Obama will be destroyed on his "present" vote on sex shops near schools by the repubs

[Herman Munster]

Absolutely. Destroyed. As in toast.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Right....

:rofl:

[Zueda]

25. Really...

Where was all this feigned anger back in February when this news was actually "BREAKING"?

[calteacherguy]

2. What are you referring to, specifically? nt

[Herman Munster]

4. check it out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-present-vote-ig_b_77713.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Based on this piece, I'd have to say that Taylor Marsh is a fuckin' moron

This reads like something from Concerned Women of America.

I'm with Obama on this one. It sounds like the first instance of political courage I have ever heard of from the guy.

__________________

...Can you imagine in your wildest dreams voting "present" on a bill that would prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship? This is not only unconscionable, but it shows the invertebrate nature of a politician who doesn't understand the first thing about the dangers of instruments of the sex industry in places where schools reside, something I know a lot about. In fact, most adult operators respect and go along with these restrictions. They get it, because they know what community backlash is like. How do I know this? Because in the past I've done investigative research into the sex industry and know more about it than virtually anyone else writing about politics on the web, which I've written about many times before.

The piece in the New York Times today has many troubling moments in it highlighting Obama's legislative record, which the press is finally, at long last, after months and months and months getting to, but the closer is a shocker.


Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.


Obama wanted to "avoid mandates on local authorities," so he basically ignored that putting sex shops near schools is nothing less than leaving kids vulnerable. Never mind that even the Supreme Court ruled in 1999, backing Rudy Giuliani's fight for antipornography zoning laws, against the ACLU and the adult industry in New York. Antipornography zoning is critically important to communities. Not standing up against putting sex-related shops near schools is the most reckless thing I've ever heard coming from a politician, let alone a presidential candidate. The community standard test has been around forever, with no community thinking stopping sex-related businesses from operating close to schools is anything but the right action. Giving a nod to expose children to all sorts of elements is just wrong. Even most in the adult industry realize it's a non starter with citizens, and we haven't even gotten into the church aspect. This renders me... absolutely stunned...

[mzmolly]

21. Political courage? I find it politically ignorant.

As a young girl I walked past strip clubs, quarter 'theatres' and adult book stores in order to get to work/school. I can't tell you how many times I was harrassed. I was actually chased once as a ten year old child as well.

In no way do I support his vote on this. Would HE want HIS children walking past this shit to get to school?

I'm with Marsh, !#@% stunned.

[Joe the Revelator]

41. I guess you hate freedom then

There is nothing in the constitution that would make that illegal.

[mzmolly]

44. Yes, that's it! /sarcasm - I support the FREEDOM of CHILDREN to walk to school

without being subjected to smarm. Further, I support the FREEDOM to enact common sense legislation with adequate zoning laws.

[KaptBunnyPants]

49. Yes, because without the Senate getting involved, it is completely impossible to zone a city.

That's why our schools are surrounded on all sides by liquor stores, gun stores, and strip clubs.

[mzmolly]

59. Yes, I'm certain that most owners of strip clubs and bars want to be placed

next to the local elementary school. :eyes:

The Senate did get involved, but that has nada to do with my point about the "Freedom" to legislate on these matters

[Clintonista2]

47. There's Mr.Wolsh sounding more and more like * every day

"If you don't agree with me then you must hate freedom!"

[Joe the Revelator]

68. Here's Lirwin, not getting sarcasum again

You must be a lot of fun in real life.

( You got the sarcasum this time, right?)

[Clintonista2]

69. You spell like a freeper

[Scriptor Ignotus]

52. the state senate should have ZERO to do with that

seriously. this is common sense, not pro-Obama.

[mzmolly]

61. This thread is not about whether or not the Senate should have been involved.

They were and Obama voted in an ingorant and irresponsible manner.

[Nailzberg]

63. The Senate was involved because my repuke state senator wrote this POS bill

And I'm glad the Dems defeated it. And then took back the general assembly the following year.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. Wouldn't it be more couragous to vote against the bill?

:shrug:

[Lurking Dem]

72. Not if it altered the percentage

and allowed the piece of shit to pass.

[calteacherguy]

14. Well, from what I read I really don't see a problem here.

Zoning laws should be left to local authorities. Also, Taylor Marsh is clearly on a crusade against Obama. I'd like to have the other side of the story.

[Nailzberg]

46. Agree, this is a local issue.

Obama clearly stated in his floor speech that he believed home rule jurisdictions are more than capable of handling zoning issues, and his vote was not about protecting pornography but about protecting home rule.

This bill was during the final throes of the IL GOP control of the state. Gov. George Ryan was being investigated, Douchebag Pate Phillips was Senate President, and bill after bill were introduced as a means of trapping dems on their votes, because the GOP knew this would likely be their last session in control unless they cooked something up. We had 30 years of Repubs before the Dems takeover in 2002. Thanks to a strategy Marsh calls cowardice.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. If that vote is a refusal to vote on an unconstitutional measure, I'll back him on it

[incapsulated]

11. That isn't an excuse or *we* would be hypocrites to say...

They should have voted against the patriot act or IWR.

You vote against bullshit if that is what you believe it is.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. I have a different standard for sex stuff

Congress passes facially unconstitutional sex laws every year almost unanimously, so a public abstinence is, in relative terms, fairly brave.

I don't know the particulars, but notice that the attack here is that Obama didn't vote FOR the bill. So he is being criticized from the other direction. He is not being criticized for taking the easy way out on a tough issue. He is being criticized for not following the herd on an "easy" issue.

So this seems to me to be a different category from most of the criticized "present" votes.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Obama himself said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"

Obama himself said "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up,"

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

[Pirate Smile]

16. It is. The guy was only teaching friggin Constitutional Law while he

was in the State Senate. He said voting Present was a way to signal to the Bill's people that you had some problems with the Bill but were willing to work with them on it.

[11cents]

20. If he thought it was unconstitutional, shouldn't he have voted against it?

[Pirate Smile]

26. It looks like they did it this way:

"Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. "

[CTLawGuy]

57. it doesn't matter

you're talking to a brick wall. Hilllary and her minions are looking for any straws to grasp at to attack Obama. The truth and context are irrelevant.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Then he becomes pro-porn in the kid zone

Don't you see the point of not playing the Republicans' game on these matters?

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. And be on record voting AGAINST restrictions on the sex industry

around schools and churches?

You think voting 'Present' causes problems?

[CTLawGuy]

56. he did

that's the effect of a present vote, same as a no vote.

[aquart]

28. What would that be, exactly?

In your wildest imagination?

[whistle]

5. Please provide link or give an explanation as I have no idea what you are referring to

[Nailzberg]

45. SB0609 from the 92nd assembly.

The basics of SB0609 are the Repubs wrote a bill creating "restrictions on the proximity of adult entertainment establishments to other adult entertainment establishments, schools, parks, places of worship, pre-schools, day care facilities, mobile home parks, or other residential areas." One of the bill's sponsors was my puke state senator. She sponsored a lot of these boneheaded trap bills and lost her seat.

In Obama's floor statement regarding this bill, he said expressed his disagreement to this bill in that it trumps home rule.

"I notice in my analysis that the City of Chicago is opposed as a consequence of the preemption for home rule. I suspect that other home rule jurisdictions are going to have similar problems. Oftentimes we talk about local control. This is one of those areas where nobody likes, necessarily, to have -- well, I don't say nobody, but most of us -- would prefer to not have an adult bookstore or movie theater or something next to our residence, but that's exactly why we have local zoning ordinances. And that's why, presumably, we have council members or heads of townships or all the various branches of local government who are much closer to the ground than we are in making these determinations. And it seems to me that if there's ever been a function that has historically been relegated to local control and is appropriately there, it's these kinds of zoning matters."


It required a 3/5 majority to pass, or 36 votes. It failed 33y-15n-5p. Four of the five present votes were made by attorneys. (Obama, Madigan, Petka, and Silverstein.)

[AlCzervik]

6. damn Herman you are relentless.

[SoxFan]

51. Oh, he's just performing a service, remember?

He wouldn't say anything about Obama's vote. He's just pointing out what the Republicans might say. Possibly. Hypothetically. Potentially. From a certain point of view.

[durrrty libby]

7. K for later

[MethuenProgressive]

link to Real Clear Politics on "The Ever-'Present' Obama"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

[mth44sc]

10. someone sure is scared

of comin' in third in Iowa

[MethuenProgressive]

12. I'll take third!

I think third is within reach in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

[mth44sc]

17. I admire your spirit! nt

[Renew Deal]

38. And the end of your campaign.

Enjoy :shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

53. A third place *ends* Richardson's campaign? Don't know much about politics, do you?

Stick around DU, you might learn something.

[Renew Deal]

67. Yes, ends as in over, bye bye, gone.

Stick around DU, you might learn something.

[aquart]

30. Does that make his "Present" vote on this bill more or less TRUE?

I mean, your response is basically putting your fingers in your ears and yelling Na na na!

[MethuenProgressive]

54. Strip joints and porn shops next door to kindergartens? Obama didn't oppose that?

As a parent, you'd think he'd care more about children.

[Lurking Dem]

55. Pathetic.

[MethuenProgressive]

58. I agree. He should have vote Yes or No and not pathetically dodged the issue.

[zulchzulu]

8. Yeah, if your name is Dwayne and yer fuckin' yer dawg in mammy's trailer...

...but ya see, hoss, Dwayne ain't beins' the type to vote anyways...

[maximusveritas]

9. You just made a case for why a "present" vote is neccessary

If he had voted "no", then no matter how good his explanation, they'd still say he voted against keeping sex shops away from schools. Now at least a reasonable person (read:not a Hillary partisan) can look at his "present" vote and realize there was probably something else to it. That the bill wasn't exactly what it advertised itself as.

[incapsulated]

18. It looks like political maneuvering and cowardice

As in: I'm against this but afraid to go on the record over it lest I get slammed.

Let's just call it what it is. He is running safe.

Doesn't explain the long list of other present votes, however.

[Pirate Smile]

33. Hardly "running safe". Doing that would be going along with everyone else to vote

for it even though you think it is unconstitutional in some aspect. He hardly was playing safe on this one.

[calteacherguy]

19. Given that zoning laws should be left to local authorities, voting "present" was correct.

As you say, voting "no" would send the wrong message, as would voting "yes."

Some legislation simply should not be brought to the floor, and deserves neither a yay nor a nay. Voting "present" is a statement in itself.

[madrchsod]

40. please don`t confuse them..

they have to remain in their world of ideal politics where everything is either black or white. so please do not confuse them with the shades of grey.

after watching the illinois state legislature for 40 some years, nothing and no one surprises me.

[aquart]

32. But you don't actually know that. It's an act of faith.

Like in a cult.

[jaysunb]

35. I've voted present many times

because it's usually something that stinks and is only being done to make the deliberative body appear to be doing something when they're just bullshitting the voters. :evilfrown:

I hope he answer the question this way, too.

[leftynyc]

50. If you think that explanation is going to fly

when presented during a general election, you're dreaming. All the ad is going to have to say is "Obama - putting your children at risk in support of sex shops". It practically writes itself and will have the pub rubes drooling.

[Nailzberg]

65. That reasonable person could find Obama's reasoning in the floor speech that day

In Obama's floor statement regarding this bill, he said expressed his disagreement to this bill in that it trumps home rule.

"I notice in my analysis that the City of Chicago is opposed as a consequence of the preemption for home rule. I suspect that other home rule jurisdictions are going to have similar problems. Oftentimes we talk about local control. This is one of those areas where nobody likes, necessarily, to have -- well, I don't say nobody, but most of us -- would prefer to not have an adult bookstore or movie theater or something next to our residence, but that's exactly why we have local zoning ordinances. And that's why, presumably, we have council members or heads of townships or all the various branches of local government who are much closer to the ground than we are in making these determinations. And it seems to me that if there's ever been a function that has historically been relegated to local control and is appropriately there, it's these kinds of zoning matters."

[frazzled]

22. Because we should always let the Republicans define the issues ...

especially on dumbfuck stuff like this.

I'd say, the people who voted FOR the war and are now criticizing it have a way larger chance of being screwed around by Republicans.

[aquart]

34. Except that so many Americans were for the war, and aren't now.

So when you criticize our mistaken, foolish, FOOLISH, and Republican media-shy legislators, you are also criticizing a good chunk of the population.

Which probably isn't brilliant.

But nice try at deflection. I give it a B.

[Zueda]

23. All this is old news you know?...nt

[jaysunb]

24. REALLY ?

And will he/we respond with Craig, Vitter, that Page perv ( can't remember his name) ?????? Will they take a chance on bringing up "moral" issues ? Really ? Rudy dressed in drag w/ his messy divorces ?

I don't need to continue. No stone will be left unturned.

This is a " change " election, and that includes how we respond to what Mitt, and Rudy might say....:evilfrown:

[rucky]

31. What are we going to do tomorrow, brain?

[Fried Bread]

36. nope

nice try

[BenDavid]

37. Obama will not have to worry bout repubs, not get that far....

[madrchsod]

39. taylor-i hate obama-marsh does`t know shit about state politics

course what would one expect from a "hillary is 44" contributor...

[Joe the Revelator]

42. Taylor Marsh is a complete joke

I can't take anything she says seriously

[KaptBunnyPants]

48. Is the Senate reallly the place to decide zoning issues?

These kinds of decisions need to be made by the cities which they affect. A city is fully capable of controlling where the businesses within their limits are located; why should the federal government be involved at all?

[CyberPieHole]

60. Obamanites don't believe his record will be brought up...if the repugs bring it up...

they will cry, shriek and scream. Obama is untouchable, don't you know.:evilgrin:

:kick: and recommend

[LanternWaste]

62. Well, you've indeed presented a most in-depth analysis of the situation...

Well, you've indeed presented a most in-depth analysis of the situation. Almost as in-depth as Limbaugh does on his show. You've presented us with all the pertinent facts, numerous sources and even a handful of learned scholars to back up your thesis.

Bravo, sir. Bravo indeed. For how can one rebut an argument with both the incredible breadth and staggering depth of what you have given us.

[Alexander]

64. Black-and-white thinking is so...Bush-lite.

Ironic, coming from supporters of a candidate whose husband championed the "Third Way". :eyes:

[Forkboy]

66. When do you guys break out the Willie Horton ads?

[ripple]

71. Yep, that's so much more important than authorizing a war

Is that seriously all you've got? Desperate times, my friend. :rofl: