Obama's 'Present' Vote Ignored Dangers of Sex Shops Near Schools

by Taylor Marsh

I'm getting quite a lot of heat these days for my posts on Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don't care because when a man running for office hasn't been vetted by the media or our own party, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. I talked about the "live birth abortion" and Obama's "present" vote, over which no doubt the wingnuts are salivating. For some reason, people seem to think that Mr. Obama's legislative career doesn't matter; that he deserves a pass on it. Do you think Republicans will give him a pass? There are a lot of Obama fans that just don't seem to get how this works. Ask John Edwards, he knows. Hillary's been through this for fifteen years. It's going to be a meat grinder next year, no matter who our nominee is, but when you serve up beauties with "present" votes it makes it an even bigger target.

Besides, Obama is continually talking about Clinton being a "triangulator," as do many of the Hillary haters. People talking about her calculations. I don't agree with all of her votes, especially on some foreign policy matters, particularly her Iraq war vote, but also Kyl-Lieberman. But when she's pushed she votes and puts herself on the line. She never votes "present" when it matters. When pushed at YearlyKos on lobbyists she could have pandered. She didn't. She also took the heat, including boos. She didn't back down over Kyl-Lieberman either, even though it cost her in grumbling. It's what she believes, with Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson backing her. Larry Johnson told me on the radio the argument was a silly one.

Obama got a pass when going after her on Kyl-Lieberman, even though he voted for similar legislation earlier in the year, but more importantly, skipped the vote that would have put him on the record. He also has the exact same votes as Clinton on Iraq, and when Senators Kerry and Feingold offered legislation on the floor to redeploy, Mr. Obama made a speech against it. Not to mention that he never held a hearing on his own foreign relations subcommittee. He also skipped the MoveOn.org vote too. How convenient it is just not to show up and be counted. It's a lot easier. But it's not more principled, no matter your excuse. It's triangulating. It is also quite calculating. Because what better way to hit your opponent than to duck a tough vote where she was counted, and you'd been counted months earlier, then rail against her because no one is paying attention to the facts.

But it seems people are starting to wonder about Mr. Obama's voting past.

Now we come to something I know a lot about, which incensed me today more than most times I read about Mr. Obama's wiggling out of taking a strong stand on things that matter.

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.

Judgment? Calling judgment? Anywhere? Yo, leadership.

I can't wait to hear the Republicans go after this one in the general election, can you? On top of the "live birth abortion" record, Obama's banning handgun nonsense, well, it will be quite a party for the wingnuts. It's giving me indigestion just thinking about it.

Hey, but for a man who thinks it would be a good idea to put Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his cabinet, never mind Ah-nold's "style over substance" reality, nothing surprises me anymore. Read Paul Rosenberg.

The insanity from the amateur hour campaign of Mr. Hope never stops.

Comments

[cloudy]

To summarize this comment: "Here, ladies & gentleman, is an example of the kind of sleazy, everything­-in-the-ki­tchen-sink­, unargued, issue-avoiding claptrap that you all should beware of the Republicans using in the General Election against Obama. This porno shop issue is the perfect venue for demagogy -- here, let me show you how ...."

I would note that this formula has been used in other hit jobs against Barack Obama, including the Bill Shaheen & other unfortunate messes that the campaign's distanced itself from, sometimes with signs & with wonders, & various resignations just to keep it on the level.

Now, this column brings in a HUGE number of unexplained issues that are assumed to have particular implications that Marsh never argues. One example -- that Obama was out campaigning, based apparently on erroneous information, when the Kyl-Lieberman resolution (which passed anyway with over 70 senate votes) was voted on, has been admitted as a 'mistake' on Obama's part. Given these particulars of the issue, Obama's admission of error was pretty generous, but the kind of condemnation Marsh builds upon it is at the very least disingenuous.

Now as to the primary focus of this particular column ...

[1will]

Hey, Easy on Obama!!! He's running on 'Hope' after all. Oh and don't forget he's going to fund his health care plan with savings due to government efficiency.
Hahahahahahaha!
(Breath)
Hahahahahahaha!

[klondiker]

With all that has emerged during the last few weeks about Barack - not having gone to Europe, not having called a policy meeting of his subcommittee, having voted present nearly 130 times - I'm forced to think that Mr. Obama is simply not ready to be president.

Similarly, with all that Hillary's been up to the last few weeks, I feel that she's not ready for the job either. She's been bitter, negative, and Rove-like, in her attacks.

We need to break out of this false "Hillary or Obama" choice the media has foisted on us.

It's time to take a good look at Joe Biden and Bill Richardson.

[Researchguy66]

Ahem, again, voting present allows other more vulnerable party members to express a positive or negative vote without being responsible for passing it or derailing it.

It's a complicated explanation, which is why his campaign makes up stupid answers like the one above.

Voting present is essentially voting with the majority, i.e. falling beside (not on) your sword for your more vulnerable comrades.

Politics is a wacky game.

[savertime]

I propose that the voting records of all the candidates be opened to the public. I think that Hillary would be the first to oppose this exposure just as she declines to expose her documents from the Clinton Administration and just as her campaign fears exposure of secret service records. Hillary should be careful
throwing stones while living in a glass house.

Harry Reid stated that he was NOT going to bring the Kyl-Lieberman bill to to floor of the Senate. So Obama left to campaign in New Hampshire. The next day, Reid changed his mind (or had his mind changed for him) and brought the bill to the floor. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and therefore paid not attention to the claims that this was deliberate, since Reid's son works on the Clinton campaign. But, since the vote, Clinton's supporters have routinely made an issue of Obama's missed vote, while Clinton once again voted to give Bush authorization.

The politics of personal destruction coming from the Clinton campaign is disappointing and ironic. Making the claim that Obama is a muslim is fear-mongering. God knows we've had enough fear-mongering from the current adminstration to last an eternity. We don't need another administration that considers this an acceptable tactic. a) it is inaccurate; Obama is a Christian b) it denigrates the Muslim American community; being muslim is not a negative and they are not bad people to be feared. c) it is fear-mongering!!

Clinton needs to apologize to Obama, to Muslim Americans and to all Americans who do not believe in denigrating and persecuting other religions.

[andygaus]

Micromanagement of decency at the federal level is exactly what we don't need. Pious Republicans think we need a federal gay-marriage amendment because some states aren't prohibiting gay marriage the way those Republicans think they ought to. Ms. Marsh thinks we need a federal law to pre-empt the rights of any community that hasn't responded exactly the way she advocates.

[ebbtide]

Ms. Marsh

This is what I do not like about the Hillary campaign. Your title implies that Obama is somehow mixed up in sex scandals. Hillary and Bill, please contain your writers, like Ms Marsh. She does your campaign absolutely no good and just turns people off.

Answer me this Marsh

Hillary , in person, not a present vote, but in person, voted for the war in Iraq. No denial, no fancy headline accusing her of allowing women in Iraq to be raped, killed, and have their children brutally murdered.

SHE VOTED FOR IT.

That statement is enough .

[ljsfolly]

This writer must love clinton for she isn't there to vote present a lot it seems. But I do agree with one piece for all who are elected to congress, if they were elected unless they have a damn good reason their butt should be there to at least vote present. The very idea they should get a pass for all voting because they are on the trail to be elected to something else really gets me. I think the first obligation is to those who voted them into the first job/elected office and not out trying to get the next job. If we worked in the everyday workplace like that our butt would be canned. To go in only for the polictical votes which they might be judged on is also a joke. Let's fire up 5-6 jets and rush to vote then rush back again. Waste of our limited energy and another blow to climate for a vote.... something basic wrong here.

[drblack]

I remember in Paris France how all the news stands had magazines with naked people on the cover displayed.
So are you saying the French are child abusers?

[drblack]

Hillary and Barack couldn't stand up with Senator Dodd and protect us from a Soviet style Spy bill with the Orwellian name of "Protect America(by spying on American's without oversight)Act".
Obama at least made a weak statement about it while Hillary Clinton said nothing. Bill Clinton and Hillary would have been moderate republicans before Reagan.
I would NEVER trust someone as sold out to big money as Clinton, though Obama is somewhat of a question mark in many areas he would still be better than Rupert Murdoch supported Hillary.
Kucinich is by far the best Progressive candidate and it is sad that the traditional media and the sold out Democrats spend so much time making light of this excellent candidate and man of constant integrity.

[bbln]

If he had been in the U.S. Senate to vote on the Iraq Resolution - would he have voted Present there too...?

This seems to be a guy who waits and sees where the politically favorable wind blows and then conveniently goes in that direction.

[bbln]

He voted present 130 times...from the NY Times article today that Taylor Marsh links to:

"In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."

Gawd, finally, will people stop talking about Clinton and just talk about Obama (not relative to Clinton). Don't we all deserve to know who we're hoping to be the President?

[Night]

Another reason Not to vote for Hillary is because of people like this author auditioning to be her Ann Coulter.

To the 'Great post Taylor' crew, be very careful enabling this monster in the making.

[meese]

Once again, the issue here is not the "present" vote - that's a distraction waved in the faces of voters to try to get them not to focus on what the vote was about:

It ultimately was about banning something at the state level that has always been handled on the county or city level. Sure, I agree that we want to protect kids from that sort of stuff. But that's why we have federal, state, and local governments, so they can determine what is best for their community.

By the reasoning of this article, we should have the federal government setting "decency" standards that are the same for every city from New York City to Omaha. I'd guess that people who live in those cities probably won't agree on what that standard should be.

Obama voted "present" to convince other Democrats (who were in vulnerable districts) to vote "present" and thereby defeat a Republican measure.

[Querent]

I notice that nobody, but NOBODY has mentioned Taylor's accusation yesterday that Obama voted "Present" on a bill to prohibit the killing or death by neglect of a live fetus resulting from an abortion.

Want to see every Repig in the country at the polls next fall, frothing at the mouth? Wait til they start on this one.

And I actually think that is a vote I could not have brought myself to make. It makes me wonder what Obama actually has inside.