Both senators have been campaigning for nearly a year, and both senators have been absent from many important votes over the last 12 months. The Project Vote Smart web site and the Library of Congress' Thomas website provided this information.
Senator Barak Obama supports a woman's right to decide whether or not to bear children. He votes to fund family planning services, including programs aimed at teen pregnancy prevention. These programs educate teens on abstinence, contraception, and emergency contraceptives. He voted against a bill that would make it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion if her home state has a parental notification law. He also voted to require health insurers to pay for contraceptives on the same basis as any other drug. Obama opposes anti-abortion bills that do not provide exceptions for the health of the mother.
Obama supports a swift and orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. He has voted to draw down the number of troops committed to Iraq. He has supported Congressional attempts to use the power of the purse to rein in the war in Iraq. He considers the war in Iraq a foreign policy blunder. He bases his desire to conclude the war quickly on concern for the standing of the United States in the world. Obama has also voted to prohibit the use of cluster munitions, unless they are not to be used near civilians.
Obama is not soft on terrorism, however. He has voted to allow prosecution of American businesses for dealing with foreign businesses with links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. He supported a bill that prevents violent protesters from filing for bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered civil damages or criminal penalties. He has also voted to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from confiscating legally owned firearms during states of emergency or major disasters.
He supports mandatory minimum rest periods between troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. He votes consistently to fund increased education benefits for veterans.
Obama has voted for unified energy policies designed to make the Unites States independent of foreign oil. These policies include incentives for alternative energy, biofuels, energy efficiency, and cost-effective and environmentally sustainable public buildings. He voted to raise fuel efficiency standards for autos, promote the development of oil and gas resources, and prohibit price gouging during a declared state of emergency. He did, however vote against programs that would promote development of oil shale on public lands and for keeping the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) closed to oil exploration. (McCain agreed with him about ANWR.)
On the environment and consumer protection, Obama sides with consumers and environmental protection. In addition to protecting ANWR, he has voted to fund energy and water development projects of the Corps of Engineers, National Parks, National Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and federal conservation programs. The bill he supported would pay for the funding by closing loopholes in the corporate tax code. He also voted to require sellers of handguns to provide storage or safety devices (trigger locks).
Obama supports funding public health and social services. He has voted to provide funds to compensate people harmed by flu vaccines, to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and to allow importation of drugs from industrialized countries with safe pharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructures. He supports stem cell research, as long as the human embryos used have been donated to an in-vitro clinic without payment and would have been discarded anyway.
On human and civil rights, Obama's record is mixed. He voted to extend the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA), which allows warrantless wiretaps, but he voted against giving telecommunications immunity from liability for their participation in such spying. He voted to give Guantanamo Bay detainees habeas corpus rights.
Finally, Obama voted to increase regulation on members of congress regarding lobbyists and donations.
Many of the bills and amendments the candidates voted on did not become law. Last week, I wrote that McCain voted against the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. There were actually two versions of the bill. McCain voted for one and against one, as did Obama. Their votes were opposite one another both times.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 56
Featured in the Triple Name Club.
Apparently he's been putting his earmarks into bills that he already knows are going to pass, then he SAFELY votes against these bills, enabling him to point to all his NO votes, against bills packed with earmarks. SNEAKY, Huh?
Smart beats the hell out of ignorant, every single time.
We're looking at the best of international relations with Biden, and the best with internal relations with Obama. What could be better than that?
McSame? Who voted 90% of the time with Dubya? Want more of the same? Happy with a Crashing Wall Street, and a rebellious, and largely unemployed Main Street?
I don't think so. We will take this in November, and we will start cleaning up the repub mess starting January 20.
1/20/09: End of an Error.
Wilka
Awesome article. Great job, and thank you.
Wilka
Ann... great read.
Good article, Ann.
Great post!
Very well written and put together. It gets my highest rating.
From what we've heard from his POW peers, his behavior was less than admirable until the end when he refused to leave unless the other's did. And his behavior after getting out, his treatment of his first wife, his comments about one of his wives (not sure which), and his total inconsistencies as Senator, continue to add to the grown-up version of that childhood diagnosis, namely a certain personality disorder I will not mention here. He votes according to how he thinks he'll get the best press, not according to what his constiuents want, necessarily. He even changed his religion in one of his recent talks to fit his audience. He is not a Baptisit. His campaign is full of lies and smears. But then, that's what George W did to him (It's a Republican thing)
His connection to the Keating Five and the downfall of the S&L's in the 1990's is yet another example of that personality disorder. And once again, he got away with it. Family? Money? POW sympathy? He plays on all of that. Poor judgment or no common sense. His total constituency is himself.
Just like the energizer bunny. We just keep going…
Gather Broadcasting: Have it your way
This takes you in the front door, and this takes you in the back door. If you’ve been, don’t click again.
Thanks for putting this together. Very informative.
Many who believe a woman should be able to decide when and whether to have children agree with this statement from Clinton's veto of that bill:
"the decision to have an abortion generally should be between a woman, her doctor, her
conscience, and her God. I support the decision in Roe v. Wade protecting a woman's right to choose, and I believe that the abortions protected by that decision should be safe and rare."
We are not baby-killers. We are simply unwilling to be kept barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.
When ever I see or receive some email or such that gives out false information I search until I find the truth...I do not blindly follow the lies spouted by some nor repeat them myself.
Others it seems will believe the worst about someone no matter how many facts are placed in front of them. They continue to print them like they are the gospel truth. It is sad that the man who in more than one interview stated he would not use lies and mud slinging has resorted to that and continues to lie even knowing he is, I'm talking about McCain. In 2000 he said the American people were tired of lies and smear tactics but he lost the vote because of it. Then again this year he stated he would run a clean campaign because he felt the American people know the difference and one who would use such tactics was desperate and would lose. Now he is desperate and what is he using but the same tactics that was used against him by the same people he has in his campaign staff helping him run a lie and smear campaign.
There are those who do not want to see what is going on but will blame Obama because his campaign staff will reply to those ads with counter ads. McCain and Palin are not talking about the issues and definitely not talking about the economy because they do not have any idea how to fix it. McCain's history of being against regulations has left him out to dry...
:O\
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
But facts won't sway die hard Righties. They'd rather believe that Obama is a baby killing, Muslim terrorist. But it's no surprise to me. Working class folks who buy into the Republican ideology are the same folks who believe things like "the moon landings were a hoax" and "the Twin Towers were actually blown up by the CIA."
It's a bit of a mystery to me I have to admit. But there has always been a significant portion of humanity that seems to prefer believing in the preposterous explanations rather than logical ones. They are unconcerned with troublesome things like facts and telling the truth. No, they are only interested in whatever makes those they see as opponents look bad.
I, too, am happy to see that most Americans will not continue to believe these lies and are voting for Obama.
That's why I'm voting for him.
The Bush Administration has been buying off the insurgency...if the new Administration doesn't do the same all hell is going to break out and this could very well escalate the number of needed troops. Iraq remains the same...nothing will change if Obama wins or McCain...we are not leaving Iraq any time soon and I said things could get much worse if we don't continue to bribe the insurgents.
Both McCain and Obama are wrong...the 'surge' did not work...money has been buying off al-Sadr and Company...when and if that check stops getting delivered prepare for an immediate need to raise the number of troops. Every week this past year there is an article out of money gone missing in Iraq...money that was intended for this or that. The money is in the pockets of the leaders of the Iraqi insurgents...put there by Gates, Petraeus, Negroponte, etc.
"The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack US forces."
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2049
"In a speech of 4,250 words, Obama manages to only once speak any variant on the word "occupation" - and he puts that in someone else's mouth. He drapes himself in military (and political) camouflage, agreeing with "our top military commander in Iraq…that a key goal of the military was to ‘reduce our presence in Iraq, taking away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency: that of the coalition forces as an occupying force.'"
Perhaps Obama and his chosen military mentors believe that an occupation of 80,000 Americans, rather than the current 160,000, is only half an occupation, which can then be scaled down to varying degrees of less-than-occupation. (The rape analogy works well, here.)
Obama sees virtue in a prolonged American military presence:
"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces.
"At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."
Here we see contradictions so glaring, that we cannot believe a man of Obama's intelligence to be innocent of rank, purposeful obfuscation. If the U.S. troops are to remain in place in order to "prevent" Iraqis, in and out of government, from taking certain actions, then the Americans are meant to be a classic occupying force - the real power in Iraq."
http://www.blackcommentator.com/161/161_cover_obama_iraq.html
We are not leaving Iraq, folks, it's election rhetoric. We will never leave...well, that is until the Iraqis get fed up with the whole charade. Obama and/or McCain had better keep buying the calm or a storm might break out.
"U.S. Is Paying Off Iraq's Worst War Criminals in Attempt to Ward Off Attacks"
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62827/
"2008/02/25 - There's an ugly secret behind the "success" of the surge: The United States is paying off Iraqi militants with weapons and cash."
truthdig.com/report/item/20080225_the_calm_before_the_conflagration
We have a great and benevolent change ahead of us, and Obama opens the way for it.
We invade their' country for no good reason...we literally destroy their' country...over a million dead and 2 to 3 million displaced...we occupy their' country for 5 years and out of appreciation for all these blessings the Democrats want them to pick up the tab. We should be paying reparations to the Iraqi people into the next century. This was and is a criminal war...a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.
The Iraqis will run their' country once we get the hell out...totally. We can take Maliki with us also. The first order of business for the liberated Iraq should be tearing down the U.S. embassy. Barack is not taking us out of Iraq...Dubya & Co. are pulling up stakes and letting the Iraqis loose on the new President. The war in Iraq cannot be won...it can only be lost. The military brass has been saying this for years...Bush has been trying to keep the lid on this boiling cauldron just long enough to get back to Crawford.
This just in since I last posted to this thread:
"WASHINGTON — A nearly completed high-level U.S. intelligence analysis warns that unresolved ethnic and sectarian tensions in Iraq could unleash a new wave of violence, potentially reversing the major security and political gains achieved over the last year."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20081007/wl_mcclatchy/3066066
Negroponte was just in Iraq. Doesn't anyone pay attention? Wherever Negroponte goes...once he leaves all hell breaks loose, sooner or later. Sometimes real soon:
"(RTTNews) - Two powerful explosions near Baghdad's tightly-guarded Green Zone outside Iraq's foreign ministry reverberated through the Iraqi capital as John Negroponte, the U.S. deputy secretary of state, was preparing to hold a press conference about his visit to Iraq, media reports said."
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20081007%5cACQRTT200810070730RTTRADERUSEQUITY_0388.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Blasts%20Precede%20Negroponte%20Press%20Meet
Everybody is dropping hints, even Condi:
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says despite some recent progress in Iraq, success in the war-torn country is "not a sure thing"."
Obama is not going to take us out of Iraq. Obama wants another war...with Pakistan this time.
"He vowed to “crush al-Qaeda” and kill bin Laden, and said he would not “coddle” the Pakistani government as past administrations have. Sen. Obama also said he would insist the Pakistani government go after militants, and would target bin Laden if the Pakistani government refused to do so."
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/07/2008-town-hall-presidential-debate-a-foreign-policy-breakdown/
Don't you just love Obama's diplomatic tone with Pakistan? Obama a peace candidate? Don't you believe it.
"His speech to the AIPAC conference was, perhaps, the low point of his campaign: the pandering, once started, didn't stop. Of course, we had been warned when, early on, he declared an attack on Iran wasn't "off the table," and his reiteration of this stance in front of Israel's amen corner – he would, he averred, do "everything, and I mean everything" to stop Iran from going nuclear – was hardly composed to offer us any solace.
Everything? Really? What about dropping nukes on Tehran or other major population centers? I don't want to exaggerate the degree of Obama's slide into a moral abyss, but the man is known to measure his words, yet that time he clearly abandoned his customary caution, and, as they say, let it all hang out. The mask slipped, if only for a moment – and it wasn't pretty, was it?
On another vitally important issue, the renewal of the Cold War with Russia – a project dear to the hearts of neocons everywhere – Obama is hardly distinguishable from John McCain. Indeed, as I pointed out in my analysis of the last debate, the two of them seemed to be competing to see who could be more warlike and provocative when it came to the issue of the Caucasus. Particularly disturbing is Obama's complete denial of what happened in Tskhinvali, the Ossetian capital city, when the Georgians went in and slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians. The candidate echoed the War Party's bizarre inversion of the established facts, insisting that Russia had invaded Georgia, instead of Georgia invading Ossetia and Abkhazia.
This is no small point: Obama deliberately overlooked the very real human cost of President Mikheil Saakashvili's Napoleonic ambitions in the region, because there can be no doubt he knows better. As McCain gleefully pointed out during the first debate, the Obama campaign initially took a very different position, decrying violence on both sides and calling for a cease-fire. In McCain's view, giving the thousands of Ossetians slaughtered by Saakashvili any acknowledgment at all is inexcusable. Outside of that, however, McCain is right: Obama did indeed change his position, perhaps after due consultation with his advisers. This is strong circumstantial evidence that he did have at least some idea of what really went on in Ossetia, and subsequently chose to ignore it."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13564
Lastly,
"John McCain is desperate to talk about the surge rather than the splurge. His Iraq war is set to cost one trillion dollars, and his deregulation-mania has cost hundreds of billions. So in order to maintain his façade of being "tough on spending", he needs to shift the subject. That's why he has tried to shrink the debate about the Iraq War to one small question. Not: did Saddam have Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not: did Saddam have links to 9/11? Not: why do 70 per cent of Iraqis think the presence of US troops make them less safe and they should go home now?
McCain knows he will lose those arguments, so he wants us to talk solely about whether the surge of US troops last year has been successful. But a hole was just blown in that argument – and blood is rushing through."
more at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-mccain-is-deluding-himself-over-the-surge-952490.html?service=Print
Folks, if you thought we were going to waltz into Iraq...wreak havoc and than just waltz out...think again. Whoever wins in November of these two pathetic candidates will have a full platter both at home (the economy) and abroad (pick a country).
Make sure everyone you know votes.
I have ordered 250 pins to give out at my party. If you bring in your card, you get a pin.
At the end of the night--we play Pin the Pin on the Donkey!
Have fun with this...work hard, offer your help at the local Obama campaign office.
Watch all of us make a miracle happen!
Boo!Yah!
Wilka
Are you going to do a piece about Sen. Biden, too? He has a wonderful record and exceptional foreign relations experience.
"Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role
David Scull for The New York Times
Senator Barack Obama arrived in the Senate in 2005 with the competing roles of celebrity and freshman.
Correction Appended
Senator Barack Obama stood before Washington’s elite at the spring dinner of the storied Gridiron Club. In self-parody, he ticked off his accomplishments, little more than a year after arriving in town.
A Measured Start
Mr. Obama poked fun at himself at the Gridiron Club in 2006 with, left, his current chief strategist, David Axelrod, and his communications director, Robert Gibbs.
“I’ve been very blessed,” Mr. Obama told the crowd assembled in March 2006. “Keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape.
“Really, what else is there to do?” he said, his smile now broad. “Well, I guess I could pass a law or something.”
They were the two competing elements in Mr. Obama’s time in the Senate: his megawatt celebrity and the realities of the job he was elected to do.
He went to the Senate intent on learning the ways of the institution, telling reporters he would be “looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.” But frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the “glacial pace,” he soon opted to exploit his star power. He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors.
Outside Washington, Mr. Obama was a multimedia sensation — people offered free tickets to his book readings for $125 on eBay and contributed thousands of dollars each to his political action committee to watch him on stage questioning policy experts.
But inside the Senate, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, was 99th in seniority and in the minority party his first two years. In committee hearings, he had to wait his turn until every other senator had asked questions. He once telephoned reporters himself to draw attention to his amendments. And some senior colleagues were cool to the newcomer, whom they considered naïve.
Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice. He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. Though he spoke in favor of a drawdown, he voted against the withdrawal of troops. He proposed legislation calling for a drawdown after he began running for president.
And while he rightly takes credit for steering through an ethics overhaul that reformers called a “gold standard,” like most freshmen he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates."
The problem with the premise that Obama has one opinion over any issue hasn't looked into what Obama has said! Obama has tried to cover his own butt by being on almost every side of every argument, too many of his opinions are in direct confect with himself.
I just wanted to say I am finally going through my currently over 6,500 pieces of gather new mail that is in my inbox on here. So with that in mind I have finally come to a piece of mail that was addressed to me in regards this article submission you have created to share with the gather community. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your piece with us here at gather. :o)