Jump to content

Obamas Claims That He Will Reach Across The Aisle...


Recommended Posts

Are B.S. Now, I know this by his known record and his positions, but can anyone tell me where this article is wrong, or how there conclusions are wrong?Tuesday, September 2, 2008McCain Voted With Bush 90%, uh-95% Of The Time? Umm, Not Really!This is an update of an article we originally wrote back in early July.There was a time in this country when the main stream media would do more than just repeat the talking points of political candidates. A time when they reported the facts, and checked to them for accuracy. Obviously that time has passed, and whether it is out of adoration for Senator Obama or just negligence the media has been a willing accomplice in spreading Obama campaign rhetoric.In recent weeks, Senator Obama has increased his attacks upon John McCain, once again trying to define him as no longer being the 'maverick' that he was once perceived as. During his acceptance speech Obama pointed out the John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time, a sentiment echoed in the remarks of Joe Biden a day earlier when he stated McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time. So which one is, 90%, 95%, or is does the argument have any actual weight.First, on a lighter note, let me state that it is 100% impossible for John McCain to have voted with President Bush, after all the President has no voting powers in the Senate. But that's just a laughable technicality. In reality, however, the problem with the McCain/Bush voting argument and the attempts to paint McCain as some radical right winger is that there are organizations that track the votes of congressional members. According to the Washington Post's Votes Database Project, Obama and the DNC's claims are 100% false.McCain, unlike his Democratic Rival, has continued to maintain one of the highest levels of independence demonstrated by any US Senator since 2000. For instance, during the 110th Session of Congress, McCain ranked 65th among his colleagues having voted along party line 88% of the time, a far cry from the 12th place rank of Obama. Yet, McCain's voting record during the current session of Congress is likely to hold closer to party lines due to the nearly 50 bills that contained an Troop Withdrawal Timeline. During the 109th session of congress, McCain ranked 94th out of 100 Senators, having voted along party lines 79.4% of the time. This ranking and percentage are nearly identical to his 93rd place rank during both the 107th and 108th Congressional Sessions.McCain has not voted with his party or George Bush 90% or 95% of the time. Obama's statistics are not based upon any actual statistical data, but rather a soundbite taken years ago at a highly partisan rally in which McCain made a misstatement. But then again, that misstatement would be no different from the fact that even Obama and Biden can't seem to keep the rhetoric straight. McCain should take Obama to task on the partisan voting issue, after all, Barack Obama, the self-proclaimed moderate, has voted along party lines more often than even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have.That's right, according to The Votes Database, During the 110th Congressional session running from Jan 2007 to now, Senator Obama ranked 12th among 100 Senators, having voted along party lines 96% of the time; an amazingly high percentage for someone who claims to be able to reach across the isle. The Obama campaign and pundits will argue that Obama's voting record during this session was driven by a need to shore up support among his base supporters. Yet, if that were true then we would expect his record during the 109th session of Congress to reflect a greater level of moderation. According to the Vote Database Project, During the 109th session Obama was ranked 5th in the Senate having voted along party lines 94.8% of the time. Ironically, during both sessions of congress, Obama voted along party lines more often the Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid, and Senator Kerry. For a candidate who talks about unity and his ability to work with the side, he certainly has not demonstrated it. After all, how can a candidate claim moderation when the current Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has crossed party lines during the past two sessions of congress more often than Obama?Summary - Candidates voting with their party.Rank & % of time voted with party2007-2008Obama - 12th - 96.0%McCain - 65th - 88.0%2005-2006Obama - 5th - 94.8%McCain- 94th - 79.4%2003-2004Obama - NOT IN CONGRESSMcCain - 93rd - 84.5%2001-2002Obama - NOT IN CONGRESSMcCain - 93rd - 76.2%These numbers are interesting, because I still don't see the 90% or 95% represented anywhere. But then again, I suppose that I could go through the voting record and find a three month period somewhere when McCain did vote along the same position as Bush and the party 95% of the time. But, by those standards, I could also take the 1 week period last year, when Obama supported the President's Immigration position and state that Obama voted with the president 100% of the time.Obama is no centrist or moderate, he is a panderer willing to say anything based upon what group he is talking too, so long as it forwards his position. His voting record does not demonstrate any reasonable level of non-partisanship and has proven that he is beholden only to party leaders. His base of support has not come from moderate Democrats, it has come from the far-left power brokers intent upon control of the government.John McCain's voting record has proven consistent with that of a candidate who unwilling to sacrifice his principles and beliefs in order to appease party leadership. He has upheld his ability to work with both sides of the isle. Democratic leadership can attempt to demonize McCain as a mini-me Bush, but the record will never support that claim. What is missing here? Is the difference between the 2 really this defined in terms of who may actually be willing to "reach across the aisle?" The ranking on McCain are pretty encouraging. Personally I find it a little bit disconcerting, in that he may be to willing to listen to ideologies that I often think are B.S.,but the numbers certainly make the case that if you ACTUALLY wanted change he would be the correct pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You arent missing anything except one thing that makes the lie an even bigger one. As I noted in another thread, as much as 60% of the votes are routine procedural votes where both parties agree. If you carve those out you get a much larger % of "substantive votes" that reach across the aisle for McCain. You will also get a larger number for Obama, but the differential between the two grows substantially.Unfortunately one thing coloring any kind of analysis like this is the substantial numbers of "no votes" theyve both racked up during campaigning, although your figures might assume that a "no vote" = a party vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808270008so no, he didn't distort the truth, unless you think an overall average is a distortion. your article flat out misstated it, though--the president doesn't vote, but he does take a position on things. especially the decider.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808270008so no, he didn't distort the truth, unless you think an overall average is a distortion. your article flat out misstated it, though--the president doesn't vote, but he does take a position on things. especially the decider.
Obamas DNC speech said "McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time", period. The implication is that over the course of his Senate career overlapping with Bush he voted with him 90% of the time. Clearly not true from the numbers in your own link because the only year significantly above 90% is 95% compared to the low of 77%, which had to be a year of subsantially more votes.The 95% is a 2007 number that includes a ton of "no votes" and a ton of BS Democrat bills that were nothing but show, eg including withdrawal timetables from Iraq.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obamas DNC speech said "McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time", period. The implication is that over the course of his Senate career overlapping with Bush he voted with him 90% of the time. Clearly not true from the numbers in your own link because the only year significantly above 90% is 95% compared to the low of 77%, which had to be a year of subsantially more votes.The 95% is a 2007 number that includes a ton of "no votes" and a ton of BS Democrat bills that were nothing but show, eg including withdrawal timetables from Iraq.
89.3% is reasonably rounded to 90%, assuming that there were an equal number of votes each year. i wouldn't give a shit if a republican rounded 89.3 to 90 during a speech.your last paragraph is completely meaningless.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808270008so no, he didn't distort the truth, unless you think an overall average is a distortion. your article flat out misstated it, though--the president doesn't vote, but he does take a position on things. especially the decider.
Thanks for the link. I just wanted to make sure you guys didnt see anything major before I used that article to help a poor soul at work who is conviced that Obama has worked tirelessly across party lines for change. Asking what changes is deosn't help with these people, they don't need a definition, but if I can prove it mathematically that could help. Maybe. Either way it's a fun thing to do at work. Had to cool it a bit, I almost caused quite the stir when we were arguing about nationalized healthcare and an older woman was passionately pleading her case that life was the most important thing and that we should do all we could to make everyones valuable, and I said,"But, you support abortion rights. Isn't that a contradiction of epic proportions?" She gave me a true evil eye. Thankfully my work environment is such that we all have spirited aruments and nobody take it to personally.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obamas DNC speech said "McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time", period. The implication is that over the course of his Senate career overlapping with Bush he voted with him 90% of the time. Clearly not true from the numbers in your own link because the only year significantly above 90% is 95% compared to the low of 77%, which had to be a year of subsantially more votes.The 95% is a 2007 number that includes a ton of "no votes" and a ton of BS Democrat bills that were nothing but show, eg including withdrawal timetables from Iraq.
To be honest I personally payed alot less attention to the percentages as much as I did where they ranked vs. everybody else, and that clearly paints a huge difference. This reminds me a bit of how you might go about comparing a mutual fund, you need to compare the fund to other funds to paint a better overall picture.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the link. I just wanted to make sure you guys didnt see anything major before I used that article to help a poor soul at work who is conviced that Obama has worked tirelessly across party lines for change. Asking what changes is deosn't help with these people, they don't need a definition, but if I can prove it mathematically that could help. Maybe. Either way it's a fun thing to do at work. Had to cool it a bit, I almost caused quite the stir when we were arguing about nationalized healthcare and an older woman was passionately pleading her case that life was the most important thing and that we should do all we could to make everyones valuable, and I said,"But, you support abortion rights. Isn't that a contradiction of epic proportions?" She gave me a true evil eye. Thankfully my work environment is such that we all have spirited aruments and nobody take it to personally.
fwiw, the tack your article takes concerning obama's willingness to vote with party is probably more meaningful, and perhaps true (i honestly don't know, and google isn't super easy on that one). but if you use it, be careful that you don't claim that obama's making any claim about his own record--he's aligning mccain with bush, dassit, and not necessarily both of them with the entire republican party.
Link to post
Share on other sites
89.3% is reasonably rounded to 90%, assuming that there were an equal number of votes each year. i wouldn't give a shit if a republican rounded 89.3 to 90 during a speech.your last paragraph is completely meaningless.
How is the last paragraph meaningless? It draws attention to an abnormality that distorts the record for that year. I don't see why taht would have literally no meaning to where you could claim it was meaningless.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Had to cool it a bit, I almost caused quite the stir when we were arguing about nationalized healthcare and an older woman was passionately pleading her case that life was the most important thing and that we should do all we could to make everyones valuable, and I said,"But, you support abortion rights. Isn't that a contradiction of epic proportions?" She gave me a true evil eye. Thankfully my work environment is such that we all have spirited aruments and nobody take it to personally.I just got fired
fyp :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
How is the last paragraph meaningless? It draws attention to an abnormality that distorts the record for that year. I don't see why taht would have literally no meaning to where you could claim it was meaningless.
i was referring to "BS democratic bills," which is teh LOL.no votes happen for a lot of reasons and to suggest that they're all to be discarded is silly, especially when all of us know that copernicus would include them if it helped his "argument."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here it is, right from the horse's mouth:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc...feature=relatedSpecifically, his second statement.
please, DNC, please, put that shit on teh tee vee. you don't even need a lead in. just put that exact ad on television.
Link to post
Share on other sites
please, DNC, please, put that shit on teh tee vee. you don't even need a lead in. just put that exact ad on television.
I am told that he has a new ad that includes that snippet. I have not yet seen it in MO. He should run that ad all day every day in every single state that matters.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am told that he has a new ad that includes that snippet. I have not yet seen it in MO. He should run that ad all day every day in every single state that matters.
Here is the ad. It has been running nonstop in Miami.
Lois, you do realize the stats you quoted show that McCain has voted with his party in increasing amounts over the last few years. Which is exactly the liberals argument....that he WAS a reformer/maverick and NOW is NOT. Of course, some believe he has just changed his tune to get elected and then will go back to being vintage McCain. If only I could peer into men's souls like famous seer George Walker Bush.
Link to post
Share on other sites
89.3% is reasonably rounded to 90%, assuming that there were an equal number of votes each year. i wouldn't give a shit if a republican rounded 89.3 to 90 during a speech.your last paragraph is completely meaningless.
Only to someone who wants to hide their head on the facts behind the statistics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest I personally payed alot less attention to the percentages as much as I did where they ranked vs. everybody else, and that clearly paints a huge difference.This reminds me a bit of how you might go about comparing a mutual fund, you need to compare the fund to other funds to paint a better overall picture.
Anyone who doesnt know that BHO is a party sycophant who doesnt make a move that his financiers dont approve is brain dead. Similarly anyone who hasnt already heard of the Gang of 14, McCain Feingold and McCain Kennedy probably doesnt know enough about politics to be able to educate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i was referring to "BS democratic bills," which is teh LOL.no votes happen for a lot of reasons and to suggest that they're all to be discarded is silly, especially when all of us know that copernicus would include them if it helped his "argument."
you dont know me very well, apparently.
Link to post
Share on other sites
watch the linked video, lol. mccain apparently needs people to save him from himself.
That ad has been running non-stop in Iowa for more than a month, but I still don't believe McCain. He's just simply not the republican that he claims to be in the ad. Thank goodness for Palin.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the ad. It has been running nonstop in Miami.
Lois, you do realize the stats you quoted show that McCain has voted with his party in increasing amounts over the last few years. Which is exactly the liberals argument....that he WAS a reformer/maverick and NOW is NOT. Of course, some believe he has just changed his tune to get elected and then will go back to being vintage McCain. If only I could peer into men's souls like famous seer George Walker Bush.
Actually,I do see that. The problem is those very same statistics paint a picture of zero reform from Obama and it's not even close. I don't mind that liberals think that McCain is less of a reformer, as long as I can use the numbers to prove that Obama absolutely never,ever, was.
Link to post
Share on other sites
please, DNC, please, put that shit on teh tee vee. you don't even need a lead in. just put that exact ad on television.
Go ahead and run them every day.Here is the good stuff which will be followed up by a ad on James A. Johnson...and then more completing the rest of the story!I like ours a lot better!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...