Baracke voted for Dick's Energy Bill and Class Action Fairness Act. What's so liberal?

[Captain_Nemo]

Hill voted NO on both.

WHy is this guy so great to you?

7/29/05 Vote 213: H R 6: Offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative wasy to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. Barack voted YES. Hillary voted NO.


Here's more Information from Wiki:
The Washington Post contended that the spending bill is a broad collection of subsidies for United States energy companies; in particular, the nuclear and oil industries.<9>
Texas companies in particular benefit from the bill. This criticism is heightened by the fact that President George W. Bush, the House Majority Leader (Tom DeLay), and the Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee (Joe Barton) were all from Texas. The fact that the bill passed 66-29 with wide support from Democrats for the bill has not calmed this criticism (a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on July 28, 2005, suggested Congress had a "let's pass it and claim we did something" attitude).
Supporters of the bill concede that the bill will do little to lower oil prices immediately, and that any changes the bill has enacted will not happen overnight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

Class Action Fairness Act:
2/10/05 Vote 9: S 5: Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts. Barack voted YES. Hillary voted NO.

Here's more from Wiki:
Critics charged that the legislation would deprive Americans of legal recourse when they were wronged by powerful corporations. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the bill "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised."<2>
Critics charge that this bill will make it far more difficult to bring class action suits, and may prolong such litigation, clogging the federal courts' dockets. The act also gives the Federal government the ability to somewhat control, through judicial appointments, outcomes that were previously under state control. No Republican legislators voted against the bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005

[Shakespeare]

1. As somebody who works with class action litigation daily, I think that was GOOD legislation.

The vast, vast majority of class cases involve federal law and/or interstate issues, therefore placing them under federal jurisdiction. These cases are almost always (99.99% of the time) removed to federal court after plaintiffs' attorneys erroneously file them in state court. I'm working on a notice of removal, AGAIN, this week, on a case that involves federal issues that was wrongly filed in state court. It's a costly and time-consuming process.

This legislation will actually streamline the process, unclog the overburdened state courts, and will have no net ill effect that I can see. It's more likely to speed up litigation, not prolong it.

[anonymous171]

2. Hillary voted for Cheney and Bush's war.

No comparison.

[jobycom]

4. Then Obama did.

When he finally got the chance. Against troop withdrawals, for increased funding (breaking a campaign promise).

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

Yeah, he would have voted against the IWR. Sure.

[mcctatas]

3. Now you guys are recycling posts on the same topic

every 24 hours? Are your writers on stike? Call Hannity, he can help....

[jackson_dem]

5. They desperately want a savior and are willing to ignore his record, flaws due to this

By ignoring his record (which is like Clinton's, a woman they hate) and his flaws he can be the savior they want him to be. What will be funny if their reactions if he wins about what he does for 8 years..."Obama fooled us!". No. You fooled yourself.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Obama supported the energy bill for the NUKES, Exelon his biggest donor. His Enron.

One reason he lost Nevada. He just loves him some nuclear power and he always will. One of my biggest worries about the man. I don't like having a president indebted to the nuclear power industry.

[melody]

7. Senators do not represent themselves in Senate

They represent their constituents. They don't make decisions alone. This is the most basic of principles in dealing
with representative government. Obama was not merely voting for himself ... he was voting for the state of Illinois
and the people he represented.

[Two Americas]

8. the people

How would a bill that is "a broad collection of subsidies for United States energy companies" represent the interests of the people of Illinois?

[melody]

9. Business people are "the people", too

Politics and staying in the Senate is a game of balance. You go along so you can do the good you can do while you can.

Mr. Smith not only goes to Washington, he has to stay there.

I'd rather have a compromised good man than a thoroughly compromised political sell-out (see also "Clintons").

[Two Americas]

10. never mind Clinton

I am not comparing anyone to Senator Clinton.

Of course the wealthy and powerful few are people. So were the hereditary aristocrats and royalty and Kings in Europe. The wealthy and powerful few, and the mavens of capital and finance already have a party to represent their interests - the Republican party. When we, as Democrats, talk about "the people" we are talking about the rest of us - the other 99%. That is the only reason for there to be two parties. This may be changing - I think that it is and that we could see one or both parties collapse or a major realignment occur in the near future - and you may think this should change, but that is at odds with the traditional principles and ideals of the party for at least the last 80 years or so.

If the Democratic party is not going to strongly represent labor rather than capital, and as that becomes clear to people, a new movement will arise and that will lead to a re-organization of the parties, or a new party. That has always happened throughout history. You can't have the interests of the working people continually compromised for the sake of worrying about the wealthy few indefinitely without something giving.

We are seeing more and more Democrats, especially those who dominate the discussion within the party, describe themselves as "economically conservative and socially liberal" and more and more Republican voters who are socially conservative and economically liberal. That is unstable and cannot endure for long. Since politics is about power and economics, not about culture war social issues - although those issues are noisy and get all of the attention - where people are on economics is a better indicator and predictor of their potential political loyalty than cultural issues are. That means that in political terms, Republican voters are now closer to traditional Democratic party ideas than the dominant core of liberal and Democratic party activists are.

Cultural issues make for bad politics, anyway. They were created and used by the right wingers to help the Republican party gain power. They are of no use to the Democratic party, and have been the party's undoing. Just last night I watched two Democratic candidates fumbling their way through questions about religion and guns. Those issues are on the right wingers' playing field. We can't win there.

The more that the economically conservative Democrats gain control over the party - no matter how liberal or progressive on social issues they are - the weaker the party is and the more likely that we will see a new party soon.

[melody]

11. Okay, in an Aristotelian world, we have two choices

We can mope around like children and hope for a rainbow, or we can group together with the next best thing to acceptability
and work hard against the opposition.

My background is in anthropology. We're dealing with primates here. If we don't group together and conquer the far right
and their enablers in the Democratic conservative corner, then we're going to have a fascist future in no uncertain terms.

Do you *honestly* now think that Gore was no better than Bush? Michael Moore, who advanced that theory, doesn't anymore.

Obama is better than Clinton ... Clinton is far better than McCain.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater does no one any good.

[Two Americas]

12. agreed

"If we don't group together and conquer the far right and their enablers in the Democratic conservative corner, then we're going to have a fascist future in no uncertain terms."

Yes.

"Do you *honestly* now think that Gore was no better than Bush? Michael Moore, who advanced that theory, doesn't anymore."

Never did. I did, however back in 1999 warn that we were seeing something very new and different in the Bush cabal, and that we were flirting with fascism if we didn't stop him. I thought that Gore and his staff were naive and running the wrong campaign against the wrong threat and told them that. Everyone thought I was crazy, but I still have the email I sent to the Gore staffers in 1999 when they asked what I was so alarmed about saying "think aggressive war, economic collapse, election theft, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, corruption on a massive and unprecedented scale - these people around Bush are dangerous and are capable of anything."

I also think that Gore rolling over on the stolen election greatly empowered the Bush administration, and set a pattern of compromise and weakness in the party. Fighting that could not have been worse than the results of not fighting it. People say that would have caused a Constitutional crisis. Well, now we have no Constitution. People say that fighting it would have caused division and conflict. Well, now we have worse division and conflict than ever.

But there is a persistent tendency toward denial among Democrats. As things get worse and worse and worse we never quite reach the point where we say things are bad enough to finally take the gloves off.

"Throwing the baby out with the bathwater does no one any good."

I will do what I always do - work hard for the candidate just as I have for 40 years, no matter how weak they are. That is not at issue. But I will continue to speak out strongly about the party - that is needs to represent labor and the working class in an unambiguous and effective way, and that it is weak and impotent in the face of the right wingers because of a lack of political will and clarity.

[melody]

13. I've been writing about the Bush crime family for 20 years

As I said, no need to point out their crimes to me. I know them too well -- from the earliest fascists to the modern day murderers and child molesters. Gore knew full well what to expect from Bush. The fact of the matter is BushCo ruins and murders people as they wish. Gore has a family. He cannot confront them as directly as he'd like. Paul Wellstone did and they killed him AND his family.

These people are so dangerous, we need to establish as much unity as possible. We can only do what we can do while our country is being held by an enemy contingent. The Bush family is no ally of the US ... never has been, never will be.

[Two Americas]

14. agreed again

I understand better what you are saying now, and I agree with you.