Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 13770881)

One of the things a person could take either way was one of Obama's votes in Illinois.. He voted "present" instead of yay or nay, because he says local zoning laws cover it already, and SHOULD cover it. It was a bill that would have made a new law to ban adult establishments near schools. Here's a quote:

Obama said, "[M]ost of us would prefer not to have an adult bookstore or -- movie theater or something next to our -- next to our residence, but that's exactly why we have local zoning ordinances...And it seems to me that if there's ever been a function that has historically been relegated to local control and is appropriately there, it's these kinds of zoning matters."

Yet he voted "present" instead of NO.. which, on the face of it, is disturbing on such a clear cut matter where he clearly has a resonable answer. Why not just vote it down for the exact reason he stated?

Here's why.. He didnt want to vote No because that would LOOK bad politically! Someone (Clinton, McCain) could say, "he voted to ALLOW porn near our children." So he voted "present", yet SAID why he thinks there should not be a new law... Calculating guy, shrewd as hell. Smart move I guess huh. But different from politics as usual? Change in some way? Hell no.. business as usual folks. Business called politics.

I wish these people would stop worrying about pundits and each other. They play us for chumps, every last one of them.. because mostly we are chumps who accept what people on our favorite tv station says. Bottom line is you can't guess what any one of these candidates on both sides will do once it's on their desk and the prevailing political wind is blowing..