So wait a min.. in that first post you made.. number 3. Were you not saying that Obama voting against the party too many times? In fact I will quote you..
Quote
3. Significant votes that went against the party
You use that as a reason I shouldn't support Obama, but didn't give me any examples. I then responded that if it's true then it's a good thing.. However now you turn around and claim he always voted the party line. Which is it please make up your mind.
Sorry man this spinning is making be dizzy..You have to decide if it's either too much or not enough because you can't claim one, then turn around and claim the opposite. I know that's common of a typical Republican, however I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt because you seemed to be asking sensible questions.
The point I was trying to raise here and have raised in numerous other posts frankly, is that Obama has not bucked the Democratic party at the state or federal level. Less so than McCain. Obviously I though you might have read enough of my posts, often in the same threads you post in, to know the context on that point.
As I have stated numerous times Obama is a party hack in the Illinois/Cook County, Daley-run Democratic machine. When he has had the opportunity to buck a corrupt system riddled with patronage, waste and indictments he has not. He has consistently supported the status quo. He has voted more along party lines than McCain -- when he actually did vote yes or no vs. present.
Since you missed it and was obviously ignored it the second time, I'll repost the link that outlines in detail the specific real-world issues with Obama. No "Obama is an Islamic terrorist" stuff here, just some details about how he got to where he is and why the concept of Obama as an agent for change is a laugh, unless by change you mean supporting the Kennedy/Pelosi idea of big govt. progressive change. Try reading it this time. You may actually learn something about the candidate you support (noting, by your own words, that you are ignorant about his legislative record and political history in Illinois at the state and federal levels):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,246098.15.htmlHere's a sample:
Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, (Emil) Jones (Ill. Senate president) called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio program.
I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:
"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"
"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"
"Barack Obama."
Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.
"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.
"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."
During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.
It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics and he couldn't have done it without Jones...
So how has Obama repaid Jones?
Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.
Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.
I'll never forget what he said:
"Some call it pork; I call it steak."And just to touch on this point specifically:
I know that's common of a typical Republican, however I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt because you seemed to be asking sensible questions.
I am a true, independent voter. I have voted in the past for Democrats at the presidential, gubernatorial and state and federal legislative levels. Didn't vote for Bush, even in 2000. Still might not vote for McCain or Obama (but again, that doesn't really matter in Illinois). Voted for Paul in the primaries. I am currently looking at a potentially bluedog-style democratic candidate as an alternative to the piss-poor RINO in my state congressional district, to the point of agreeing to participate in one of her e-mail issues committees on issues like the 2nd. So, the Republican tag doesn't really work on me.
I see the entire system system as fundamentally broken, particularly for the demands of the 21st century. The Democratic and Republican parties are just different sides of the same big govt. anti BOR coin. We need a smaller govt. focused on the BOR first with money removed from the equation. Since massive, immediate change is not likely, we have to incrementally take back our govt. a piece at a time the same way it has been taken from us. McCain MIGHT represent an incremental step in that direction if he can at least enact some reform of govt. spending and campaign funding. Use the veto pen, and use it often. But it is only a "might" because McCainFinegold was an anti step in that direction and the challenges to real reform are monumental. But, he might. To contrast, Obama wont, based on his big govt. proposals.
Charon
