Newsday's Thrush hyped Obama's missed Senate votes, despite significantly higher Republican absenteeism
In a September 24 Newsday article about presidential candidates missing Senate votes, reporter Glenn Thrush focused almost entirely on the record of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), despite Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) having missed more than twice as many votes as Obama. Specifically, Thrush reported that Obama has missed 23.7 percent of the votes held in the Senate so far this congressional session, while McCain has missed 49.4 percent of Senate votes. And, yet, the focus of the article -- which bears the headline "Obama misses more senate votes than Clinton" -- was not McCain's voting record, but Obama's, in comparison with that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). In the 638-word article, in addition to a list of the voting records of the presidential candidates in the Senate, Thrush devoted a total of 18 words to McCain's record, writing: "Republican John McCain is the top truant of the 2008 presidential field, with a 50 percent no-show rate."
The article's original headline, which appears in the Nexis database, was "A no-vote from Obama; Busy campaigning, presidential candidate has missed 23.7 percent of votes, three times as many as rival Clinton."
From Thrush's September 24 article:
Barack Obama won't win any Senate attendance awards during the 2008 presidential campaign -- he has racked up three times as many missed votes as challenger Hillary Clinton since January, according to roll call records.
Obama's most recent no-show happened Thursday on Capitol Hill when he skipped a vote on the controversial Republican-sponsored amendment to reprimand MoveOn.org for attacking Gen. David Petraeus, saying it was a "stunt" to embarrass Democrats.
But that was hardly the first vote the Illinois freshman sat out: He's missed 23.7 percent of his votes, according to vote-tracking databases. The issues he did not cast ballots on ranged from the symbolic to the significant, and included measures on abortion, homeland security, bridge safety, foreign aid, the alternative minimum tax and a failed no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in June.
Obama has been absent for 82 of his chamber's 346 votes during the current two-year session, a measure of how much time he's been spending in the crucial campaign states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.
[...]
New York-based Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said Obama's vote-missing is a measure of his desperation to challenge Clinton but will only become an issue if he cuts into her lead. "It's always a balancing act for these candidates to decide which votes to skip," he says. " ... It depends on the value of the vote and the constituency it serves."
Republican John McCain is the top truant of the 2008 presidential field, with a 50 percent no-show rate.
Thrush also provided the absentee rates for all the senators running for president.
From Thrush's September 24 article:
The U.S. Senate has held 346 votes so far this season. Here's how often senators who are presidential candidates were absent during these votes.
DEMOCRATS
Joseph Binden [sic] (D-Del.)
28.6%
Votes missed: 99
Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
27.7%
Votes missed: 96
Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
23.7 %
Votes missed: 82
Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
8.1%
Votes missed: 28
REPUBLICANS
John McCain (R-Ariz.)
49.4 %
Votes missed: 171
Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
36.1%
Votes missed: 125
The difference is that it's completely consistent for Repubs to not show up, as most of them run on a "smaller government" platform.
Sure, they could show up, and just not do anything, or at least not do anything competently, as a symbolic display of non-government, but I think it sends a much stronger message of principle to actually, physically not even show up.
Surprise, surprise.
When your platform dictates that government is always bad and can never help people, you had better do your best to prove it after you're elected.
This is why Senators are not good Presidential Candidates.
With apparently the exception to the rule being Hillary.
No, they are forced to take stands and they get called out on them. Which is why we have historically elected governors in the past 30 years.
And we all know how that's worked out.
Horribly. Except for Clinton.
Well I will give you Carter was awful, but Clinton was not that bad. Aren't you being a little harsh Worrier?
:)
When expressed in terms of economic damage to this country through runaway spending and excessive tax cuts for the wealthy, the two worst ex-governors ever to occupy the White House were Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It becomes so easy to demogogue a Senator. The simplistic attacks. Its easy to portray them as flip flopping no matter how consistant they are since votes are complicated things. You can be a staunch advocate of something and the bill advocating it can be so bad you end up voting against it and its so easy to make it look like you have no convictions. Its easy that is if you have no ethical compunctions and in todays politics there arent many of those left
Seems to me the article's focus is the Democratic candidates as evidenced by the headline - comparing the two frontrunners. There is nothing to indicate that this article is on all the presidential candidates as MMFA says, where did that come from? The headline clearly spells out the author's intentions. He does mention the Republican candidates but as more of a footnote.
I know you don't like these kinds of things being put out about Democrats, but hey, it happens. I am sure there is already. or will be, plenty of coverage of the Republicans as well.
There's no reason to single the Democratic candidates out.
That's why this is information.
If the issue is the number of votes missed, there's a Republican candidate who's worse. There's no reason to single out the Democrats.
Are authors not allowed to write any articles on Democrats without mentioning Republicans too?
This is new.
Noting one side's inconsistencies without noting precisely the same (or worse) inconsistencies on the other side is poor, lazy, and misinformative reporting.
And, yes, it is to be discouraged.
Hey folks why should anyone be concerned about this? As Tommy puts it so eloquently, "Hey, it happens." Can't argue with that.
Maybe it's not OK for Obama because he's not as much of a Maverick as McCain? Maybe if he was such a straight shootin Maverick as John McCain he could think about missing so many votes.
This is one of the reasons that it's hard for Senators to become president. If you look at their vote history, you can always find something with which to beat them up. They're constantly making compromises, voting for things they don't really support out of political expediency, knowing that it won't pass or isn't important, etc.
I think since the article's main point was to compare the two front-runners of the Dem party, and the fact that the article did name McCain "the top truant", there's no push for "misinformation" here.
Good for Hillary. Anyone know the average count of missed votes for a Senator? I bet it's not much lower than Clinton's...1/3 are running for office each year.
Newsday's Glenn Thrush writes a lot about Hillary Clinton. He also writes a lot about liberal causes. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-thrush-gallery,0,2878.storygallery
I'm surprised MMFA didn't note this in the body of the article.
Also, I believe MMFA is unfairly crediting Newsweek for this article with their graphic unless Newsday and Newsweek are related?
Bruce,
It looked to me like this was a hit piece on Obama by a Clinton supporter.That may or may not be the case.
It has become standard fare. I remember the same type of article criticizing Kerry and Edwards during the last election cycle.
I agree that McCain is not a frontrunner so comparing his voting record to Clinton's does not really do much as far as comparisons go.
Help me out here, what republican front runner stopped attending the - was it armed forces committee hearings? - because he said they weren't useful?
Help me out here...what's your point? Changing the subject?
How is bringing up front running republican senators not just skipping out on votes but on committee assignments as well changing the subject?
You can't honestly count McCain as a frontrunner, and to saw Brownback is would be a joke, so since this is about Senate voting records, who are you talking about?
You obviously already knew the answer. And a lot can happen in a year, or is the republican field already decided?
Really? McCain = Clinton in terms of likelihood of the nomination?
Now look who's trying to derail a conversation. My fact stands, I pointed out that a republican front runner skipped more than just a few votes, and you want to try to say it doesn't matter because Clinton is more likely to win? If you're done with the bong, please pass it around you bogart!
That's not what I'm saying at all. The article was about vote counts, and then you brought up committee attendance, and the debate that had risen was about whether this article was really trying to point out misinformation or deflect criticism of Obama.
Good reference to weed though, that was both relevant (kididng), mature (riiight), and O'Reillyish.
Ah, the old "there's only one debate allowed on this thread and yours isn't it" argument. No multitasking for you I see.
Snoopy,
An interesting point. Not that I agree with the practice, but I do not think it is that uncommon for Senators to be miss a great number of committee sessions. However, like a lot of people here, I'd love to see the stats. It would be another way to measure our elected representatives and the work they do in between elections.
I wonder if there is a record. I'll poke around and see if I can't find something, AA.
That would be Mr.Anti-terrorism, America's Mayor, Rudy (take a bow) Guliani.
Isn't Kerry still the reigning absentee champ in the Senate?
Again, this is a loser for Democrats we should not argue this point. That most Dem.s would make better sense to put into office over 90% of GOP politicians is a given. However, to argue that you are "less bad" is not a winner of an argument -- like hey our PAC's are not as crooked and manipulative as theirs (the GOP). Prove yourself by governing better then this story quits being important. Obama, if he does not have a reson(s), should feel ashamed for missing this many votes especially if he is trying to create a non-record to run on. I am most likely voting for him -- unless he has a Ross Perot moment -- in my state's primary and still if you are going to take up space in the Senate you have to be willing to govern. Take a stand.