I am so tired of this horse shit.
Friday, January 25, 2008
'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers
By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org Staff Writer
In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either “yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.
The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record. “To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, that’s a stretch. But, it’s good politics,” said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party’s floor leader.
In fact, he said, Illinois legislators get attacked for their “present” votes nearly every campaign season. “It’s always been a campaign gimmick, really. If you vote ‘present’ once in 23 years, somebody will bring it up.”
The “present” vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
----------
Please read morehttp://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863Present’ Perfect
By ABNER J. MIKVA
Published: February 16, 2008
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.
Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.
In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
I recall voting “present” on many bills when I was in the Illinois Legislature. In the 1960s, for instance, I voted “present” on the annual highway appropriations bill. Like many of my fellow senators, I thought some of the money being allocated should have gone to public transportation. Still, I didn’t want to vote no, because I did not want to stand against the basic principle of maintaining our public roads. So I voted “present.”
It never occurred to me or to any of my critics that I was ducking responsibility for a making a decision. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue.
Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.Abner J. Mikva has been an Illinois state legislator, a United States congressman, a federal judge and, from 1994 to 1995, White House counsel. He now directs the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Mikva serves as an informal adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss..............Rezko....Please...read up....
http://illinoisreason.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/illinois-blogs-recap-rezko-obama-not-much-there-there/Illinois Blogs Recap Rezko & Obama: Not Much There There, UPDATED
January 23, 2008
Two Illinois poliblog institutions, The Capitol Fax Blog (by political journalist Rich Miller) and ArchPundit (by political blogger Larry Handlin), are producing primers for the American people and the self-proclaimed media of record (not that the “national” media feels a need to be bothered with actual details when there’s a good soap opera to splash some ink on).
For those interested in learning just what Sen. Barack Obama’s not-very-much-of-a-relationship with Chicago developer Tony Rezko is, read up…
CapFax’s In defense of the locals reviews the Illinois political media’s coverage of Sen. Obama and attempts by the Tribune, Sun-Times, etc. to find skeletons in his closet over the years. Of note: the Chicago Tribune discovered two instances of what might be of interest to those hoping to turn Tony Rezko into Obama’s Marc Rich or Norman Hsu.
First, the Trib uncovered the property purchase in which the Obama family bought a home and Mr. Rezko’s wife bought an adjoining piece of property from the same seller on the same day. Sen. Obama has apologized for this event and acknowledged how, from the outside looking in, it appears unseemly even though everything was done legally and legitimately.
Second, the Trib also found that Sen. Obama’s staff gave an internship to a kid whose father was connected to Rezko and who had donated money to Obama’s previous campaigns. Ummm… ok.
Mr. Miller also writes that the Trib explained the research they did to investigate the connections between the law firm Sen. Obama used to work for and Rezko. Would that more media would bother to actually “work” a story as the Chicago papers have with regards to any sort of ties between Obama and Rezko (and most, if not all, of those ties seem to be perfectly legit based on that rather exhaustive research).
In his post, Mr. Miller also notes that an oppo-research consultant from one of Sen. Obama’s US Senate primary opponents, Mike Henry, was hired by the Clinton campaign and that since his hiring Clinton’s attacks have mirrored the earlier attacks from that 2004 primary opponent. Go figure.UPDATE: Rich Miller has posted a follow-up today in “Present votes and Rezko“.
ArchPundit also currently has a series of five eight “Rezko primers” up on his blog (don’t know if he’ll add more so check his site for the latest UPDATE: Arch did add a few more and has a summary/linky post on all eight in “The Rezko Primer“). His posts’ titles are rather self-explanatory:
* Rezko Primer I: Job Offer and Friendship Begins
* Rezko Primer II: Political Donations
* Rezko Primer III. Legal work on projects Rezko was involved
* Rezko Primer IV. Letters of Support for projects Rezko was involved
* Rezko Primer V. Intern-son of Rezko ally/Obama donor
* New: VI. House Purchase
* New: VII. Land Strip Purchase from Rezko
* New: VIII. Landscaping and Property Maintenance Arrangement
Don’t get me wrong. Rezko is going to court after having been accused of some pretty serious white collar crimes. If convicted he ought to pay his debt to society.
But guilt by association witch hunts are damn weak — just ask the Clintons their thoughts on Kenneth Starr and his investigation of the, ahem, Whitewater Land Deal… — even if the national media is willing to lazily regurgitate an opponent’s spin on their front pages and TV news crawlers.
If some sort of quid pro quo had ever surfaced there’d be something to talk about but as it stands there’s really no there “there” between Rezko and Obama. No one has ever found any instance of Obama doing anything as a legislator that would have illegally (or even unethically) benefited Rezko. (That said, journalist Miller correctly notes that something about Obama may yet surface during Rezko’s trial but given the boxes of files the Illinois media has analyzed it seems unlikely.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
