October 25, 2008

HOPE ON Project, Day 6: Let’s Never Find Out Part 6 — ‘The Chicken Button,’ and the Chicken Who Has Pushed It

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:10 am

HOPEONlogo.jpgNote: This is the sixth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (“Energy”); Part 3 (“Punished”); Part 4 (“Number One”); Part 5 (“Earmarks”).

The daily videos involved are from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring (donation link is here).

This post is part of the HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now).

Today’s SOB Alliance author is Maggie Thurber at Thurber’s Thoughts. Update: Additional SOB Alliance posters (surely not a complete list) — Return of the Conservatives, RightRunner, NixGuy, Buckeye RINO, Interested-Participant.


Video (direct YouTube link; also, added on October 26 on the right, a vid called “Present“):


Chicken Button

MAN: Senator Obama, you tell us you’re ready to lead America? Why didn’t you choose to lead Illinois? Do you remember the three buttons that were in front of you in the Senate? The green button for Yes, the red button for No, and the one you used one hundred and twenty nine times: the “Chicken Button”. Why, Senator, were you so consistently afraid to take a stand?

ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a Senator who loves the Chicken Button? Please, America, let’s never find out.


Maggie Thurber’sCommentary:

Shouldn’t a leader be willing to actually lead?

During his speech announcing his run for president, Obama said:

“What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics – the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions,”

That’s what he said. What he did is a bit different. According to the New York Times, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ 130 times.

“An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.”

Interestingly, many of the votes were politically sensitive. At times, Obama was the only lawmaker voting “present” on bills winning near unanimous support, even on issues he supported and on one he actually sponsored.

His record shows a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices – on votes that reflect the officeholder’s core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted “present” on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted “present” on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted “present” on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the “born alive” bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote “present” on the bills instead of “no.”

And finally in 2001, Obama voted “present” on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass. (source)

Obama and his campaign defend the ‘present’ votes as being due to concerns about certain provisions of the bill or questions about constitutionality. But a ‘no’ vote would have worked just as well – except it wouldn’t have given him political cover.

In the White House, there isn’t a yellow button, but there is something similar. A president can decide to do nothing, but that’s not leadership and such lack of decisiveness can result in disastrous consequences. This is not something I want to risk, so let’s never find out.


Additional BizzyBlog Comments:

Obama’s use of the “Chicken Button” as a legislator is consistent with much of his conduct as a candidate during the campaign.

After Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with him in a primary debate (it was in April, I believe in Pennsylvania) — the only one where the press (Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulos) actually did something resembling its job in asking questions that should have been asked over a year ago about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, pro-Palestinian extremist sympathizers who have supported Obama, etc. — that was the end of any and all primary debates. That’s because he was afraid (i.e., “chicken”) that these topics, which he had thought would not be raised by Democrats and the media, no longer were off-limits (BTW, I also think Hillary’s raising these matters, including Wright’s church bulletins, in that debate ensured that she would not be chosen as Obama’s VP). To this day, he still has no credible answers.

The list of things Obama won’t let us see, because he’s afraid (i.e., “chicken”) to face up to what might be in them, is very long — college transcripts, college dissertation, Illinois Senate records, etc., etc. Newsmax notes that “the press has largely acquiesced to Obama’s stonewalling.”

Sean Hannity made a great point on the air yesterday — Obama has publicly criticized him at least a half-dozen times, but won’t be interviewed on the fair and balanced, one-lefty, one-righty Hannity and Colmes, because he won’t say to Hannity’s face what he said about him elsewhere. That’s because he’s “chicken” — If he can’t face a talk-show host, how will he handle it when he has to face up to real and hostile enemies, of whom we have no shortage?

Obama’s wife Michelle has played the “chicken” game too. When she appeared on “The View” earlier this year, the show’s hosts were given a list of off-limits topics. Cindy McCain submitted no such list for her appearances.

The promises Obama has made to run a transparent administration ring very hollow when the example Team Obama has set during the campaign has run in the completely opposite direction. “Obambi” is too much of a “chicken” to face up to implications and consequences of transparency.


No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.