Regarding ‘Senator No-Show’
12 October 2007 12:51 am by Taylor Marsh
It’s clear that when I lay things out the way they are, an obstinate minority
of you actually believe reality isn’t as I cover it. Or you believe that it’s coming from bias or favoritism.
This is nothing new and I’ve said it before, but maybe it will help some
of you to read it again, this time from someone else. Via Garance
Franke-Ruta at Tapped.
It seems to me that if Obama thought the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution vote
was as important a line in the sand on a march to war with Iran as he is now
making it out to be, he could have taken the time to come back to Washington,
give a speech on the issue, and urge all his Democratic Senate colleagues
to vote no, too. And then he could have cast a vote himself.(snip)
Instead, he managed to be out of town on the day of the vote, and then did not issue a statement on it until 10 p.m. that evening. So much for “personal involvement” in stopping the U.S. from “being dragged into another war”!
(snip)
A third example: Just a few weeks ago, Obama managed to be absent from the
floor of the Senate when it came time to vote on a controversial resolution
to condemn MoveOn’s advertisement about Gen. Petraeus. Clinton and Dodd voted
against the measure; Obama issued a statement condemning the entire exercise
as distracting theatrics.All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would
have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote
on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. It is a harsh thing to suggest,
but his own campaign is now arguing that “we’re seeing history repeat
itself” when it comes to the power of a vote he decided to skip, and
his track record on missing controversial votes is increasingly disturbing.
U.S. Senators have a rare power — there are but 100 of them for a nation
of 300 million — and when they chose to use their voices but not their votes,
they are abdicating their duties as elected officials. If Obama really thinks
Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn’t
be bothered to say no.
As I’ve been saying for months, given his votes in the Senate and his behavior throughout the campaign there is no reason to assume Mr. Obama wouldn’t have voted along with Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and the rest on the Iraq war. He’s not distinguished himself once on Iraq while in the Senate, having the same record as Clinton. He skipped on the Cornyn vote. He also just recently, in the Dartmouth debate, refused to pledge to get troops out of Iraq before 2013, just like Clinton and Edwards. This latest action with Obama not only missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote, but not making a statement for hours afterwards, is puzzling. But that Obama also skipped the chance to call Clinton on it at the last debate, when Edwards made a point of doing so, seems even more troubling. It’s not enough to attack opponents when your own actions don’t pass the test.
Oh and by the way, if you think the title of this post is original, check out the URL to Garance’s post.
