Grand Old Partisan: Setting the Obama Record Straight
Earlier this week, Grand Old Partisan issued what I'm sure is to be a continued party of the Clinton-McCain attacks on Barack Obama: "Where's the beef?"
GOP charged that Obama was all talk, no action on education, health care, transportation and government reform.
Before I respond, let me offer a counter challenge to GOP: What have Hillary Clinton and John McCain ACCOMPLISHED to improve education, health care, transportation and government ethics?
OBAMA ON EDUCATION:
- SB 19 (LAW) enacted school reforms backed by Mayor Daley
- SB 533 (law) expanded teacher training;
- SB 903 (LAW) expanded early childhood education;
- SB 1369 (LAW) created Illinois' first statewide capital needs assessment for schools;
ON HEALTH CARE:
- HB 2268 (LAW) Created the Health Care Justice Act, creating a bipartisan committee of experts to develop a universal health care plan for Illinois;
- SB 59 (LAW) created safety report cards for hospitals;
- SB 130 (LAW) Extended the children's health insurance program;
- SB 263 (LAW) HIV counselling and testing for pregnant women;
- SB 989 (LAW) expand health coverage for the developmentally disabled;
- SB 1417 (LAW) require insurance companies to cover colorectal cancer;
- SB 1418 (LAW) banned the sale of diet pill ephedra, linked to deaths in IL;
- HB 6 (LAW) expanded disaster preparedness programs to include hospitals and first responders;
ON TRANSPORTATION
- SB 1408 (LAW) Bipartisan measure to expand tranportation programs in Illinois;
- SB 46 (LAW) Extended tax credits for bio-fuels;
ON GOVERNMENT REFORM:
- SB 15 (LAW) Required videotaping of homocide interrogations;
- SB 30 (LAW) Cracked down on racial profiling by police;
- SB 1586 (LAW) Strengthened IL Open Meetings Act;
- SB 702 (LAW) Banned solicitation of state employees for campaign contributions, created the IL Inspector General's Office, and made other sweeping changes;
- SB 706 (LAW) Creates an Inspector General's office for the IL SOS to investigate corruption;
GOP uses the same-old attacks that have always been used against advocates of campaign finance reform. George Ryan used them very effectively against Glenn Poshard.
The argument goes something like this: Barack Obama says that Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists and PACs than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. But Barack Obama used to take money from lobbyists and PACs, so if Hillary Clinton is doing something wrong now, Barack Obama must have been doing something wrong then.
Well, as a State Senator, Obama did raise $93,000 in contributions of more than $1,000. The largest was $10,000 from Gold Coast philanthropist Abby O'Neil.
But he raised $379,000 from donors giving $150 to $1,000 (77%).
Given Illinois "Wild West" campaign finance laws, that's not too shabby.
Compare that to Illinois House GOP Leader Tom Cross:
Contributions of more than $1,000: $5.5 million (66%)
Contributions of $150 to $1,000: $2.2 million (33%)
Or Tom Cross' #2 man, Brent Hassert:
More than $1000: $806,000 (45%)
$150 to $1,000: $1 million (55%)
25 comments:
Nice work Dog. Plus Obama was the force in the Senate pushing the 2003 ethics legislation that elminiated lobbyists from state boards, established the ethics commission, ended the revloving door for state employees working for or lobbying for companies they used to regulate and limited how lobbyists could spend money on members. Somehow they always forget that high profile obvious one.
I realize this is the Illinoize blog, but can you "flesh out" Obama's performance in the US Senate?
He was in the minority for two years, but still managed to get a great open government bill passed.
Then it is my understanding that once the dems had control of the senate, the democratic leadership forbade him from introducing legislation.
Ruberry - You can find Sen. Obama's voting record here.
As I recall, he was not a leader on any of these items, just an also ran. Basically these bills have lovely names, but allow business as usual to continue throughout state government while continuing to drive up the cost of government.
The majority of these items were elements of what the Daley administration was looking for from Springfield. BO did his assigned part and worked for whatever Daley and his cronies wanted.
As far as ethics are concerned, Illinois is among the loosest states. No great kudos there. Emil Jones is still blocking the improvements that the house passed last year.
Yes, pluto has it right. Obama was a co-sponsor of some of these bills. Good for him. He's taking credit for other people's work. He's been good at that lately.
Take a look at the Hope PAC and tell me that is not politics as usual. He takee money from lobbysists and PACs and then uses that money to buy off Dem pols from around the country. Politics as usual, and I wouldn't blame him for it if he didn't play the Saint card.
Yellow Dog,
It is customary that, before you can issue a counter-challenge, you must first meet the original challenged issued to you – which you have not yet done.
In regards to education, I asked if anyone could “cite a significant proposal he championed.” Helping to enact “reforms” proposed by the Mayor and expanding programs already in existence isn’t really championing a significant proposal, now is it?
On healthcare, don’t you think it’s strange that Obama has been able to develop a national healthcare policy all on his own for this campaign, but was satisfied with simply pushing for the creation of a committee to investigate the possibility of creating a plan for the state?
On transportation – that’s all well and good, but you didn’t answer the question: where was Obama when the Governor was busy gutting a program that was doing on a state level what he now says we should make a national priority?
Obama’s state senate record would be pretty impressive if he was simply running for re-election, or a maybe even a move to the Executive Mansion or Capital Hill. But we are talking about the race for the White House here. As far as beef goes, Obama’s a quarter-pounder, and we need a Big Mac!
Pluto, Anonymous & GOP --
Why are nihilists so lazy?
If you took the time to go to the General Assembly website, you'd know that Obama was the Chief Sponsor of nearly all of the measures mentioned.
Obviously, there was no earth-shattering legislation passed on education reform, because the governor promised to veto it.
Much as President Bush has promised to veto FISA legislation that does not fit his description.
And GOP, you'll have to explain to me when you think Illinois FIRST was "gutted" by Blagojevich. Illinois FIRST was passed into law in 1999, and Obama voted for it.
As far as needing a Big Mac instead of a quarter pounder, Obama has actually ACCOMPLISHED much more than Hillary Clinton as an elected official.
And except for passing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, I don't think many voters can point offhand to anything that John McCain has actually ACCOMPLISHED as an elected official.
YDD -
For the record, I never said that Obama wasn't the Chief Sponsor of those bills. I simply made the case that none of those bills were very consequential, or, to borrow your phrase, “earth-shattering.” And that’s the whole point: Obama is promising “earth-shattering” change in Washington even though he never fought for anywhere near that level of change in Springfield. Now, you can make all the excuses you want for why he didn't, but I bet none of will inspire much confidence in people who truly are looking for "change we can believe in."
YDD and crash -
This was from the link. What did Obama have to do for this bill? Tell Coburn and his staff to put his name on it and give a speech on the floor? Wow, he passed a bill that the leaders of both parties and far right and far left groups and papers alike endorsed. YEAH OBAMA!!
"More than 100 organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity and Taxpayers for Common Sense to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Greenpeace have endorsed S. 2590.
Dozens of editorials boards across the country including the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times and The Oklahoman have also endorsed S. 2590.
Forty-three Senators co-sponsored S. 2590 including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA), John Cornyn (R-TX) and others."
And as far as McCain is concerned, I can tell you one accomplishment that he has that Obama does not: he served as a fighter pilot in the US NAVY, in combat, in a time of war, and he lived to tell about it!!(he also co-sponsored the above bill). That beats BarackStar's greatest accomplshment (what is it?) ten times over not even considering his unbelievable story of his time at the Hanoi Hilton.
Character battle = Pres. McCain
On the Obama fundraising:
Check out here: http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_06+C00409052
That is Obama's PAC, HopeFund. Some quick figures from 05-06:
Total Receipts: $4,430,245
Individual Contributions: $4,252,894
Total Disbursements: $3,753,518
Contributions To Other Committees: $770,967
See, Saint Barack plays poltics to. And in case your wondering, you can follow the link and see who The Chosen One decided to share his tainted lobbyist and PAC money with. The guy is a hypocryte and people need to call him on it, but they will when he breaks his promise to do a taxpayer funded campaign.
He wants to change the way politics is done and he has a real shot, with both him and McCain taking a principled stand early on in the campaign that they would use the taxpayer money and abide within spending restrictions. To bad one of them, Mr. Obama, basically lied to the American people.
Check out who donated to the PAC. HINT: Consultant means lobbyist and any attorney with a Washington address is also a lobbyist.
GOP -
I said nothing earth-shattering happened on education.
If you're someone whose been a victim of racial profiling, who believes the police shouldn't bully 12 year-olds into giving false confessions, who believes 4,000+ preventable deaths a year in our hospitals is outrageous, that people should have affordable access to quality health care, etc, etc, etc --- Obama's record as a leader in Illinois is astounding.
Again, please read the bills then comment.
Anon 4:51 -
My great-grandfather fought in WWI, my grandfathers fought in Korea, and one went on to serve as commander of his VFW post. My brother served our country for seven years, including three years in the Iraq War.
John McCain's service in Vietnam made him a courageous hero, without question.
However, it doesn't qualify him to be President, and I'm getting the distinct impression that "courage" has given way to political expediency.
I loved the Old John McCain. The Maverick, the Straight-Talker who criticized the influence of the far right on his party, who was willing to take a tough stand on tough issues like the Bush tax cuts and immigration.
Now, if you visit McCain's website, it mentions "Border Security" eight times and "immigration reform" once. The phrase "pathway to citizenship" is nowhere to be found.
So much for Courage.
Anon 5:08 -
Again, these are the same old tired arguments made by opponents of campaign finance reform all of the time.
NO ONE gets into the position of changing our campaign finance laws without getting elected first, which means either raising money under the current rules OR being able to spend millions of dollars out of your own pocket like Mitt Romney.
The fact that someone raised money under the old rules doesn't exclude them from proposing that we can do better.
No one called McCain a hypocrite for co-sponsoring campaign finance reform or George Bush for signing it. The label doesn't fit Obama either.
Again, given that Clinton has spent seven years in Congress and McCain more than twenty, can ANYONE name a major leadership accomplishment by either of them (aside from McCain's passage of campaign finance reform?)?
Hint: Being First Lady and being a POW are interesting and some would say relevant parts of their biographies, but they are not accomplishments.
Neither Dem candidate is left enough for my taste, so my criticism of both is that neither has ever fought for fundamental changes in the system. None of the changes YDD describes here fit the bill of fundamentally altering the system that cause the problems the bills chose to fix.
In other words, these are all great pieces of legislation that he should be lauded for; but they are one after the other addressing symptoms rather than the diseases.
Now, the thing is, I can make that criticism, because I'm left wing. Hillary Clinton cannot make that criticism. Neither, of course, can John McCain.
The criticism doesn't work at all on behalf of the other candidates. When they criticize Senator Obama in this way, they are only criticizing themselves worse.
It does work in a normative way, though, I think.
And YDD, you'd serve your point better by avoiding the campaign-y "framing" like "Clinton-McCain".
As a Republican, I have mixed emotions about Barack Obama very likely being our next President. I find myself being curious as to whether Obama might be "a good thing" or "a bad thing". I feel confident that my wallet will be substantially lighter after Obama's term in office is completed (based on the assumption that he will be elected).
On the other hand, I would love to see what he could do to help bridge the racial divide that still exists (and impedes social progress) after two centuries? I would rather it have been Colin Powell instead of Barack but "IF" Obama can help repair the torn social fabric of racial relations in our country, then I will be willing to let him "pick my pocket". I won't like it but I don't like getting a flu shot either (although I know that now my good health will be more secure in the future.)
Like I said, I have mixed emotions on this one and I am sure that other Republicans and Independents do as well. It will be an interesting episode in our national history.
Ramsin Canon -
An interesting post, but I'm really not sure what you mean when you say neither candidate has ever fought for fundamental changes in the system? Which system? What kind of changes?
I'm pretty far to the left myself, having campaigned for Single Payer Health Care System, among other issues. However, I don't think America is ready to elect a Single Payer President.
Anon 6:17 -
Interesting you worry about Obama and taxes. Obama passed the largest tax relief package of the last decade in Illinois.
True, he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the very richest Americans, and I guess if you're one of them, you're wallet will be a little lighter, but otherwise I wouldn't worry about your wallet.
What I mean YDD is that none of the candidates has been willing to really put their neck out and lead on an issue of fundamental changes to the political and class systems.
Single-Payer is feasible as a policy; it is only "unrealistic" as politics--but if the idea is change, and building consensus etc., what is that consensus to be used for? Incremental change?
Seems to me that its surrendering before you get on the battlefield, for something that is a fundamental human right.
Neither candidate as lead on this issue, and many others: both support public financing, for example, but neither candidate has been willing to stick their neck out on the point, or make it a centerpiece of their campaign.
I respect disagreeing with me on those points, I'm just offering them up as my rationale, what I mean by real, fundamental, lefty change.
ramsin -
This is a point on which reasonable people can disagree. My experience is that while elected officials can be ahead of the public on the issues, just how far out in front they can be -- how long their rope is so to speak -- depends on the size and history of the issue and also their individual leadership skills.
Lincoln is a great example. Lincoln had great sympathy for the abolitionist movement. But he didn't campaign on promising to abolish slavery. If he had, he probably would not have won.
Truman didn't campaign on civil rights. If he had, probably would not have won. But he integrated our military.
Campaigns are, ultimately, about winning elections. And while a campaign can tell us alot about how someone will govern, we should never confuse campaigns with governing.
I think that the Clintons have run a campaign to-date that was more about a coronation than an election, that focused on programs when the country was looking for leadership, that divided rather than uniting people around a common purpose, and that failed to plan and has ignored brutal realities.
By contrast, I think Obama has shown that he has the potential to unite diverse people around a common purpose to achieve things which most people a year ago would have considered impossible.
YDD -
Do you really want to get into a debate about which candidate is more courageous and which is more bound by “political expediency?” Really? Bring it on…
Let’s start off by asking: which candidate has a long history of bucking his own party at the risk of his political future, and which candidate only pushed for measures that he knew wouldn’t face opposition from his caucus leadership?
The point of my original post is that Obama could have been a real force for change here at home. He could have held the Mayor’s feet to the fire and endorsed a real reformer for the County Board Presidency. He could have used the bully pulpit to call for an end to the crippling stalemate that his own party has created in this state. But he didn’t. Why? Can you think of a reason other than political expediency?
Now, has John McCain ALWAYS put principle over politics. Of course not, he’s a politician, after all. But McCain isn’t the one saying that his campaign is “a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest." Obama is. But he never tried to sing that tune here at home. Why? Can you think of a reason other than political expediency?
Barack Obama did not use courage in endorsing Todd Stroger.
Barack Obama did not use courage in never criticizing the torture of dozens of police officers under the Command of Jon Burge of hundreds of African American males.
Barack Obama has been silent on Jon Burge and police torture.
Barack Obama has been silent on the deadlock and dysfuntional nature and major problems in taxation, business etc in Illinois and has been uncritical of his mentor Senate President Emil Jones and serious allegations of corruption (no bid contracts for relatives, step sons, son in laws, jobs for girlfriends)
All these bills mentioned by YDD--how different is the life on the people who live in Obama's former State Senate District?????
Barack Obama went to the best private schools yet he doesn't support school choice and under his time as an elected official dozens of private (mostly Catholic but others as well) have been closed down including those that served his former constituents.
Are their more jobs in the Barack Obama state senate district?????
Is there better housing for low income people (not including the gentrification) including the bs "low income" con artist housing of Tony Rezko and the law office of the Barack Obama mentors.
Barack Obama is a masterful politicians who has some good speechwriters and can give a great monologue. He has no real compelling story or life experience at least not compared to McCain or others.
Obama has a great immature cult like image for the sheople that are controlled by politicians and the media.
Was Obama really silent about Jon Burge?
Congressmans Bobby Rush and Danny Davis called for Federal hearings on Jon Burge--Did Obama do anything with that?
Post a Comment