Letters to the Editor
dataguyx
Published Letters: 838 Editor's Choice: 10
-
"wtf your point is?"
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, it's pretty simple. You see, O Seer of the Legislature, you need a MAJORITY to do things. One vote does NOTHING. So, Obama voted PRESENT to give cover to other democrats and moderate Republicans, who did not want to vote against the "Helpless Babies and CHildren Protection act". If they voted PRESENT, the bills would not advance. He did it to help stop the bills, and it apparently was successful.
The strategy was set up by the Planned Parenthood Senate Liason. It was a strategy to stop crap from advancing.
Here's a quote: Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood, tells NEWSWEEK that the ploy was her idea: "Senator Obama was always a no vote in committee, but we had other Democrats, and a couple of Republicans, who were tired of having mailers sent out against them." Sutherland says Obama could have voted no without suffering any negative fallout, since he came from a very liberal Chicago district. But, she says, his participation in the deal helped give cover to his colleagues."
Gosh, sometimes things are sorta complex, eh? The woman who headed Chicago NOW, Lorna Brett Howard, was, until 4 weeks ago, a Hillary supporter. After watching this NOW-boating in NH, IA, and other early primary states, she has become an Obama supporter, and she has a YouTube piece about the UNFAIR and FALSE claims in this controversy. Go to YouTube and search for her name.
This stuff is just absolutely despicable and nauseating. It's one reason why Hillary is not at this time acceptable. Why has Hillary and her bunch taken these pointers from Karl Rove?
-
A VERY sensible comment
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So, sure, I suppose there's "something" to be said for the NOW/purist approach, but it ain't pragmatism."
Gosh, I think that we are channeling the same thought. Yes, I am for gay marriage (I am a U-U), but it is political death right now, and won't pass anywhere. What we need is pragmatism, not purity. Sometimes bad votes are needed for political reasons, and I just wish there was a little understanding of that. Your comments are very sensible.
-
ncsteve
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I apologize. I mischaracterized your statement. You are correct.
-
Why do Hillary's votes matter?
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The fact is, Hillary opposes the war now, wants to withdraw sooner than Obama (whether that's actually a good thing is debatable), and would not, I'm sure, attack Iran with no good reason if elected."
That's probably true. But, the point is that Barack is being held to task for votes he took, and my point (and others) is that there are many votes done for various reasons. It seems VERY unfair to let Hillary get off on such a major problem while holding Obama responsible for much less major votes.
-
You are puzzled
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"However, I confess that I am a little puzzled as to why Planned Parenthood would want Obama to vote present on a parental notification bill."
That's probably because you didn't read the article. It's very clear. Present=no.
-
The money quote
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's the key quote:
'Here's the deal. Obama voted "present" 129 times (out of about 4,000 votes cast) over about eight years as a state senator in Illinois -- one of the few states where legislators can vote "present" to indicate a procedural disagreement. "Present" is sometimes used as a means of objecting to details of a measure that one supports in principle -- and, of course, as a means of dodging an on-the-record yes or no. (But for all intents and purposes, a "present" counts as a "no," because it does not count as a "yes" that would move the bill forward.)'
For the terminally clueless, PRESENT=NO. Obama voted in the correct way, just not using the word NO. He voted PRESENT for strategic reasons.
Ever since that hysterical ninny from NY NOW said that Teddy Kennedy had stabbed them in the back or whatever moronic comment they made, I realized that the NOW people had collectively become insane by the prospect of President Hillary. Actually, when I listen to Hillary, I do not hear this level of insane wackiness. Sen Clinton remains a sensible person that I respect.
It is her supporters that turn my stomach.
-
Huh??
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Then we do not have a problem at all. Nothing stops St. O. from going on Ophra along with the PP representatives and giving their side of the story. Why didn't they do it already?"
Well, if you respond to lies and distortions more than necessary, you give them legs. The lies, distortions, mischaracterizations, outright fabrications, and sheer stupidity of Obama's detractors on this issue have been dealt with adequately.
What has led to the need to lie so despicably about this issue, and lie about his politically-appropriate votes? what has led other deranged NOW people to call Teddy Kennedy an enemy?
What is it about Hillary that makes her supporters so repulsive?
-
Parental notification is another liberal loser argument
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Anyway, how is 'parental notification' an ugly argument of the pro-life side? A minor is considering one of the most harrowing, most life-altering medical procedures out there, with significant psychological and physical ramifications....and her parents should not know about this?"
Exactly. Why is it ugly? In fact, it is not ugly. It is mostly pretty sensible. It is extremely popular, possibly supported by 70-80 % of voters.
I am the parent of a 21 and 18 yr old female persons. If they had an abortion, I would need to know. I would need to know because even well-performed abortions have side effects. If there is a side-effect, my child would need to go to a gynecologist, not to her pediatrician, and not to a GP.
So often, a line is drawn for one reason or another. People say "If we cross that line, we have lost the issue." and they become inflexible. Parental choice is such an issue. It can be a camel's nose, yes. However, it can also be important. If my kid became injured and ill due to an unsafe abortion or to a normal side effect, I need to know.
And if there are kids with abusive situations, that's what judicial bypass is for.