Looks like Obama’s staff has been busy. How could one person even READ and UNDERSTAND (much less compose) 570 bills while stumping all over the country?

You can’t make this stuff up.

So, in researching Obama’s accomplishments, I scoped the de rigueur Wikipedia entry. Wow. It appears Obama may have a substantive legislative record.

However, based upon the premise that the world has bought Obama’s spiel, and that nobody’s done any real investigation of Obama’s past, I decided to do some independent research. I thought said research would be a fool’s errand, but not so. Almost immediately, I ran across a recent (Feb 21, 2008) nugget column by an Obama defender, Helenann, on DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true

*** It has really been bothering me – the charges that Obama is all talk and no action. Those of us who support him and have reviewed his record know there is no basis to this charge, but just to make sure, I went to the Congressional Record (www.thomas.gov) and did a search for bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Senator Obama in his three short years in the US Senate. I searched the 109th and 110th Congresses which cover the years 2005-2007. In a nut shell I found: Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress. Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005. Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate. His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.

Wow. 570 bills sponsored or co-sponsored. Slam dunk, right? Obama must be a legislative maestro.

But, the devil is in the details. In her post, Helenann details 10 of the 15 bills Obama sponsored or co-sponsored which became law (The others are presumably minor; eg, continuing resolutions, naming post offices). She wonderfully provided the Senate bill number. Using GovTrack.us, I did research. Info is below: Bill #-Congressional session: description; sponsors & co-sponsors; estimated cost per American; and link:

(1) 2125-109: Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006
Sponsor: Obama, 12 co-sponsors
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006
Sponsor: McConnell (R-KY), 70 co-sponsors
$0
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2370

(3) 2803-109: Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006
Sponsor Enzi (R-WY), 11 co-sponsors
PREEMIE Act
Sponsor: Alexander (R-TN), 42 co-sponsors
OPEN Government Act of 2007
Sponsor: Leahy (D-VT), 17 co-sponsors
$0
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2488

(7) 2590 – 109: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
Sponsor: Coburn (R-OK), co-sponsors 47
Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005
Sponsor: Dodd (D-CT), 33 co-sponsors
$0
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-467

(9) 2167 – 109: PATRIOT Act Extension bill
Sponsor: Sununu (R-NH), 31 co-sponsors
$0
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2167

(10) 1184 – 109: “A bill to waive the passport fees for a relative of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for such member”.
Sponsor Biden (D-DE), 2 co-sponsors
$0
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-1184

Obama’s sponsored only one bill: S 2125-109, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006.

He co-sponsored only 2 bills in the 110th Congress.

Only 1 bill, S 1184-109, had fewer than 11 co-sponsors.

You can’t make this stuff up.

But, what about the amendments Obama offered? Surely, they’ll demonstrate his legislative leadership. Well, based upon the above, I think we can safely conclude that they would not.

What Helenann did is certainly impressive, but what her post proves is the opposite of her main contention.

I haven’t thought that much about the issue. You may be right about his keynote speech. As for the observation that “nobody articulated this obvious and killer truth”, my guess is that the Reps are waiting for him to secure the nomination before pulling out the big guns. It’s too early to go nuclear on BO yet. The charges will have more impact after the convention. Meanwhile, we can just sit back and watch the race/sex war unfold in the Democrat primaries. Phil

“…as I read the fair tax material the illegals will pay but will not receive the prebate since they are not in the country legally.”

I couldn’t find that in their website. As I pointed out, it won’t matter because the courts will most likely rule against this. Examples: An immigrant has to know English to become a citizen; so why are ballots printed in a hundred different languages? And we can’t even ask a voter for a simple ID.

“…it should only be remitted to citizens actually living in the United States due to the fact that the taxes it is protecting against are only being collected in the United States.”

Why would there be a citizenship requirement since non-citizen residents are obligated to pay taxes too? In any event, there would be no way of finding out if they were even residents since in my likely scenario they would have their checks be direct-deposited.

“I think I will raise your comment with the fair tax folks to get their reaction.”

I would be interested in their reply, but it doesn’t seem to me that this idea has been carefully thought through.

I think I will raise your comment with the fair tax folks to get their reaction.

You might know: Is Obama his campaign message, or has he crafted his campaign message to sell? If the latter, then is the underlying motive for his campaign strategy idealistic, pragmatic, or idiotic?

Obama’s message may be substance-less, but so is the understanding of Obama the politician. Everyone seems to accept Obama’s message as he mouths it.

I was struck by a particularly insightful comment by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/789phzdp.asp?pg=2

*** Then there’s bipartisanship or, as Obama puts it, bringing us together. This is the core of Obama’s appeal. It allows him to campaign not from his ideological home on the left but from somewhere above the fray, somewhere in the heavens. McCain, alone among Republicans, can bring him back to earth. Obama talks about crossing the partisan aisle and ending polarization, but he’s never done it in any serious way. McCain specializes in it–one more thing infuriating many Republicans. He’s joined with Democrats on campaign finance reform, immigration, global warming, judicial nominations, and a lot more.

During the debates, McCain could say this:

*** You constantly talk about ending bipartisanship in Washington. I must compliment you. A noble goal. Certainly, one of my own. However, after researching your record both in Congress and the Illinois legislature, my aides found no incident where your leadership broke a partisan gridlock and spawned compromise legislation satisfactory to all parties. But, NP. It’s OK that you have no accomplishments to match your rhetoric. What you need is a mentor, someone who has actually done what you’d like to do. Who would be a good mentor here? Humbly, I offer myself. I’ll not bore everybody with a list of my bipartisan compromise accomplishments, but maybe you and I, Obama, can agree here on national TV to convene a series of meetings where I can tutor you in this fine art. Absent any experiencing brokering compromises, following the advice of an accomplished mentor is the next best thing.

What I found amazing was that, amidst the dozens and dozens of political columns I’ve read about Obama, nobody articulated this obvious and killer truth.

Look at Obama’s record. Has he ever practiced bipartisanship? I dare you to find the evidence. More damningly, has he ever demonstrated leadership? Again, his record in the Senate and in the Illinois legislature is that of a ghost. His legislative imprint has been slight to nonexistent.

What about the rest of his resume? He can claim some modest successes as a community organizer in Chicago, but that’s about it.

In any case, Barnes’ comments got me to thinking. What else hasn’t been mentioned? Hence, my question re Obama’s campaign message and strategy.

Everybody seems to assume that Obama’s campaign message and strategy is a direct result of his life experiences. But, is it? If it is, then we’ll discover bits and pieces of this message early in his life.

We know when his message erupted fully formed: His keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. So, when did he begin crafting it?

I haven’t read his 1995 book Dreams from My Father but, in the reviews I read, I couldn’t find any hints of his campaign message. Are there hints during his 1997-2004 tenure as an Illinois legislature? I don’t know but that’s the damned problem.

Here’s my hypothesis: Obama realized only after giving the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention that he could run for President based on its core message.

Keynote addresses are noteworthy for their sweeping and grandiose rhetoric, and their pure political theater. Sideline the head, and infatuate the heart. The classic stuff of American politics. The Dems knew that Obama was good at this stuff. His 1995 book was proof. So, prodded by the Democratic establishment, Obama delivered.

Now, contemplate the responses Obama received from that speech. Hard-headed politicians fawning at his feet, telling him he was the future of their party. In all this, there was a subtext: Save us from the miseries of Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and even Kerry. Bring back JFK. We miss Camelot. With Clinton, we had Come-a-lot. Save us, Obama, from ourselves!

Ergo, I think Obama cynically and clinically calculated that the message in his keynote speech could become his key to the Presidency. With it, he’d achieve 2 things: (1) Romance the Democratic Party who desperately wanted to be romanced; and (2) Check and mate the Clintons.

In hindsight, we realize now how ineffective Hillary’s strategy has been against Obama, but maybe Obama realized that he could check and mate the classic Clinton strategy in the aftermath of the 2004 convention.

So, I don’t think Obama is an idealist. My guess is that he doesn’t believe his own words. After all, he’s not practiced them during his entire political career. He’s been a mundane, garden variety, not particularly noteworthy legislator.

Obama may be naïve. You could answer this, Phil, but has anyone ever run for the Presidency with such a superficial message? Certainly nobody in the post-WWII era. Obama could be somewhat of a dumb shit thinking that soaring oratory is all it takes to win the Presidency.

In the final analysis, though, I think Obama is an opportunist who’s levering his keynote speech.

Some smart Republican operatives better be examining Obama’s record in detail with this aim in mind: Showing the American people the rupturous disconnect between Obama’s words and actions.

Of course, we all know Obama is fluff. There’s plenty of nothing to talk about in the lovely dirty politics world. But, portraying Obama as a cynic might be the real killer.

Obama is cynic. Think about it.

“I would prefer a system where everyone pays but that is not likely to happen in our lifetimes. At least it makes illegals contribute something.”

I agree with your first sentence but not the second.

According to their website http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main , the Fair Tax prebate “Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities.”

“The monthly prebate check http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf is calculated by multiplying the annual poverty level spending published each year by the Department of Health and Human Services times the FairTax rate and dividing by twelve.” The amount each household would get is also determined by its size; for example, a single adult would get $199 per month; a two-adult and two-child family would get $537 per month.

As was once said, the devil is in the details. I would be willing to bet my first year’s prebate that these amounts are enough to live on in Mexico, so all Mexicans need do is have their prebate checks go directly to a US bank and move back to Mexico. As word spread that Gringos are shoveling money into the streets in the US, this would cause an immediate rush of illegals across the border into the US to get signed up, since the courts have consistently held that the government cannot withhold benefits from illegals. Once signed up, they too would then return. This would not be limited to Mexicans. Other countries’ nationals would also be attracted. What’s to stop even a casual tourist from signing up?

I will concede, however, that it will help solve the illegal immigrant problem in the long run.

I would prefer a system where everyone pays but that is not likely to happen in our lifetimes. At least it makes illegals contribute something.

Sorry to say, it’s not only the customer that pays. The employees and stock holders also pay in the form of reduced wages and lower dividends. When large corporations demand discounts from thier suppliers it simply shifts the burden down to those people below. Imposing a tax on corporations is about the same as a law that says your pet dog must pay a tax. The dog does not have any money so you have to pay.