The Stonecipher Report

Obama Votes "Present" - Debunking the GOP Talking Point

Posted By: Michael Sweeney

Sept. 24, 2008

First of all, to clear up almost all of the controversy, voting “Present” in the Illinois State Senate is, in effect, the same as voting “No” (with some potential signaling subtleties, as I will cover below); it is not an abstention…it is not “skipping” a challenging or heated topic.  The number of “Present” votes cast does not change the number of “Yes” votes needed to pass a bill. 

Despite that reality, we’ve been hearing accusations – first during the Democratic primaries, then from the GOP (most notably Rudy Giuliani at the GOP convention and Gov. Sarah Palin on the stump) – that Barack Obama’s 129 “Present” votes (out of a total of 4,000 votes) during his years in the IL Senate were some sort of “weaseling” or “avoidance” moves.  But that talking-point stops here…

Like at least five other states (in at least one of their chambers), Illinois allows the “Present” vote.  But, unlike in the US Congress and the legislatures of most other states, the Illinois Senate requires a ''constitutional majority'' to pass any bill. 

The IL Senate has 59 members, so a bill always needs 30 “Yes” votes to pass.  This is what makes a ''Present'' vote a “No” (or a “soft ‘No’,” as some think of it).  If a bill receives 29 affirmative votes, but the rest of the chamber votes ''Present,'' it does not pass.  (This is different than in the US Congress, where bills can pass as long as they get at least one more “Yes” vote than the total of “No” votes cast - no matter how many members vote “Present” or skip the vote.)

Next, the statistics:  Yes, Obama voted “Present” 129 times…out of approximately 4,000 votes he cast during his eight-years in the IL Senate.  That’s a little over 3% of his total votes there.  Using the number of days the IL Senate was in session during those years, that averages out to one “Present” votes about every four days – in a period when they were averaging about eight bill votes per day. 

Also, research has shown – even counting the numbers crunched by oft-unhappy lobbyists AND people engaged in opposition research against Obama – that the number of times he voted “Present” on bills was less than the average number of “Present” votes that other IL Reps and Senators cast (on a proportional basis).

Illinois lawmakers also use the “Present” vote in many varied ways, depending upon their (or their party’s) feeling on a bill, its additional baggage, or its potential impact on a Senator’s constituents. 

Voting “Present” can be used to signal objections to a bill, whether it is for questions of potential constitutionally (as Obama indicated regarding some of his votes) or the inclusion of “poison pill’ amendments or even that it has been written poorly, making it difficult (or impossible) to support. 

Casting a “Present” vote is also considered a subtle signal at times – perhaps to the other party’s leadership or to the bill’s sponsor.  It can often indicate possible future compromise on the issue or disapproval for certain aspects of the bill, meaning that potential changes to a future version may lead to an eventual affirmative vote.

Strategically speaking, lawmakers often do it to signal potential objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle – or to a measure that is passing anyway, by a large majority. 

Also, it can be used as a way to “sit out” committing a yes or no on a bill that is already headed for certain victory or defeat, but that the opposition would otherwise seek to highlight in campaigning against a candidate (especially in “swing” districts). 

Additionally, a full review of the ’96-’04 legislative records shows that nearly half of Obama’s total “Present” votes came as part of a large group of Democratic Senators in apparent party-wide (or nearly so) battles over budget and spending bills when the Republicans controlled the IL Senate (this group practice curtailed after the Dems re-took control of the chamber in 2003).

So…is a “Present” vote really a “Maybe” or an abstention in the Illinois Senate?  Nope. 

Is it some sort of an avoidance of making a decision, as the McCain campaign continues to dump out?  Not at all – it IS a choice being made, sometimes very strategically, sometimes more subtly. 

Voting “Present” in the IL Senate is a nuanced move with potentially multiple meanings – and, of course, GOP repetitive point-talkers know that average voters won’t know that or look it up.  But now YOU won’t have to…and now you can also knowingly call “Bullshit!” on anyone who tries to use that as a supposed negative “fact” about Obama and his legislative experience.

For more coverage of Illinois politics, look for my regular, weekly posts (usually on Wednesdays) here on The Stonecipher Report.  (And, for a free subscription to my twice-weekly e-mail column on politics and pop-culture, "And, in the News…" send a note to:  m_l_sweeney@hotmail.com).

McCain Flip-Flops on Push Polling, Smears Obama Again

Posted By: Stonecipher

Sept. 20, 2008

Push Polling.

It is one of the most despicable, dirty little tricks that exists in the game of politics.  And John McCain knows that all to well.

Ask any political junkie for an example of push polling and the response you'll get will almost certainly be the story of what George W. Bush did to John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Primary.

So what exactly is a push poll?

The best definition I've heard so far is from Kathy Frankovic of CBS News.  In a recent article she described push polling as "political telemarketing masquerading as a poll."

There is never any data collected on a push poll.  It's sole purpose is to plant seeds of doubt in a voter's mind about a particular candidate while the "pollster" poses as a non-partisan interviewer. 

Back to that 2000 South Carolina Primary:

Long story short, the Bush/Rove "pollsters" who were conducting the push poll against McCain called McCain supporters and asked them if they would be more likely or less likely to vote for McCain if they found out that he had fathered an illegitimate black child.

People who vote in South Carolina Republican Primaries aren't exactly known for their lack of racism.  These are the same people who have fought to keep the Confederate Flag flying above the South Carolina statehouse.  A white candidate, who had fathered a child with a black woman, out of wedlock, would stand no chance of winning a GOP Primary in the Palmetto State.

What made this push poll so disgusting was the fact that John and Cindy McCain had recently adopted a girl named Bridget from a Bangladeshi orphanage.  Bridget has dark skin and she was occasionally seen on the campaign trail with McCain.  The McCain's never felt any need to explain who she was, so many voters, who were hit by the push poll saw McCain on the campaign trail with an unexplained dark skinned baby, and the seeds of doubt began to grow.

The Bush/Rove team had appealed to the racist side of South Carolina and beat McCain with it.  The push poll was despicable even by George W. Bush and Karl Rove standards. 

John McCain was understandably upset, and when asked about the push polling by a South Carolina voter he responded by saying "I promise you, I have never and will never have anything to do with that."

McCain continued to reject push polling over the years and as recently as the 2008 New Hampshire Primary, McCain clearly denounced push polling as "cowardly" and he called upon all GOP Primary candidates to denounce push polling and to join him "in pledging not to engage in such despicable tactics throughout the balance of this campaign."

But as with so many other moral standards Mr. McCain has thrown out the window during this campaign, McCain has chosen the low road once again and allowed push polling in four key swing states to continue on his behalf. 

The push poll in question, which appears to target Jewish voters, attempts to paint Barack Obama as a Muslim, antisemite with ties to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. 

Despite these false and disgusting attacks that fall directly into the "despicable tactics" category that McCain pledged not to engage in, not a word has been spoken by either John McCain or Sarah Palin denouncing these misleading and slanderous phone calls that have been made in Florida, Michigan and at least two other states. 

Where is McCain's outrage now?  What happened to the guy who pledged to keep push polling out of the 2008 campaign? 

Well, it looks like that guy left.  Earlier this month candidate McCain hired a guy named Tucker Eskew to work on his campaign.

Eskew was widely despised in the McCain 2000 Camp, and for good reason.  He was one of the architects of the anti-McCain push polling in South Carolina.  As one McCain staffer put it in 2000 "when the going gets tough for Governor Bush, [Eskew] turns to the darker side of our party."

In addition to Eskew being hired recently, it appears that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, who also managed McCain's 2000 run for the White House, has had a change of heart in the past eight years regarding push polling.

In 2004, Davis wrote a piece for the Boston Globe in which he suggested that by running an honest campaign and making an effort to raise the level of debate, they lost the election. 

In other words, Davis now believes the only way to win is to play dirty.

With a top adviser famous for his dirty tricks and his love of the push poll, a campaign manager who believes he previously lost the biggest campaign of his life specifically because he refused to play dirty and a candidate who, suddenly this week, has chosen to flip-flop on his pledge to reject and denounce push polling, it is hard to believe the McCain Campaign was not involved in this ugliness.

"Country First" is McCain's current campaign cry, but how can anyone be putting their country first while doing nothing to stop an organized effort to mislead and confuse American voters?

Throwing a wrench in the Democratic process is far from putting America first and McCain has been all too happy to jam the wrench in himself.

Mr. McCain has gone from an American hero to an American disgrace. 

What Obama Needs to do to End McCain's Smears

Posted By: Stonecipher

September 11, 2008

The Kansas City Star called it "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" and handed McCain a "15-yard penalty" for his campaign's "deliberately misleading" ad which makes the claim that Barack Obama backed legislation which would teach "comprehensive sex education to kindergartners".

Nut-job Alan Keyes tried to pull this one out while getting clobbered by Obama in the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate Seat in Illinois.  As it turned out the legislation was designed to give schools and teachers the ability to teach young children about inappropriate behavior of adults and sexual predators. 

It seems that the McCain Campaign is reaching new lows every day.

The problem is that, just like Karl Rove and George W. Bush beat McCain in 2000 with despicable and intentionally misleading ads and propaganda, McCain's despicable and intentionally misleading nonsense is working just as well.  A metaphorical 15-yard penalty from the Kansas City Star isn't going to hurt McCain one little bit.

In fact, almost no one is truly capable of stopping the McCain/Palin Campaign from scoring political points with their intentional misleadings.

No matter how well Obama's surrogates defend Obama against the smears, McCain's lies will still work.

No matter how much traffic Obama's fightthesmears.com gets, McCain's unfair and misleading attacks will help him make political gains.

No matter what factcheck.org or snopes.com says about phony e-mails or advertisements, the McCain camp will continue to distract the American public with misleading statements and outright lies.

There is really only one way for Barack Obama and his campaign to truly stop the effectiveness of McCain's decision to play as dirty as possible and I hope they figure it out soon.

Barack Obama needs to directly, face-to-face and on national television call John McCain out on all of this nonsense.

During the first debate, Obama needs to make sure he has a minute or two to look John McCain in the eye and say something like:

John, you and I have worked together over the past few years and campaigned against each other over the past several months.  I know you.  And I know you're a good, decent guy.  In fact, to be honest, you're funny, intelligent and personally, I really like you. 

That's why I am so confused and saddened by your decision to allow this campaign to get so ugly.

Your campaign said that I called your running mate a pig, when you know that isn't true. 

Your campaign has consistently misrepresented my tax policy, falsely claiming that I am going to raise taxes on middle class families, when you know that isn't true.

Your campaign even claimed that I was promoting sex education for five year olds, when you are fully aware that is completely false.

The list goes on John, but you yourself said that you would not question my character or patriotism during this campaign, and while none of these things have come directly out of your mouth, many of the claims have been followed by your voice saying "I'm John McCain and I approve this message."  I don't believe that you really do approve Senator.

So can you look me in the eye and explain to me why these things are coming out of your campaign?  I know politics is a tough sport, but come on, I survived the political game on the south side of Chicago and this goes beyond tough.  It is genuinely distracting and personally hurtful and most important a disservice to the American voters.  So tell me, John, person-to-person, face-to-face, right here, right now, why you're allowing this nonsense to continue.  And promise me we'll stick to the issues from here on out.

Note that Obama should not lay all responsibility personally on McCain, but on his Campaign.  This would give McCain the opportunity to make a righteous stand.

McCain would look childish and detached from reality to attempt to deny that these claims have been made on his behalf, by his own campaign, or that they are fair.

He would look dignified if he rose up to Obama's challenge and pledged to stop the smears. 

Furthermore it would handcuff the Rove/Davis/Steve Schmidt wing of McCain's team.  They could either continue down their same dirty path or they could clean up and be forced to fight a fair fight.  Something none of them are comfortable doing.

And if they did chose that ugly, dirty low road, Obama would have plenty of ammunition for debate number two.

Help Stop the Smear Campaigns Against Obama

Posted By: BossE Stone

July 28, 2008

Last week, Stonecipher wrote a post regarding lies about Barack Obama being spread through the Internet. The same day of that post, my dad received an email containing lies about Michelle Obama.

The Obama campaign has a page dedicated to fighting the lies being spread. Here is the link to the page showing us a few of the people responsible for the lies and the previous garbage peddling they have done.

Often when receiving a forwarded email containing lies, I respond by replying to everyone the email has been sent. Encouraging each person to fact check before sending such craziness and providing sources for them to do that.

My parents are currently visiting me so when the offensive email was received, I was able to share with them how to figure out how an email is full of lies. My dad was so upset, he sent a response to the person who had forwarded him the message and to the people who had previously sent the email.

Stonecipher and I thought it would be helpful for everyone to post my dad’s response for use as an example on how to fight these smear campaigns. While we can’t keep everyone from spreading the lies, we can certainly respond to the ones we receive.

Feel free to help stop the spreading of lies by using the following email as inspiration for your response. Please remember to keep it honest. You don’t want to stoop to a lower level by fighting lies with more lies.

Dear (insert senders name here),

I don't know you, so I will speak to you with kindness and sympathy. I know you are a victim of another political hoax. Please go to the following web address and read the entire Snopes exposition on the subject from which your forwarded e-mail supposedly came.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp

Also, please note that the six attachments that your forwarded e-mail came with is evidence that some one has created 'a look alike' web page of an actual web site that is known to fact check and eliminate fiction. The forwarded attachments in your e-mail lack the quality found on the Snopes web site and include the tell tale sign of a “crazy person” email: multiple font sizes and colors.

What this false information in your e-mail involves is out right fraud. Since you have sent this to me for unknown reasons your own personal reputation is now in question.

I learned many years ago that your personal reputation was a far more valuable asset than a lie.

I enjoy reading and learning as much as possible about history and politics. Fiction is not my cup of tea.  Some people find any discussion of politics offensive, especially if it is contrary to their beliefs. Some people find fiction far more entertaining than truth. Some people cannot deal with the truth and rely on drugs.

Some people get great entertainment out of creating dissention, subterfuge by mixing just a little truth with false or distorted information so that it sounds like the truth but is actually pure fiction. I hold people that create these types of lies in great contempt. The same contempt I hold for drug dealers.

Our great democracy cannot survive in the sea of lies that have been created to assault people and our government institutions. The dissemination of these lies via the Internet and other media needs to end.

Debate and discourse on real issues that impact us are needed. That is true democracy.

How well do you know (insert previous sender’s name)? Did (previous sender) create this cobbled together e-mail?  Do you know his true identity and his US mail address?  If so please share it with me so I can also question the source of his information.  It could be that (previous sender) is also a victim of this hoax?

One of many things I learned while serving in the US Army in Vietnam was 'Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.’ That now also applies to the Internet.

If you want to restore your reputation please send an apology to all that you sent this e-mail to and retract this lie. The same applies to (previous sender).

If you cannot retract this lie and apologize then please take my e-mail address out of your address book and never contact me again.

Sincerely,

My dad signed off with his full name and address. That, as well as all the names and email addresses of the offenders have been removed for protection of privacy, even if some of the above don’t deserve it.

And as always, the corn and bean report: For July 28, 2008, corn is at $5.82 and beans are at $14.00.

Check out BossE Stone's last piece: McCain Hates the Free Exchange of Ideas

Also, check out BossE Stone on digg.com here.