I can understand that a politician may vote "present" on some legislation -- usually of little consequence -- when he is undecided. But Obama used it to avoid "NO" votes on politically sensitive yet popular legislation. Where is the leadership on that?

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The picture that emerges is of a legislator who was a follower much of the time rather than a leader -- and who lacked the courage of his convictions when confronted with tough votes. That isn't leadership for change -- it is political cowardice.

Remember, you don't get to vote "PRESENT" as president.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.