Politico falsehood: Obama never sponsored "any legislation that would affect the way Americans live their daily lives"
In a February 12 article in The Politico on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) "peevish" comments "accus[ing] the media of ignoring his substantive record and falsely depicting him as a lightweight," senior political writer Ben Smith claimed that Obama "hasn't sponsored any legislation that would affect the way Americans live their daily lives." Yet, as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama was the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions introduced in the last Congress. These included bills to create a federal standard for renewable diesel fuel (S.1426), to improve benefits and services for members of the armed forces and veterans (S.3988), and to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines for tracking spent fuel rods (S.1194).
Obama has also introduced a number of bills in the 110th Congress, which convened on January 4. Among the bills Obama has recently introduced, one would "improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans." Obama introduced another bill "[t]o promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the rise of alternative fuels and new technology." Further, on January 30, Obama introduced a bill (the official text of which is not yet available) that, according to Obama's January 30 Senate floor speech on the bill, would "cap[] the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007 -- the day the President gave his 'surge speech' to the nation" and would require the process of troop withdrawal from Iraq to begin on May 1 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
Smith did not note that between the time Obama took office and January 4, the Republican Party was the majority party in the Senate and thus controlled the legislative agenda. In such a situation, the oportunities for a bill sponsored by a member of the minority party to see legislative action are particularly limited.
MMFA!!! I have warned you before....STOP USING FACTS TO UNDERMINE MY BELIEFS.....it hurts....thank you...
The facts are clearly biased.
Besides, where is someone supposed to look up something like this? Journalism is hard. It's not like The Congress, you know, records stuff. In like, a book. Such a "congressional record", if you will, would take way too much time to write.
I tried to use a copy of The Politico to wrap dead fish. The fish complained about the smell.
What's with the Politic-ho lying so much the last couple of weeks...?
They're still pretty new. Expect them to lie many more times in the future.
Strategy
That is what consevatives call "Building up a subscriber base".
Actually I think The Politico is right.
Only 152 pieces of legislation? And I mean who cares about Renewable diesel fuel, benefits and services for members of the armed forces and veterans, and guidlines for tracking spent fuel rods.
If he really cared, he would be working hard to ban gay marriage and pass unfunded mandates (Every Child Left Behind).
BTW I'm just joking
Well...
At least Obama never voted to send troops to Iraq. Seriously, Obama's got a pretty decent record, from what I can tell, for a young Senator... and he has usually been on the correct side of the issues, in my opinion. Nevertheless, and with all due respect to Obama, the biggest lesson I've drawn from the Bush presidency is how dangerous it can be at this moment in history to elect a president with little (or none, as in the case of Bush) foreign policy experience. I know there are exceptions... but right now I'd prefer to see someone with a clearly developed world view and some experience in dealing with foreign policy matters. A priority of gettting us out of Iraq is a great starter... but it's a no-brainer. Next election I certainly would want to know if a candidate is flirting with particular long-term foreign policy theories or views... as apparently Bush was doing with the neoconservatives who called for world dominance through pre-emptive military actions.
Actually Irony, I have heard a couple of people mention something interesting in the past few weeks that may be true, who nows?
Because Obama has now begun talking about Health Care (one of Hillary's favs), he is not really looking to run as President, but Vice-President.
Maybe true, maybe not
The Politico writer is probably thinking more along the lines of a Senate bill that would make income spent on Internet porn tax-deductible.
"hasn't sponsored any legislation that would affect the way Americans live their daily lives."
So when Ben Smith uses the term "Americans" he must mean: 'Corporate/Oil/Military Interests as well as anyone who makes over $200k annually and votes Republican."
..Ya know.. the "Real" Americans.
Obama "hasn't sponsored any legislation that would affect the way Americans live their daily lives."
MMFA - If you want to get Obama Elected in the Democratic Primary, maybe this article makes sense.
However, many Right of center people/ libertarians like myself, may consider voting for Obama if we know he won't "do too much."
I, as a libertarian, would be happy to vote for someone who hasn't affected my daily life.
"I, as a libertarian, would be happy to vote for someone who hasn't affected my daily life."
-----
Right. What a truckload of crap.
L, I personally guarantee you that if you elect Obama president he will not sponsor any legislation that will affect your daily life.