Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's compare their voting records (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 02:44 PM
Original message
Let's compare their voting records (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 03:19 PM by nebula
A break down of each candidates voting record, according to Votesmart.


John Edwards (From his voting records, he isn't half bad but his hedge fund earnings may be hard to swallow ) http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107



Barack Obama ( From his voting record it's not clear he shows up for work )
http://obama.senate.gov/votes /



Hillary Clinton ( From Hillary's voting record, we should be scared )
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463




Dennis Kucinich ( Proof is in the pudding. No longer running but posted for comparison sake)
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=318
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wundermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. It troubles me that Kucinich endorses Obama
Kerry and Kucinich both endorsed Obama.
What am I missing that they see?
Why is Edwards an endorsement pariah?
Is Edwards the only one outside of the corporate umbrella?
Or are the others saying that he is a trojan horse?
I trusted Kucinich to be neutral in his assessment of the candidates.
Does Kucinich know something about Edwards that we do not?
I trusted Kerry to endorse Edwards because he chose him as his running mate in 2004.
When Kerry folded minutes after the sElection of 2004, Edwards was ready for a fight.
What is it about Kerry that made him back away from election fraud and then kicks Edwards to the curb?
What do we NOT know that would cause these sorts of choices to be made?
Something stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerrygoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Kucinich has not endorsed anyone. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. The Iowa deal gave the appearance. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nebula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Comparing actual voting records
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 03:16 PM by nebula
is the best way to decide which candidate to vote for.

it is meaningless for people to base their vote on the debates alone,
because rhetoric is meaningless if it doesn't match the record.

this is especially true for Hillary. her voting record is the complete opposite
of her rhetoric at the debates. if people knew that, they would not be
voting for her. it proves she is dishonest and a fraud. like a used car salesman,
all Hillary does is tell you what you want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. he didn't endorse anyone. The iowa thing was for caucasing purposes only.
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 04:12 PM by robbedvoter
When he left the race he said: no endorsement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Showing up for work?
Clinton is in the Senate the longest, so I list her first. She also has the best record on missed votes. Her rating on voting attendance is "Average"; Edwards' rating on voting attendance is "Extremely Poor"; Obama's is "Very Poor." In three years, Obama sponsored 48 more bills than Edwards did in six years. In three years, one bill sponsored by Obama was successfully enacted; while two bills sponsored by Clinton in seven years were successfully enacted; and zero bills sponsored by Edwards in six years were successfully enacted. In terms of results, meaning enacted legislation, given the different time spans, Clinton and Obama performed similarly. Edwards and Obama have similar records on missed votes.


Clinton 7 years

Sponsored 350 bills; 2 enacted
Co-sponsored 1706 bills
Missed 6%; 143 votes of 2394
Average relative to peers

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022




Edwards 6 years

Sponsored 81 bills; 0 enacted
Co-sponsored 531 bills
Missed 15%; 311 votes of 2019
Extremely poor relative to peers

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300039





Obama 3 years

Sponsored 129 bills; 1 enacted
Co-sponsored 529 bills
Missed 16%; 177 votes of 1086
Very poor relative to peers

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kay Andar!
This is the only real way to keep "discussions" on a factual basis -- start with the record.

:thumbsup:

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
7.  The often overlooked S.900: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
This bill repealed the New Deal Glass-Stegall Acts which had protected consumers from financial predators, which, when Edwards sat on the Banking Committee, he voted in favor of and supported. I won't go as far as to say this bill is responsible for the current economic crisis, but it went a good ways in making it easier for the credit crisis to happen. Because Clinton wasn't in the Senate, she had no vote, but this is a product of the Clinton administration she is claiming credit for, so I guess she gets the discredit.


Would Glass-Steagall save the day from credit woes?

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) Time was when banks and brokerages were separate entities, banned from uniting for fear of conflicts of interest, a financial meltdown, a monopoly on the markets, all of these things.

In 1999, the law banning brokerages and banks from marrying one another the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was lifted, and voila, the financial supermarket has grown to be the places we know as Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, et al.

But now that banks seemingly have stumbled over their bad mortgages, its worth asking whether the fallout would be wreaking so much havoc on the rest of the financial markets had Glass-Steagall been kept in place.

Diversity has always been the pathway to lowering risk. And Glass-Steagall kept diversity in place by separating the financial powers that be: banks and brokerages.

Glass-Steagall was passed by Congress to prohibit banks from owning full-service brokerage firms and vice versa so investment banking activities, such as underwriting corporate or municipal securities, couldnt be called into question and also to insulate bank depositors from the risks of a stock market collapse such as the one that precipitated the Great Depression.

But as banks increasingly encroached upon the securities business by offering discount trades and mutual funds, the securities industry cried foul. So in that telling year of 1999, the prohibition ended and financial giants swooped in. Citigroup led the way and others followed. We saw Smith Barney, Salomon Brothers, PaineWebber and lots of other well-known brokerage brands gobbled up.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/would-glass-steag...






The bill was the culmination of years and years of lobbying by financial services firms such as Citigroup:


Citigroup: The standard in political corruption

Citigroup played the lead role in ushering the Financial Services Modernization Act through the US Congress, in the process joining with the rest of the financial services industry to set a new standard in legalized bribery. The Act will tear down the regulatory walls between banks, and insurance companies and securities firms, paving the way for a massive concentration of financial wealth and a future of industry bailouts, weakening the Community Reinvestment Act and permitting huge intrusions on consumer privacy.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/01/fotc16....



Apparently, Edwards was helpful:



Several weeks after testifying to two subcommittees of the Senate Banking Committee, Fed Governor Laurence Meyer received a letter from eight senators admonishing the Fed for its stance on merchant banking and demanding a more lenient approach.

But only the Merchant Banking Eight have so wholeheartedly aligned themselves with the grievances of Chase, Wells Fargo and the largest financial conglomerates.

Dear Governor Meyer,

On behalf of the Securities and Financial Institutions Subcommittees of the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, thank you for appearing as a witness on June 13 to discuss the Boards Interim and Proposed regulations concerning merchant banking activities.

Your testimony was helpful in clarifying your intent to consider carefully the views of members of Congress, the financial services industry and other interested parties concerning your proposed regulations. Your assurances that the Boards goal is to encourage Financial Holding companies (FHCs), bank holding companies and banks to engage in innovative and progressive private equity investment activities while preserving the safety and soundness of the financial services system is welcome.

MERCHANT BANKING EIGHT
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Rod Grams (R-MN)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
John Edwards (D-NC)

http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/%7BDFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B3...



Molly Ivins wasn't talking about Edwards, but this is what she had to say on the Financial Services Modernization Act itself and its sponsor, Phill Gramm:

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the recipient of enormous banking contributions, Gramm did an even bigger favor for the financial industry in 1999 when he sponsored the Financial Services Modernization Act allowing banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to combine. The bill weakened the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Gramm described community groups that use the CRA as protection rackets that extort funds from the poor, powerless banks. The bill is also a disaster for the privacy of bank customers and weakens regulatory supervision. As Gramm proudly declared, Youre not going to find a single bank, insurance company, or securities company that will say they were hurt financially by this bill.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/power_plays/2002/...




PBS did a documentary called "The Wall Street Fix" which covers the demise of Glass-Steagall:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstree...


I will say a lot of good Democrats did vote for this legislation, not just Edwards, and of course it was under the Clinton administration, but once again we have Edwards on the critical Senate committee and voting for a bill that has had serious repercussions.

NAYs 8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:2:./temp/~c1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 17th 2018, 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC