www.rvoce.com

  • home
  • about
  • news
  • contribute
Home › Blogs › ringo's blog

let's actually compare records

ringo — Fri, 03/07/2008 - 23:49

While on my adventure in Kos land, I got to thinking.
People talk about Records a lot-- they say things like, Obama doesn't have much of a record and it's super duper liberal, or Hillary's succeeded in crafting a fairly moderate voting record over the years., or even, McCain's record, despite what they tell you, is rather conservative.

That kind of thing.

The other thing people (politicians mainly) say about records is that, if you would just look at my record, the whole world will be evident.

The fact is not many of us go out of our way to read up on the candidates voting history. So I decided to present the BHO and HRC records side by side here.

Keep in mind that missed votes often say volumes more than the voted votes. It's like McCain saying he's a social conservative when he's tried to avoid all the key social conservative votes -- the misses matter.

We'll start with Barack. He's missed something like 40% of his votes:

Here is the list of his missed votes. I got this from the Washington Post.

This is how he voted on key issues.

Now it's Hillary's turn. She's missed about 30% of her votes.
Her voting data on key issues is here.

The point was to compare the two, so let me give you some more numbers.

The first discrepancy arises on 7/26/07. Voting took place on a bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The bill was supported by both the D's and the R's. Hillary voted yea or aye ... Barack didn't vote.

Then on 6/11/07, a bill that would have made former Attorney General Gonzales official Senate-anathema came to the floor. The D's lacked 7 votes, according to the Washington Post.
Hillary voted with her party, Barack was busy that day.

7/29/05-- Hillary voted no on a bill that was supported by both parties. Obama voted with the majority.

3/10/05-- Hillary missed this one. Obama voted no on the bill that would've made it harder for people to eliminate debt by bankruptcy.

2/10/05-- Hillary voted no. Obama voted yes with Republicans on the bill that "sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts."

I still need to go back further, but so far there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two. Maybe that's why they keep playing identity politics, making ad hominem attacks, and picking apart each others words to the last modicum.

  • ringo's blog
  • Login or register to post comments

records?

grayglow — Sat, 03/08/2008 - 22:12

Records do matter but the reality is that unless the records are good and people agree with that record, who cares? If you have a good voting record, its only good for those who agree. If you don't agree then the record is a bad one. It's really quit simple, records only matter to those who agree. So why bother even keeping track of the records if the only people who are concerned with the records are those who are ultimately against what the record was all about in the first place?

Perhaps a better idea is to only track those records of when someone doesn't vote. As suggested above the real issue is what was not voted on and why? I would really like to know why Hillary, Barrack or McCain refused to vote on key issues and then judge them on that simple criteria and that criteria alone.

If they all voted like they were supposed to perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess that were in now? Do ya think?

  • Login or register to post comments

I agree *mostly*

ringo — Sat, 03/08/2008 - 23:22

A record can show determination and principle.
It is possible to disagree with a person while recognizing the sincerity of their conviction.
Furthermore, a very "blank" record-- that is, a record missing a large portion of your votes-- shows a decided lack of determination and responsibility. I don't agree with Clinton on most things. That same is true of Mr. Obama. But, I can see factually that Obama has missed a significant number of votes (percentage wise) more than Clinton. I think that says something, especially being a junior senator and all.

  • Login or register to post comments

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

Recent comments

  • interesting read(nt)
    22 weeks 4 days ago
  • Here's a link to the "wild-fire"
    23 weeks 3 days ago
  • photo link doesn't work. (nt)
    23 weeks 6 days ago
  • sad sad day for freedom.
    24 weeks 2 days ago
  • In fact, that's what I meant.
    24 weeks 2 days ago
  • i thought you meant hormonally
    24 weeks 2 days ago
  • Because it blends in breezes
    24 weeks 2 days ago
  • why are they imbalanced? (nt)
    24 weeks 2 days ago
  • March means imbalanced
    24 weeks 2 days ago
  • I agree *mostly*
    24 weeks 3 days ago

Search

Navigation

  • Recent posts
  • Feed aggregator

Recent Blogs

  • What will Democrats do when they wake up next to Barack?
  • Communitarianism and Libertarianism
  • Here is a photo for you Hilary Supporters.
  • McCain not so weak on the economy
  • Public education for homeschoolers
  • time for change
  • let's actually compare records
  • The Ides of March
more

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.

  • home
  • about
  • news
  • contribute