Politics Extra: Garry: Obama Almost Made Me Cry

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Garry: Obama Almost Made Me Cry

Brian Garry likes Barack Obama too.

An unsuccessful candidate for City Council in November as an endorsed Democrat, Garry emailed a press release Tuesday night to announce that he's backing Barack.

He says he's housing the SEIU for Obama campaign in his Vine St. storefront in Over-the-Rhine and helping sponsor Artists for Obama, a sign making event, in conjunction with musical acts Freekbass and the Buffalo Killers Thursday, 6-9 p.m. at his office at 1235 Vine St. www.BrianGarry.com

Here's his release:

"With the Ohio primaries scheduled for March 4th, the close race for the Democratic Presidential candidacy has made Ohio a pivotal state for both candidates.

Taking the importance of this election to heart, Cincinnati City Council candidate, Brian Garry, has joined the ranks of Commissioner Todd Portune, Councilman David Crowley and Mayor Mark Mallory and announced his endorsement for Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama. While Garry considers himself a progressive Democrat, it took a lot of research and introspection to make his final decision. He originally supported Sen. John Edwards.

"Ultimately, my vote for Barack Obama echoes my own personal efforts to create a more equitable and socially just society," says Garry. After hearing Obama speak today Garry said, "Our issues are practically identical. I had to choke back the tears several times as he spoke of the hardships of vets, the working poor and the uninsured. I feel that Barack is indeed sincere, in challenging the status quo.

"I have found an appreciation for the way Obama has run his campaign: utilizing grassroots support, rather than a corporate emphasis," Garry explained. "If he runs this country the way he has run his campaign, then I do think there is a chance for real change."

9 Comments:

at 4:20 PM, February 26, 2008

Anonymous said...

Brian Garry said he did a lot of research and introspecting before he endorsed Obama. Then, I can only assume that he read the following article and thinks Obama's oops votes are ok.

Peter Wallsten, a Los Angeles Times staff writer, wrote an article on Jan. 24, 2008 entitled, "Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes. I was interested in reading it because Obama didn't go to Washington to cast a vote on the Iran resolution, which he had spoken out about it. When a reporter asked him why he missed that important vote, he apologized for it and dropped the subject.

Since many people may not have read the article, following is most of it.:

Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation. He goofed. "I was not aware that I had voted no, "he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."

The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse of attention. But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."

Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy. On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 years for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare – including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it…The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent Oops, I missed the switch – I'd be kind of skeptical of that."

On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the West Chicago child welfare office. Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting". A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office. Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger…I was not aware that I had voted no on that last – last piece of legislation," he said.

The article ends with Hendon saying he is supporting the senator all the way. He said, "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it." (end of article)

Also, I assume that he thinks it's ok that Obama is letting people think that he voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and Hillary voted for it. First, Obama was in the Illinois senate in 2002. Second, he knows that Hillary voted for the Iraq Resolution and Bush used it as approval to invade Iraq. Third, when a reporter asked him how he would have voted, he said he didn't know.

Also, I assume that he thinks it's ok that Obama spoke out against the IRAN Resolution because he was afraid that Bush would do the same thing -- and chose to stay on the campaign trail instead of going back to Washington to vote against it. When a reporter asked him why he missed that important vote, he said he apologizes for that.

Finally, I assume Mr. Garry thinks it's ok for Obama to have a history of manipulating his voting record in Illinois and dodging the Iran Resolution vote. I think Obama dodged that vote so that if he wins, no opponent will be able to use a no vote for the Iran Resolution against him when he runs for re-election in 2012. He didn't want to take the risk that an opponent would be able to knock him around for a no vote in case that wasn't the right way to go -- just as he has been doing to Hillary for months.

Mr. Garry had better hope that if Obama wins, he will make his decisions based on what is best for our country -- and not what is best for his re-election.

at 5:57 PM, February 26, 2008

Anonymous said...

You'll really be crying when you see your tax bills. Wealth redistribution is right around the corner.
To all you young kids that have never worked for a living that are supporting BO, you won't be so gung-ho when you figure out where your hard earned tax money goes.

at 6:59 PM, February 26, 2008

Anonymous said...

Hey Brian.
If Obama is so great, why did you support Edwards. If Obama made you cry, what did your first choice, Edwards, make you do? Also, are you not employed? Good luck and have a nice day.

PS: we thought that you were working on the Wulsin Campaign

at 9:59 PM, February 26, 2008

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:20/5:57 (9you are the same person),

If you want to talk about 'oops', then let's talk about McCain's 'oops'

John McCain’s ties to Vicki Iseman starting to be revealed: Covering Loopholes

NY Times ran another piece today on McCain’s love affair with lobbyists. They shed more light on his role as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and his dealings with the FCC and Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, his friend the lobbyist. The letter writer called John McStraightalker urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd.

…a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.

You remember Sinclair Broadcasting—the wonderful company that planned to air the hit job on John Kerry called “Stolen Honors.” Here’s the key passage of the piece though.

For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.

Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.

“We were pounding the pavement in Washington,” Mr. Edwards said. “We recruited help from as many people as we could. We knocked on every door just trying to get support.

So Glencairn was getting nowhere until Vicki was able to get McCain’s attention. I wonder how she did that?

Marcy Wheeler breaks it down for us. McCain’s Favors for Iseman Involved Helping Far Right-Wing Families to Sustain their Shell Companies

McCain helped a company evade the clear intent of the law, and in so doing, really concentrate its reach for such a moment when it might want to use its stations as a propaganda vehicle.

And then there’s the sheer hypocrisy of it. Five years later, when Sinclair used its concentration to smear a military hero, McCain blamed that smear not on the motivations of the family running Sinclair or those bankrolling the propaganda, but on the concentration of Sinclair’s company.

“I do have an opinion that this is an issue that results when you have media concentration, which I have been opposed to,” he said at a fund-raiser for Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.). “When you have media concentration - this is the largest TV owner with 62 stations - this is something that happens.” [my emphasis]

As the NYT shows, Sinclair only achieved that concentration thanks to McCain’s inappropriate intervention…read on

But the media isn’t interested in really examining the relationship with Iseman because the nasty NY Times uses unnamed sources in their piece. I admit it wasn’t the greatest first piece—kind of looked like a bunch of lawyers had a whack at it, but if McCain’s paid lawyer, Mr Bennett says he’s an honest guy then I guess that’s that. Bennett even said today that it doesn’t matter if Paxson disputed McCain’s claims that he never talked to him before. Hey, it was a few years ago, who can remember, right?