans' excuses her rude, boorish, behavior.
July 31, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then you agree that McCain is anti-American in attacking Obama's patriotism?
August 1, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, McCain never attacked Obama's patriotism. Second, I said it was un-American to attack someone's patriotism for supporting a candidate and expressing their views, like your liberal friend MsJoanne does. It is not un-American to attack someone's patriotism when they express anti-patriotic views. So when Wright screams 'God Damn America', it is not un-American to question his patriotism, and if Obama supported him for 2 decades, it is then fair to question his.
August 1, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may not be unAmerican, but it is ignorant if you still haven't watched the entire sermon, in context, and only have that single quote as a soudbite.
August 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the point remains, his party controls the Congress, they have a 51-49 lead in the Senate, a much larger lead in the House, and 'his' bills fail to get backing 97.5% of the time. So, not only are they not bi-partisan (not getting any republican support), they don't even get the full support of the democrats. Stunning in YOUR ignorance.
July 31, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clever Bulldog, you are stunning in your ignorance. It takes 60 votes to pass a measure.
August 1, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about ignorant!! No, moron, it takes 51 votes. It takes 60 to break a fillibuster, and certainly not every bill is fillibustered. Go back to school idiot.
August 1, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Republicans, if thay didn't filibuster, they threatened a filibuster on almost everything they don't want - AND EVEN THINGS THEY DO WANT.
* Senate Republicans have obstructed almost every bill in the Senate - even ones with wide bipartisan support.
* So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been THIRTEEN cloture votes on motions to proceed - each one wasting days of Senate time. (110th Congress, Roll Call Votes #44, 51, 53, 74, 129, 132, 133, 162, 173, 207, 208, 227, and 228)
* In comparison, in the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were a total of FOUR cloture votes on motions to proceed.
EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation
* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts ( Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act ( Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)
FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)
FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. ( Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)
TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform ( 6/26/07)
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/06/27/republican-obstruction-in-the-senate/
Want more:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
Google Republican Obstruction and you get 818,000 hits. Google Republican Obstructionism you get more than 100,000 hits.
August 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He cleverBulldog, it would help us if you comparaed Obama's success rate to others success rate. Also where did you get that number 97.5%?
July 31, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Quasimodo, it's called reading comprehension and mathematics. You might want to look into them.
From the article the poster stated that Saint Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills. Of those 570 bills, 15 became law. Follow along, this is the hard part because now we switch to math ... (15/570)*100 = 2.7% success rate. Or using the inverse, roughly a 97.5% failure rate.
See how fun it can be to actually have reading comprehension instead of just blindly following along?
July 31, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually that is a fairly good percentage for a Junior Senator. Ever been to the Senate and watched how they handle anyone's bills. Very slow and that is their brag. We all put in bills to satisfy our constituents and then we all slow them to a snails pace. Read up on the reason the Senate is formulated the way it is. it is called the deliberative body. But that is just history and most have not bothered to even read history.
July 31, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This posting is proof of the old saying : "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."
This is just silly. Everyone knows that Senators all sign on as co-sponsors of each other's bills and with Barack being such a rock-star the last couple years it's not unusual for him to be a co-sponsor on so many bills. Is the implication that he worked for that bill, helped write the bill, took an unpopular position and raised enough votes to get it passed? Of course not.
I noted how the poster lumps sponsored and co-sponsored bills into a single statistic. How many of these were actually sposored by Barack and written by him? I suspect that number is miniscule.
How many of you chirping your warm and fuzzy kumba-ya songs right now even understand what it takes to sponsor vs. co-sponsor a bill. How many of you understand whether these numbers are even impressive compared to other Senators as a whole. I would suspect almost none of you does. But if this helps you get over the fact that Saint Obama has no legislative credibility then more power to you.
July 31, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you provide not a single number, statistic or piece of evidence to suggest that you know any better than the people you accuse of being so ignorant. I take it you really don't know any of that stuff. If you did you would have explained why Obama's record is pathetic for a first-term Senator. But you didn't. So, care to?
July 31, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've answered your own question. It's not that his record is pathetic for a first term senator halfway into his term, it's that Obama is a first term senator, halfway into his first term, running for President.
July 31, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. I suggest you read quinn esq's insightful post on why the issue of "age an experience" is just a logical fallacy.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/obama-trumped-by-a-pair-of-two.php
July 31, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arguing that other leaders were also young or inexperienced is not a convincing argument. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Sadaam, the little nut in Korea, all were young and inexperienced before they took over. They weren't so good either. Dan Quayle was ridiculed for being too young and inexperienced to be VP, and he had way more experience than Obama.
July 31, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's kinda my point... it's a losing argument from the start, especially when you're talking about what 'young' and 'experience' actually mean. The fact of the matter is that the poster above to whom I was responding offered not a shred of evidence to support his or her arguments, and as of yet, neither have you.
Being a first-term Senator does not equal unfit to be President, and it's a losing argument from the start.
If you don't want to look at foreign leaders, there are domestic ones one could reference. The fact of the matter is that it's just a pathetic and insubstantial point to make at all, and you've offered nothing to suggest otherwise.
July 31, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experience may not be an all telling metric, but it the only one available. The point is that typically people are required to 'put in their time', so voters have a chance to evaluate their performance over time. It is dangerous to put in someone that has no track record that people know nothing about. That's how Hitler got into power (no, I am not saying Obama is Hitler, just pointing out the dangers of electing the 'new' candidate)
There is still value in experience. Obama would not be given the job of CEO at any company with 3 years experience, I don't see why we should expect less of a President.
July 31, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Experience is the only metric"? Then why not just elect THE MOST"EXPERIENCED" CANDIDATE EVERY TIME? Let's see how that works out for you.
a) "Experience" is a vague "metric" to begin with. Everyone has a different definition of what they believe constitutes "experience." Some people felt Hillary Clinton's time as first lady was "experience" whereas others said it wasn't. If you're even going to talk about "experience" as a metric, you best define it first.
b) If you're talking about purely political experience, then no, it's not the only metric. If you truly believe that only political experience should be counted, then again, just elect the most "experienced" candidate each time.
c) If "experience" if the only metric by which we should judge our candidates, then I guess we can throw out their character, their judgment, their campaigns themselves and how they're run, the people they associate themselves with, the way in which they handle themselves under pressure on the campaign trail, etc., etc. I could name a number of other things. There's a reason politicians campaign, and don't just place their name on a ballot randomly. But I take it you feel otherwise?
Honestly, if you want to make arguments against Obama, then make them. But using the failed "experience" metric is just a little pathetic. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that more "experience" translates to a better leader. But you obviously ignored that point in the post I linked you to.
July 31, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Dan Quayle was criticized for not being very bright - "C" student who couldnt spell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZihMFYGM_o&feature=related
He tried to compare himself to Jack Kennedy in a debate, but Lloyd Bentson set him straight on that one. Again - it wasnt his age, but his character.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI
July 31, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this post certainly doesn't advance anyone's knowledge about just what being a sponsor or co-sponsor on 517 pieces of legislation means either but in typical kool-aid drinking fashion everyone assumes this is incredible and Saint Obama is a legislative juggernaut.
I weep for the American electorate where this passes for a quest for knowledge.
July 31, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I weep for the republic because we have THE most obstructionist minority in American history - brought to you by the Republicans! That is what I weep for.
July 31, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if it's "republican," as much as "wingnut."
August 2, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still waiting for your evidence to counter this post. You just seem to spew a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric with no point or substance.
July 31, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it germane that Obama has been a senator during a time that the GOP had the majority and wasn't even letting democrat legislation reach the floor?
And then when the Democrats got the majority, the Republicans went into overdrive obstructionism and compiled the biggest filibuster record for a comparable time period in the history of this nation?
So you think his lack of passed legislation is his fault?
July 31, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really respect you, Lux. You always make such great and astute points, and ones that so many people ignore. Absolutely spot-on.
July 31, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Chrono! Feeling is mutual!
July 31, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please cite the statistics to back up that fillibuster claim, or did you just make that up?
August 1, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This character is telling one of the smartest bunch of bloggers on the toobz that they are ignorant about the process...
Hypocrisy and hubris go so well together, and arrogance seems to be their offspring. Experts abound, especially in their own delusions.
And like Garrison Keillor once said "Republicans made their peace with hypocrisy long ago..."
The hubris they have always held close tot heir hearts. And their arrogance knows no bounds, to the point of being outright delusional, like this "expert."
August 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for this! I bookmarked it before I even read your suggestion to do so. Although I have to say, the conservatives (and even liberals) who attack Obama for his "lack of a record" are never going to pay attention to the facts...
July 31, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond that I think Obama has done a far better job of living up to Zane Grey's recipe for greatness more then any other politician. The recipe for those of you at home, wanting to whip up a batch, goes like this:
"To bear up under loss, to fight the bitterness of defeat and the weakness of grief, to be victor over anger, to smile when tears are close, to resist evil men and base instincts, to hate hate and to love love, to go on when it would seem good to die, to seek ever after the glory and the dream, to look up with unquenchable faith in something evermore about to be, that is what any man can do, and so be great."
July 31, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly which terrible adversities did the pampered preppie and Ivy League scholarship recipient Barack Obama overcome, on his way to being a "hero" out of Zane Grey?
Zane Grey wrote about desperate prospectors in Alaska, not preppie con-men from Hawaii.
July 31, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might want to take a look back at your comments. You sound pretty hysterical at the moment, and so it might be a good idea to take a deep breath. I mean that genuinely. People tune out when they see people call the candidate they prefer "sociopathic," among the other things you've called him on this board. You ask for people to provide genuine arguments, but if you have one, it's buried in all the name-calling. If you wouldn't mind just calmly stating your argument, you'll probably get better responses.
August 1, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should make your own post about this. That's really great.
July 31, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's good to post Obama's legislative record, but the question--"Where's the beef?"--comes up for two other reasons:
First, the disparity between Obama's rhetoric and his accomplishments. If Obama's record and platfrom is pretty mainstream Democratic, and his rhetoric assembles the same old political cliches (hope, change, bipartisanship, etc.), then what could possibly account for his popularity?
Second, Obama has flipped on issues such as FISA, campaign finance, gun control, death penalty; and his progressive rhetoric is unmatched by his support for ethanol and caol interests, his fundraising through lobbyists, his softening stance on NAFTA, his public opposition to progressive candidates in Democratic primaries.
July 31, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Jacob Freeze and justinh are the same person.
Double the hate, double the sociopathy.
July 31, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was "sociopathic" or "hateful" in what I've suggested? (Which essentially just reiterated other observations of Obama from the left.)
July 31, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MsJoanne. Substance!
July 31, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a nice data point for analysis. I'm curious, though, how his record compares to other members of Congress. Is he more or less active than other junior Senators? Average members? How many bills/amendments does the average Senator sponsor?
Far be it from me to ask you to quantify this, as your post is already an impressive enumeration. This might just be my own embarrassing ignorance about the day-to-day of the average elected official. But without this information, it is hard for me to make much of the quantity of Obama's work (although the quality is reflected in the bills he works on, etc.)
Anyone have a sense of how to contextualize this? Thanks for the post!
July 31, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will,
The last two years in the Senate have been very abnormal in the history of the place. The Republican obstructionism skews the statistics such that it would be like baseball stats for a season that lacked 50 games. The production is completely off, so really ANYTHING passed is a major triumph.
July 31, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent info, MsJoanne. Thanks for posting it.
July 31, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are most welcome.
July 31, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you are online Ms. Joanne. I thank you also. I have seen and read this information before, but not recently; and it is helpful to know where to find it.
Now if it were only illegal to run a campaign with lies and innuendos, like McCain is doing now, Obama would win by an even larger majority than he already will.
July 31, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, for the day lies were illegal. The GOP and its' propaganda network Fox would be forever gone! The things dreams are made of!
July 31, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
MsJoAnne...thanks for the post. I'll be saving it for future reference.
I haven't been on TPM for very long and this has been my first experience w/ the vile Jacob Freeze...Are "interesting" people like this on the site often? They sure don't add much to the debate. I find it kind of sad...
August 1, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has an excellent political record; unfortunately it's been either horribly mischaracterized or ignored. Barack Obama served for seven years in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 - 2004, where he authored and/or was instrumental in passing many substantive (and often bi-partisan) pieces of legislation, including expanded health care for children, increased tax credits for lower-income workers, raised the minimum wage, welfare and ethics reforms as well as landmark legislation overhauling the death penalty. Since 2005, while in the US Senate, Obama co-sponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (with sponsor John McCain, ironically), the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Act, the Coburn?Obama Transparency Act, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, and has sponsored many other intiatives and amendments, including the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 and the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act... Politics aside, Obama also has an admirable record as a public citizen and advocate for quality communities, where he has served as a board member of the Woods Fund, the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center. On top of that, he lectured in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the country's most prestigious law schools (and where Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice John Paul Stevens were also former lecturers). Bottom line: Barack Obama has a solid record of political and legislative achievement, as well as substantial experience as a leader in the community where he has lived. In fact, I find it reassuring that his experience lies predominantly outside the beltway, at the state and local level, "where the other half lives." I am absolutely certain that he, much, much more than John McCain, has a deeper understanding of the world you and I live in, and from that understanding he is much better prepared to exercise the kind of judgment and leadership we need at the highest levels of government today.
August 1, 2008 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
More truth versus Myth. Obama is the candidate that supports the troops and veterans not McBush.
HERE IS HOW THE VETRANS GROOPS RATED BOTH JOHN McCAIN and OBAMA (based on their voting record in the senate):
*(IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS FOR AMERICA)
- John McCain “D”
- Barack Obama "B+"
* VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
- John McCain voted "AGAINST" this group 15 times
- Barack Obama voted "AGAINST" this group ONLY "ONE" time
* DAV (Disabled American Veterans)
- John McCain has a 20% rating
- Barack Obama has an 80% rating
August 1, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Exactly which terrible adversities did the pampered preppie and Ivy League scholarship recipient Barack Obama overcome, on his way to being a "hero" out of Zane Grey?"
Hatred generated out of fear by people like you for one.
August 1, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink