Reassuring Conservative Obama Supporters

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sully caught some dissent for his Obama support:

You write that Obama is "a pragmatic liberal," that "his judgments in the past have been largely practical and reasonable," and that he is neither "an ideologue" nor "an excessive partisan." And I, too, really want to believe this. But then I always come back to the John Roberts vote. . . . [H]e received "Yea" votes from both "pragmatic" Democrats like Lieberman, Jeffords, and Dodd, as well as principled liberals like Leahy, Feingold, Levin, and Kohl. Only the rank partisans cast "no" votes, and Obama was in that camp.

Not to worry:

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds. And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

See? Obama did not really want to vote against Roberts. He was just pandering. Not a problem.

< Blumenthal Charged With DUI in New Hampshire | CA Appeals Court Invalidates Warrantless Entry and Arrest for Pot Smoking >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Reassuring Conservative Obama Supporters | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Stop Trashing Obama (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by AdrianLesher on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM EST

This blog (especially in those posts written by "Bigtent Democrat", whose tent doesn't seem so big much of the time) gives a blind eye to Hillary Clinton's faults on criminal justice issues while trashing Obama at every turn.

Remember it was Bill Clinton who eviscerated habeas corpus.

Remember Hillary has gone after Obama for being "too liberal" on criminal justice issues. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/hillary-hits-obama-for-op_n_79918.html

As even Jeralyn has noted, Hillary opposes retroactive reduced sentences for federal crack offenders. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/3/123415/803

And, as noted by In These Times during the New York primary: "[m]ost New York Democratic voters also don't realize that she co-sponsored an amendment to ban flag-burning, is against marriage equality for gays and lesbians, supports the death penalty, votes consistently for Star Wars appropriations and has served on the board of
Wal-Mart for six years." http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2778/

Interestingly, Drudge had reported that Hillary was originally going to vote for Roberts, though that article has been scrubbed. http://web.archive.org/web/20070208013156/http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3hcr.htm

Show some objectivity with Obama. If you were going after Hillary the way you are after him, you'd have bloodies her a lot more.

: My response (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM EST

I never post the same comment on two threads, but since this just came up on another thread, I don't want it to go unanswered. If you have already read this, feel free to ignore.
I am the last person who would defend Bill Clinton's presidency on crime issues. I have bashed it for the past 13 years, since I started writing about it.
Nor am I praising Hillary or Edwards on crime issues. I'm pointing out Obama's inconsistencies and that it is a misperception that he is any better on these issues than Hillary or Edwards. Hillary was not in a state legislature, but she was an early endorser of the original Innocence Protection Act, the good one, not just the faux one that ended up passing Congress. She did not bash Obama over his mandatory minimum position, and she has urged reforms on them as well. That one newsbite from an unnamed campaign aide has never been verified or repeated or endorsed by Clinton. It would also be contrary to her most recent pronouncements on the need to revise mandatory minimums.
As to retroactivity, she did say she had problems with it in principle, and I criticized her for that. But it wasn't a vote and and it wasn't a firm statement of opposition and I believe that once she was fully informed about it, which she wasn't at the time she was asked, she might be persuaded to take a different view.
And, like Obama, Hillary has stressed the need for increased rehabilitation efforts to successfully re-integrate offenders. She and Bill support restoring the right to vote to ex-offenders. Eventually I will get around to writing about Hillary's full record on crime. But, I can tell you now it doesn't have the flip-flopping that Obama's does which is what makes it so difficult to trust him.
For me, it's a "devil you know is better than the devil you don't" on crime issues. And on other issues, such as her support of children's and women's rights and health care, she's got a very strong and clear record.

: If I ever run for public office, I plan to request (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:53:03 PM EST

BTD NOT support me!

: in the future (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:38:45 PM EST

please put your links in html format because long ones skew the site. Then I have to delete the entire comment as the blog platform, Scoop, does not allow editing of comments.

so worketh selective editing (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by lordhungus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST

for those more interested, i would suggest you read this:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/

placing a question of someone's past alongside a very skewed answer is proof of nothing, lest you consider it supportive of the author's own beliefs.

besides, isn't this a blog called "talk left" discussing someone who did NOT vote for john roberts? if memory serves, his hearing was notorious for non-committals and non-answers of gonzales proportions. the dems who gave him the pass were raked for their capitulation. and what has roberts record been since then?

gimme a break.

Oh, and (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:59:13 PM EST

the curious almost-endorsement from the Republican Governor of SC.

whoa (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST

a racial appeal FOR Obama.


I actually don't disagree with him (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM EST

But I can't understand why he said it. Clinton hate? Does he want some black support for his reelection campaign?


: Republican gaming Dem. primary? (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST

What's the main point here? (none / 0) (#5)
by koshembos on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST

So, (none / 0) (#10)
by DA in LA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST

He was one of the few who voted no, but he didn't vote no for the right reasons.

Okay...

A Politician Panders to His Base? (none / 0) (#11)
by BDB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST

Heavens.

This honestly doesn't bother me nearly as much as the big middle finger he's so often given his base since the primary began. I have no problems with politicians who vote their base because it's their base. Indeed, I think that's the best way that I, as part of the democratic base, can keep them honest. I don't care if they agree with me, so long as they vote my way, frankly.

Obama's present votes and some of the other position changes (his disavowal of the 1996 questionaire, for example) nag at me much more because I'm not sure he can be counted on to pander to his base. And I use the word nag because that's what it is, not a reason to reject him, but more a nagging worry that I don't really know this guy.

It's kind of like the Rezko stuff. I do not believe Obama is corrupt. Not even a little bit. But the judgement surrounding his relationship with Rezko wasn't very good on his behalf and how it could be used against him in a general bugs me. Not because I think it makes him unelectable, but because it's an unknown and unknowns worry me against the GOP slime machine.

I'm very glad Clinton won NH and not just because I'm a Clinton supporter. I feel like a longer primary season will answer a lot of questions about Obama and, if after that, he emerges as the nominee, I'll feel much better about it. The rush to anoint him was dangerous. And, yes, I thought the same thing about Clinton. I don't think she needs to be vetted, but before NH she had been having a terrible time getting her message out in a way that connected with voters and that can also be deadly in a GE.

I first learned about Resko's assistance (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:46:58 PM EST

to Obama yesterday. Not good. Bad judgement on Obama's part and too close to Cunningham's situation for comfort. Haven't actually seen any discussion of this mess here though.


It is nothing like the Duke Cunningham situation. (none / 0) (#15)
by Geekesque on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:09:58 PM EST

Nothing.

He was cleared of any wrongdoing months ago.


If you have a definitive link to that (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM EST

effect, please provide. Thanks.


Media Matters (none / 0) (#18)
by Geekesque on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:40:30 PM EST

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150014

There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the indicted fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior (though that might have been just a matter of time). Obama hasn't tried to change his story, even though Rezko is now talking to investigators.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706140007

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061407.shtml

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9406.html


: This Chicago Tribune columnist (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM EST

isn't quite convinced, but, where is Mike Royko when we need him?
CHIC.TRIB.

: Re "neighborly behavior": (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:16:50 PM EST

Doesn't sound like Obama family and Rezko family were ever neighbors, although Ms. Rezko bought the empty lot on the same date the Obama's purchased teh neighboring residence and the Obama's subsequently purchased 1/6 of the empty lot for an appropriate price from Ms. Rezko.

: urls must be in html format (none / 0) (#27)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:23:24 AM EST

or they skew the site and the comment will be deleted. Use the link button at the top of the comment box.

It is a BS issue (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST

I will not give it any prominence.

Can't speak for J though.


I wrote about Rezko in 2006 (none / 0) (#20)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST

here and pointed out no one said Obama did anything wrong.

I still think Rezko should be a non-issue.


: Barack Obama stated it was poor (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:20:15 PM EST

judgment on his part. Trial of Rezko (unrelated to these property transactions) starts in Feb. 08, as the court recently denied a motion to continue by defense counsel. One of the "hits" I got googling news of Rezko was Free Republic. Stay tuned.

: I Agree (none / 0) (#24)
by BDB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 09:56:58 PM EST

that's it's a non-issue as far as corruption goes. From what I can see there's nothing there. Of course, the Republicans shut down the Clinton administration for years over Whitewater, so just because there's no there there doesn't mean it won't be a mess for Obama. OTOH, surely Dems have learned to fight back against Republican smear campaigns. Right? Right? Bueller?
Seriously, so far the only thing I that's at all relevant about the Rezko thing is judgement, not corruption. Obama was right it was a boneheaded thing to do. I do give him credit for admitting that. Too often, politicians are like "I did nothing wrong" when that may be technically true, but what they did is still stupid. I like to believe that politicians who admit mistakes are smart enough not to repeat them.

Newt Gingrich LOVES the new Hillary :-) (none / 0) (#13)
by Aaron on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST

If I may interrupt the Obama bashing for a moment.

Newt: Hillary shows courage, integrity

Yes, a ringing endorsement of Hillary's integrity and openness coming from that tower of progressive truth, Newt Gingrich. I guess Gingrich knows that even if Hillary Clinton wins the election, his side doesn't really lose.

So who's the real tried-and-true vetted darling for the establishment?

Next we'll see Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon rising from the grave to endorse Hillary.

: This must make you quite happy. (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST

Ot Aaron (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:04:37 PM EST

Deleted.