To Those Who Question Obama's "Legislative Accomplishments"

By Bob Geiger

When MSNBC's Chris Matthews lit into Barack Obama supporter (and Texas State Senator) Kirk Watson during Tuesday night's election coverage for not being able to list Obama's "legislative accomplishments," you would have inferred from his ferocity that Matthews was on the verge of cracking a major story.

While Matthews stopped short of waterboarding Watson to get a response, he kept at him no less than eight to ten times over the next few minutes, sneering "You have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president, you're on national television -- name his legislative accomplishments."

Clearly without experience in appearing with Matthews and obviously without sufficient background on the recent dynamics in the United States Senate, Watson did indeed look more nervous than Mike Huckabee at a Planned Parenthood rally and failed to respond both in answering the question and, on behalf of the Obama campaign, shutting down the very premise.

No doubt, Watson -- and anyone acting as an Obama campaign surrogate -- should be able to rapidly list the important issues that the Illinois Senator has championed. This includes the Lugar-Obama legislation that has helped decrease the threat of old nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon in the former Soviet Union and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which Obama co-authored and that led to USAspending.gov, which keeps Americans better informed on government spending.

Obama has also been very active in legislation to end the Iraq war and the much-heralded Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which passed in July of 2007 and addressed the hideous treatment received by Veterans under the Bush administration, began its legislative life as the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, introduced by Obama earlier in the year.

But here's the thing that any person going on television to represent Obama should repeat without end -- and that should also be a part of the Obama campaign's standard playbook: No Democrat, including Senator Hillary Clinton has been able to do one hell of a lot that meets the accomplishment benchmark of "passed legislation" in a time of unending, record-setting Republican obstructionism.

Obama has been in the Senate for three years, two of which were spent with a Republican majority that would not even let legislation sponsored by Democrats reach the floor for a vote and, on the few occasions where Bill Frist granted such a luxury, Republicans shot down most Democratic initiatives with extreme prejudice.

In the current (110th) Congress, the Republican minority has blocked everything but the Senate chaplain's morning prayer and is on pace to by a wide margin filibuster more legislation than any Senate in U.S. history.

And there's the answer that the Texas state senator should have given on Tuesday night in response to Matthews' badgering. He should have been able to list just a few of Obama's legislative efforts but, far more importantly, he should have been in tune enough with the national legislative scene to say "Chris, have you been watching the U.S. Senate the last few years?"

He could then have gone on to discuss how Republicans have had a significant Senate majority for most of this young century and, during the brief periods Democrats have held a razor-thin edge, the GOP has made damn sure that the Democratic side of the aisle has no "legislative accomplishments" to hang their hats on in election years.

As for the Obama campaign, I support your guy and I'll give you this statement for free as you will certainly need it when Republicans begin lobbing charges of zero legislative accomplishments that will make Matthews look like an Obama groupie.

"Senator Obama knows that the American people are smart enough to see that the Republican party has become committed to doing nothing but blocking legislation that would help the American people and restore our nation to a place of esteem in the world. And they'll further reject Republican claims that any Senator has not passed enough legislation when the GOP has made it their life's work to see that no legislation is allowed to pass.

"More than anything, this demonstrates why a new kind of politics is necessary in Washington and why the American people are ready to turn the page and see all of us begin to accomplish more."

Lather, rinse and repeat.

Oh, and you may want to give a copy of this to your campaign's supporters before they appear on national television.

Bob Geiger February 22, 2008 - 10:56am

Bob Geiger's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Opinion | USA: Campaign 2008 | USA: Congress: Senate )

Bob Gieger

Welcome back. Your quality insight has been missed.

steelhead February 22, 2008 - 11:16am

And Hillary?

And what's the other side of the Dem equation? Hillary runs on "experience and solutions": what are they? Being married to Bill? BFD. If so, Nancy Reagan ought to be the Repub nominee.

What else has Hillary done? Failed miserably on health care reform under Bill? 36 years of experience? Trading cattle futures? Working at the Rose Law firm? If anyone has gotten a pass here, it is Hillary. She is running on a record that does not exist.

Zman1527 February 22, 2008 - 11:23am

didn't even have to duck -eom

"In an ordinary justice system, the accused must be acquitted to be released. In Guantánamo, the accused must plead guilty to be released."

ww February 22, 2008 - 11:38am

In terms of sponsored bills,

(ie, authored bills) Obama had one bill enacted in 3 years, while Hillary has had 2 enacted in 7. See:

http://www.govtrack.us/

Gordon February 22, 2008 - 2:15pm

I agree

What are Hillary's "detailed" solutions? I haven't heard anything. Hillary has been quite the hypocrite as of late. Maybe Mrs. Clinton believes that slandering her opponent with ridiculous plagiarism accusations is what she calls "substance."

RantingRaver February 22, 2008 - 6:21pm

You agree with what?

Staring at the ceiling at complaining that you haven't heard anything?

Senator Clinton's economic plan is here. (pdf)

aw hell ...

* American Health Choices Plan (PDF)
* Health Care Costs Agenda
* Health Care Quality Agenda
* Long-Term Care Agenda
* Long-Term Care Insurance Market
* Plan to Fight Cancer
* Plan to Fight Autism
* HIV/AIDS
* Agenda for Reproductive Health Care
* Standing for Seniors (PDF)

Post those on your blog, Raver.

Dynasty? How about:

Reagan/Bush - Bush/Quayle - Clinton/Gore - Bush/Cheney. Rant on that.

We don't mind blog whoring here that much, when its done in the best sense. Thats the web for ya. But coming here an hour ago for a flaccid drive by wasn't cool at all. Come back once you've done some homework and learn how to use Google. Then you'd be more welcome, I'm sure.

ww February 22, 2008 - 7:22pm

Absolutely true

I would just add that the Republican Obstructionists meme has been absent generally.

Its not entirely surprising that a State Senator missed the ultimate comeback. No one has been mentioning it except on the rarest of occasions.

Record breaking filibustering and signing statements by the GOP should be front and center. It'd be a simple thing to hang around their necks with the general malaise, faltering economy, and 19% support the Preznit is currently enjoying.

ww February 22, 2008 - 11:28am

Thanks for that breath of

fresh air Bob and welcome back.

“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

Mark February 22, 2008 - 11:30am

Welcome Back Bob!

Great to have you back!

oljj February 22, 2008 - 12:33pm

Welcome back!

And thanks for letting me know . . . .

Bob in AZ February 22, 2008 - 12:38pm

FINALLY!

WELCOME BACK, Bob! It just ain't been the same without ya.
And congrats on the weight loss! That's a hard thing to do when we are over 50! WTG!

This post is excellent, and as I often find in your posts, the subject badly needed addressed and no one else that I have seen did so effectively.

Your response was EXACTLY what I thought and would have said. And Matthew's form was exceedingly poor, as usual, AGAIN!; he NAILED this man on air, for his (Matthew's) own ego. It was awkward, embarrassing and UNNECESSARY! WHY ON EARTH MSM allows Matthews to continue is beyond me and many others. He should have been thoroughly dressed down and moved to the back of the bus for that little "performance". He's disgraceful!

Thanks for FINALLY making the valid points that needed to be made regarding that exchange! It's already GREAT having you back!
siri
“If there is one thing that has come out clearly recently, it is not that the corporate media supports the global corporate project; it IS the global corporate project” - Arundhati Roy http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-108608146798491847&pr=goog-sl

siri February 22, 2008 - 2:05pm

You made my

You made my day!

Congratulations on the impressive weight loss and welcome back!

Henrietta February 22, 2008 - 2:11pm

I always thought

using his senate "Legislative Accomplishments" was a non starter. He just hasn't been there long enough to judge honestly. Can someone explain all the "present" votes in the Illinois legislature?

Tina February 22, 2008 - 2:13pm

Tina, someofparts posted this really good thread of a

diary posted in Kos that gives the entire history of Clinton's and Obama's legislative achievements. It's quite extensive.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633 It was posted in the Healthcare thread.

adrena February 22, 2008 - 2:35pm

thanks

I am so willing to let others do the very extensive leg work :) wow

Tina February 22, 2008 - 2:53pm

As I understand it...

...if a bill in Illinois is defeated by "no" votes, it's dead and gone. If it fails to pass (because of the "present" votes) it can be fixed and brought back to the floor without having to go through the committee process. It's also different from not voting because the threshold to pass is based on size of the house, not members present (kind of like having a very large quorum requirement, I guess).

Gordon February 22, 2008 - 3:07pm

Gee, I wonder if Hillary is

Gee, I wonder if Hillary is aware of that? Nah, or she would never make it an issue right? LOL

Zman1527 February 22, 2008 - 3:37pm

thanks Gordon

for such a concise answer. I have seen posts elsewhere but my eyes started glazing over with the anti Obama rhetoric and gave up.

Tina February 22, 2008 - 4:15pm

Tweety''s questioning of Watson was pure bullying

I cringed watching Matthews go after that TX state senator representing Obama.

He had this expression of almost pure malice on his face for much of the follow on questioning. It was almost as if he couldn't help himself; once he knew he had someone trapped he just had to completely humiliate him.

But it did remind me of how he's treated female guests who didn't answer questions as he wanted them answered or who actually disagreed with him and tried to correct him.

Tweety is not a nice person.

jawbone2 February 22, 2008 - 3:07pm

Welcome Back, your insights

Welcome Back, your insights have been missed. Obama should've had you on with Chris Matthews. It always bothers me the way these "righties" tend to bully "leftie" guests-Bill O'Reilly being the worst-and the lefties, probably because they are lefties, never fight back and call them on it. They need reminding, best defense is a good offense.

kkny February 22, 2008 - 3:53pm

On Legislative Acheivements

I think Barack Obama said it best when he said "Washington is a place for bills to go to die." He made the great point that politicians are more concerned with scoring political points than with getting things done. All the legislative achievements prove is that a candidate was able to make enough concessions to their bill to get it passed, and Obama doesn't like to play that game.

RantingRaver February 22, 2008 - 6:23pm

Really?

then why did he waste his time running for the senate? Did he just want to get paid for nothing, need the excellent healthcare, egotism? ;) I find it funny you mention Obama doesn't play the concession game. How is he going to reach out to fellow dems, republicans and pesky world leaders to move his ideas forward? Or will it be more my way or the highway type leading?

Tina February 22, 2008 - 6:45pm

Get it right, RantingRaver dood

"As wonderful as this gathering is, as exciting as these enormous crowds and this enormous energy may be — what we're trying to do here is not easy. And it will not happen overnight. It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more. Because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die." — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at a rally in Houston.

He doesn't mean what you think he means.

ww February 22, 2008 - 7:34pm

Nicely played sir

Nicely played.

In a broken system, Both Obama and Clinton have at least TRIED to make some small improvements.

I have plenty of concerns and issues with both of these contenders, but I feel that we need to give them both some credit where credit is due.

Can we all just quit blasting away at our best hopes for at least some relief long enough to get some liberal or even moderate judges, appointees, legislators and cabinet members into office?

I am leaning towards Obama, but I will take either Democrat as a small start towards fixing this mess. We can hammer away at the Democratic leadership once there are enough representatives to get some change.
I always find that people will do more to retain power than to gain power. Hopefully the passion that this race has engendered will be something sustainable and lead to all of us taking action to get a real progressive agenda accomplished once we have moved the nation back towards the middle.

The pendulum swings.

Thanks Bob. Great work!

Gannon February 22, 2008 - 6:37pm

YAHOO!

I am just delighted you're back. Thanks for the heads-up.

There's no one that knows the Senate better then you.

Kewalo February 22, 2008 - 7:37pm

Welcome

back to blogging Bob. Missed you. Glad you agreed to come to the Ag.

Ian Welsh February 23, 2008 - 12:53am

List of Bills on Thomas.gov

http://www.thomas.gov
This lists all the bills that senators and representatives have sponsored. Is the issue whether they have the political savvy to get their bills actually passed? Or that they are not lazy and that they are actually writing and sponsoring bills?

Tracy February 23, 2008 - 1:33pm

The discussions I've read

that make most sense to me are those that suggest looking at the nature of the legislation proposed (forget the resolutions, those have always been PR crap) and to how many Senators co-sponsored them.

Even in Clinton's first terms, when the GOP controlled the Senate, she had the opportunity to get other Democrats to co-sponsor the bills she introduced. If by chance either picked up a Republican or two, that's an indicator either of good mojo or a slam-dunk kinda bill.

As far as legislation enacted: even before 1994, Congress passed kidney stones quicker than they pass bills. Since the Republican Revolution® only Bushislation has sailed through.

_{Turn back to the Constitution - and READ it.}

Rick February 23, 2008 - 1:44pm

Right on!

I agree completely, Obama needs to print up a complete record of his political career to this point and make sure all of his campaign staff memorize it! His resume while in Illinois is actually quite impressive.
.
By the way,,the reason I am here is because Bob Gieger is!

I promise not to leave any messes behind for my grandchildren to clean up.

Bullet February 24, 2008 - 1:11am

Welcome to

the Agonist Bullet. :)

Tina February 24, 2008 - 1:26am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

To Those Who Question Obama's "Legislative Accomplishments"

Comment viewing options