S.1949
Title: A bill to provide for coordination of proliferation interdiction activities and conventional arms disarmament, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 11/1/2005)

Cosponsors (1) - Obama

Related Bills: S.2566

Latest Major Action: 2/9/2006 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Foreign Relations. Hearings held.

RELATED
S 2556, A bill to provide for coordination of proliferation interdiction activities and conventional arms disarmament, and for other purposes

Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 4/6/2006)

Cosponsors (26) includes Barack Obama

Latest Major Action: 5/25/2006 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456.

Thomas.loc.gov

Perhaps you are referencing another bill that THOMAS doesn't want to share with me?

http://thomas.loc.gov/

(reposting - post with two links caught by spam filter)

On April 6, Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Barack Obama (D-IL), Tom Carper (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590). The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to make information on federal contracts and grants publicly accessible through a searchable website.

##

(reposting - post with two links caught by spam filter)

It appears that he has managed to look much more active this year in the Senate, but much of it just might be attaching his name to bills already crafted to make him look good. What a way to run the Senate

It's amazing how bad a person seems, when you always assume the worst of them. You don't know that he's just attaching his names to bill, you're assuming he does. Then in the very next sentence you use your assumption to support your implication that he is a bad Senator. I'm not even sure what logical fallacy that is.

How do you know it's not to make those bills look good? Obama's a slim-lead favorite right now. Surely it hasn't eluded the actual crafters of the bill that putting his name on it might have political value when promoting the bill to others.

By saying "I've crafted this bill with Senator Obama", they get the immediate and largely irrational support of pretty much everyone that supports Obama, even if all he did was look at the bill and say "yeah, that looks good, I'd vote for that". It may not be the way politics ought to work, but it's the way politics does work, so I'm not going to hold it against anyone. You can't criticise the players for playing the game according to the established rules. If the rules are intolerable, change them... but until they're changed, everyone has every right to play by the rules we have.

It appears that he has managed to look much more active this year in the Senate, but much of it just might be attaching his name to bills already crafted to make him look good. What a way to run the Senate, with this Senator absent much of the time to run for President, yet he gets his name on a lot of bills anyway.

God help the USA if any of "his" bills get passed and signed, and God help us if he actually gets elected to the Presidency. No man has a record that is further to the left than Obama. This is intolerable to me, but I have only one vote to give to prevent his election, and to elect Mccain/Palin, which I will submit when the time comes.

Vote Republican!

I happen to be of the opinion that a likable and smooth-talking President is a Good Thing. I believe a great deal of Obama's substance comes from his willingness to admit that he does not know or can not do certain things, and defer to those who do know them or can do them.

I also believe that GW's failures - which, in my opinion, are not particularly numerous or egregious - stem from a failure to do precisely that. So, too, did Clinton's failures. Bush senior suffered from a similar problem, albeit much less frequently. Reagan barely suffered from it at all. Carter suffered greatly from it. Ford suffered from it. Nixon suffered from it. And that's every President that has served during my lifetime.

So what you identify as a lack of substance happens to be what I find the single greatest missing link in the Presidencies of the past forty years. If I were to rank the Presidents of my lifetime in order of effectiveness and quality, those on the top of the list would be those who suffered least from this problem - from which Obama suffers even less than Reagan.

My support for Obama is not so much about what he has done, but who he is - which largely revolves around the idea that he has not done what others were better suited to do.

believe that he is a stand-alone candidate in this election cycle to be termed the POTUS candidate most likely to be indicted on corruption charges and thereby gain an arrest record and a probable conviction record.
Tony Resko's "contributions" to Obama's house purchasing program and the extraordinary boost Michelle Obama's salary got right after BHO fed her employers $1 million plus in federal pork just seem too obvious to ignore.

I'm sure the prosecutors will get right on that just as soon as they finally convict Bill Clinton of killing Vince Foster, Richard Nixon for faking the moon landing and Eisenhower for hiding the Roswell aliens.

At 3%, if that is a correct number, it means that he sat on his hands there 3% or more of the time.

When you say it that way, I don't think anybody is going to get too upset over it. It certainly is less damning that "by far the majority of votes".

What was his justification for this? What bills of importance did he deliberately refuse to give a yea or nay to?

He's given various justifications for a variety of the bills he voted present for. Some were indeed questionable, but others were certainly justifiable. If you really care about the answer to that question, I'll supply you a link.

What was his justification for this? What bills of importance did he deliberately refuse to give a yea or nay to? Do we give our elected employees a 3% forgiveness for not doing their homework, or for not coping with the stream of bills sufficiently to act? Nice idea!

Give them all a 3% raise or more, since they did not hire enough staff to help them do their job properly. Now that sounds like a probable event! Not enough staff...another bad move. Doesn't anyone up there have any supervision of those legislators? Fire and forget indeed! Quite firable and forgettable.

You tell me why someone would not come up with a yea or a nay in by far the majority of votes. Someone said the count in Obama's case was 124(*) "present" votes or thereabouts;

to which I asked:

What is that in percentage of votes cast?

I hate to answer my own question, but it seems that you're not so inclined. Obama votes "present" for roughly 3% of the votes he cast in the Illinois senate.

Now, I'm not sure what definition of "majority" you were using, but I generally assume it to mean > 50%.

(*)It was 129 times, you're probably thinking of the 124 votes Obama missed in the US senate this year.

At 124 non-votes, you need to get a new man that is up to the job.

Would you apply that to every senator, or is this just a special requirement for Obama?