Obama’s real record of ‘change’ has been ‘more of the same’
By: Sen. Wayne Allard
September 18, 2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. — My insulation from the frenzy of adoration for my colleague, Sen. Barack Obama, is built from first-hand knowledge that behind the effervescent rhetoric about change (nation healed, world repaired, oceans lowered, etc.) is a concrete and significantly less inspiring voting record.
Senator Obama joined the Senate four years ago, and we voted nearly 1,000 votes before he essentially left to campaign full-time for the presidency. A close examination of Senator Obama’s real record (as short as that may be) is a good indicator of his judgment. When the senator speaks of change, we know specifically what he wants to change.
I was surprised that Senator Obama voted against John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A distinguished jurist who was widely praised for his abilities and talents throughout his confirmation process, Roberts was supported by many respected Democrats.
When Obama opposed the confirmation of Roberts for purely political reasons, it was an exception to the 97% "party loyalty" score he has been awarded by the non-partisan journal Congressional Quarterly.
This example is a great predictor of how Senator Obama makes decisions; the 97% party loyalty score shows that he’ll check with the Democrat Party - except when he thinks even they are too moderate.
For a candidate who is promising bipartisanship and united efforts, Senator Obama is exceedingly liberal, even among his own party. He was actually the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's annual vote ratings.
This is hardly a signal of a new style of governing and a stark contrast to the established record of independence his opponent, Sen. John McCain, has demonstrated throughout his tenure in the Senate.
Senator Obama’s votes in the Senate really tell the true story of his convictions. Hostility toward 2nd Amendment rights was clear as he voted against a bill that provided liability protection for manufacturers and dealers of firearms or ammunition products for harm caused by already criminal or unlawful misuse. As a defender of gun rights, this concerns me. Is this country really inclined to weaken our 2nd Amendment protections?
Obama has voted to allow Big Labor to end secret ballots for union votes, abetting their goal of increasing union membership through the desperation tactic of public intimidation. Is a change towards less workplace freedom and more union intimidation really welcome?
He has voted to change the federal mineral royalty payments; a move that costs western states such as Colorado millions of dollars in revenue each year. Do we want more money for federal bureaucracies and less for state initiatives, such as education and transportation projects?
He voted for the last two federal budgets, which increase taxes, increase spending, and increase the deficit. This country obviously wants and could use a change towards more responsible budget practices and balanced budgets. But this is not where Senator Obama’s changes are aimed.
The possibility of an Obama presidency concerns me, but completing a trio of power beholden to the far Left by also having the House of Representatives and the Senate all in the hands of the liberal Democrats would be a catastrophe. The gridlocked and inefficient Congress must be shaken up and forced to produce results, not backed up and perpetuated by an Obama administration.
I respect Senator Obama’s political abilities and I admire his campaign-trail charisma. But when I examine his true record, I become increasingly worried about the outlook of his governing ideology.
Instead of personal attacks, I prefer to stick with the facts. And even the best delivered speeches and grandiose promises don’t change the fact that many of Senator Obama's changes will be for the worst.
Republican Sen. Wayne Allard is the senior senator from Colorado.
