Obama State Senate years exposed

Hallelujah! One Illinois GOP State Senator has the guts to tell it like it was when Barack Obama was in the Illinois General Assembly rather than wet kissing Obama and being used to promote an Obama presidency.

Former state Senator Steve Rauschenberger was featured this weekend on Fox News -- Sean Hannity's America -- exposing Obama's hypocrisy and slick vote maneuvering...something you won't see on an Obama ad.

Are you listening, Senator Dillard?

Comments

[Erasmussimo]

I watched the video and was disappointed that it failed to follow through on some crucial details. On the matter of Mr. Obama declaring that he had voted incorrectly six times, it would have been trivially easy to include data on how many times other Senators made similar declarations. They referred to this kind of thing happening, but never gave any numbers. If the average Senator misvoted substantially fewer times than Mr. Obama misvoted, I think that there might be a case here. Without that comparison, we have no way of knowing the significance of this information.

A similar complaint can be leveled against the charge that voted 'present' on many occasions. Again, what was the norm for Senators? Did other Senators vote 'present' more frequently than Mr. Obama did? Without comparative data these numbers are useless.

Next, it's a bit rich to say that Mr. Obama ducked the issues by voting 'present' lots of times, and then say that he voted the straight liberal line. Make up your minds, guys!

Next, the video reports on the questionnaire that was answered with strongly liberal answers, and now Mr. Obama denies providing those answers. There's a simple way to resolve this issue: is his signature on it? There's a standard rule in our society: if you want to show that you approve of something, you sign it. If it's not signed, then you can't assume that Mr. Obama even saw the questionnaire. So, we have a simple way to resolve this issue: was Mr. Obama's signature on it? It disturbs me that the producers of this video left out this crucial piece of information.

Lastly comes the accusation that Mr. Obama is ambitious. Can anybody name a single Presidential candidate who WASN'T ambitious? Is anybody willing to claim that Mr. McCain isn't ambitious?

[rockdalian]

"if it's not signed, then you can't assume that Mr. Obama even saw the questionnaire."
Lets see, distort the position: check.
Just because the report quotes Obama's staff saying he scribbled notes on the front means the staff must be lying.
Obama is never wrong.

[Erasmussimo]

rockdalian, are you using sarcasm because you have no logical argument to offer?

[Anonamama]

Let's be realistic: this truthful reporting will never make it past Fox news, and the fact that it's on Fox will allow the Obama camp to ridicule it effectively in the mainstream (liberal) media.

[Christines]

Just another indication that Obama is a Wiley Coyote! He is slick and dishonest. He is a self serving politician!

[Anonamama]

If the average Senator misvoted substantially fewer times than Mr. Obama misvoted, I think that there might be a case here. Without that comparison, we have no way of knowing the significance of this information.

WRONG. The average Senator isn't running to be President of the United States portraying himself as above politics as usual, above gamesmanship, an unequivocal agent of change, and an all-around messianistic sort of guy. You, too, like to argue out of both sides of your mouth.

[John Cox]

Steve's point was well-taken; Mr. Obama has maintained an air that he is above partisanship or politics as usual when the reality is the opposite. The point is that he is a protypical career politician - one whose whole life has been devoted to political ambition. That is fine for him but not so good if we really want government that enacts policies that make sense. People who are elected to make policy should have some level of experience in the private sector which gives them an appreciation of the impact of the laws they champion. Furthermore, naked political ambition leaves the impression that policy positions are taken or changed based upon political dynamics not the reality of a situation or the positive impact on our economy or society. Political leadership needs integrity; that integrity is compromised if the leader has a motivation outside of the good policy. A leader who is perceived as making their career in politics will always create the perception that at least some policy positions will be colored by keeping their job or gaining a new post - the politically ambitious will be perceived as taking positions for that reason. Clintons' $109 million payday is of the same piece; as is Michelle Obama's miraculous tripling of her salary after her husband's Senate win. We cannot look into the soul of a candidate to determine their motivation; their actions speak volumes. Obama's present votes; his changed votes; his money making off his fame as an elected official; his wife's taking advantage of his position - add these up and you have to question his positions. Is he speaking the truth about policy or is he taking positions that are politically expedient for financial gain?

[Erasmussimo]

Anonomama, your reasoning is as follows:

"Even if the average Senator misvoted 20 times when Mr. Obama misvoted only 6 times, Mr. Obama's misvoting combined with his candidacy for President proves that he lacks integrity."

Can you see the illogic of that argument?

[Ralf]

Why worry about votes he may have ruined at the margin? His recorded votes and his connections with the ongoing organized crime that is Chicago and Illinois politics eliminate him as a leader of integrity.

[Palos Park Bob]

While I think Obama's vulnerable on the way he played Chicago politics and his very shallow record of accomplishment and leadership in Illinois, I think the "misvoting" issue is a red herring.

I remember calling the most "conservative" Republican in the state Senate after the costly extension of early retirement benefits passed unanamously in the Senate several years ago.

I called and asked him how he could approve this as a spending priority, costing about #1 million extra per retiring suburban high school teacher in state pension payments, when the pension fund couldn't even afford the liabilities it had.

He responded that he didn't actually read the bill, and he didn't understand the costs and what its effects would be on school salary structures and "end of career" raises.

He blamed his staff for not making the content and implications clear to him.

Either this leading Republican "conservative" was an outright liar or grossly incompetent as a legislator.

If this issue gains some traction, it will be a two edged sword holding conservatives as accountable, perhaps more so, than Obama.

Maybe that's not such a bad thing......

[Matt Gauntt]

Excellent video.

The truth of the matter is that Barack Obama IS a liberal. I know, I know, he doesn't like people calling him that. Too bad!!! Calling an Edsel a car is just the truth, it's not name calling. In this case, Obama is a liberal and there is no getting around it.

Hat tip to Senator Rauschenberger.

[Erasmussimo]

Matt. I'd like to offer an observation regarding your comment that Mr. Obama is a liberal. I take it that your statement is based on the assumption that the term 'liberal' is almost an epithet. While that may remain true among conservatives, I would like to point out that the term 'conservative' has lost much of its shine in the last 7 years. I recall seeing some polls indicating that fewer people these days label themselves conservatives and more people label themselves liberals. The most important trend, however, is that a great many more people are calling themselves independents. This means that elections are increasingly decided by independents.

[Conservative at Heart]

How many times did Steve Rauschenberger vote present in his career?

[Paul Ruff]

Let's all see if we can count the chads.

[jorod]

The term liberal or conservative as applied in public opinion polling usually refers to one's stand on the issues. Conservatives support a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, liberals don't. Liberals oppose vouchers while conservatives support them. Based on one's answers you can determine where one stands on a conservative - liberal issue continuum. Those who answer some questions conservatively and some liberally are called independents although though they may endorse candidates in one party or another. True, the liberal label can be used contemptuously by conservatives as well.

[Christines]

Obama has flip flopped on everything! Pastor Wright is a perfect example! First he said he had never heard the hate sermons and then later he said that he didn't agree with the hate speech. Obama is and always has been a political figure who will take any stand that is convenient for him at the moment!

[Christines]

Obama says he is the great Uniter! I say he is the great Divider!

See the video!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Video_from_San_Francisco.html

[Erasmussimo]

Christines, I had a look at the video you linked to, and it makes it all the more clear that the intent of Mr. Obama's comment was to express his sympathy for the people about whom he is talking.

The brouhaha people have raised over this comment is completely artificial. There's nothing of substance to be outraged over. This is just a childish "gotcha game".

If conservatives continue to address Mr. Obama in this manner, avoiding discussion of the issues and focusing their energies on trivialities such as this, the vapidity of their approach will become glaring. Why don't conservatives instead talk about matters of substance that are important to this country: what to do about Iraq, health care, and the faltering economy?

[Matt Gauntt]

Erasmussimo,

The term "liberal" that I used was summed up pretty well by jorod. Obama voted for partial birth abortions, he wants to drastically raise taxes and he generally believes in larger government along with the items that Jorod mentioned.

As I am 180 degrees from Mr. Obama on those issues, I would generally regard "liberal" as an epithet.

I would agree with you in general on not focussing too much on the Pastor Wright issue. I think it revealed Mr. Obama's heart, but there are more important things to discuss. If we can get past Obama's platitudinal speeches and get down to the real issues and how much his various programs will raise taxes and just how liberal he is in his political views, that will be a plus for the Republicans and in specific John McCain. I personally think an issue by issue slugfest on whos position is correct, Obama's or conservatives would be a winner. Lay out all the issues, tackle them one by one and show how much the "solutions" will cost the average American. Forget race and his Pastor. Revealing to the American public just how far to the left on issues he is will do more damage to him.

[Erasmussimo]

Matt, I applaud your preference for "an issue by issue slugfest on whos position is correct", but not for the same reason as you. My reason is that Americans need to confront many serious problems, and the best way to do so is to have an election campaign in which the issues are thrashed out. We need a national discussion about what we should do in Iraq. We need a national discussion about Iran, torture, the right to privacy, and a hundred other issues. So far all we're getting is childish playground antics.

[Matt Gauntt]

Erasmussimo,

Couldn't agree with you more, although I have a feeling we might disagree on the outcome of that debate.

I would suggest to you that the solution to the problem would be to require all news agencies have to hire reporters with IQs over 110 and editors have to have attention spans over 5 seconds. Tongue in cheek comment to make my point that the news media will take a news story that is unimportant, but exciting and drive it to death, while really important stories get tossed aside.

If I see another story about Britney Spears or Paris Hilton I'll throw up. Look at how much attention was paid the to Natalie Hollaway story. Tragic story, very sorry for the family, but how does a cute, blond suburban girl getting killed deserve about 100,000 times more attention than a poor black girl from the south side of Chicago? It all just drives me CRAZY!!!