<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Voting Present</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/voting-present/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Two More on Perry&#8217;s Agenda</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/two-more-on-perrys-agenda/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/two-more-on-perrys-agenda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[along-the-lines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[least-at-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[simply-telling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting present]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/two-more-on-perrys-agenda/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 1. Yuval Levin, a very credible domestic policy analyst, is more favorably disposed to the Perry plan than others have been. In particular, he notes that Perry's approach to entitlement reform is bold, if vague, and that Perry's support for a premium-support model of reforming Medicare (along the lines of what Paul Ryan has proposed) is welcome: ...a fundamental reform of the payment system into a premium-support model, along the general lines of the Ryan budget (or perhaps something like a reform I've written about]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/two-more-on-perrys-agenda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Goodwin Liu nomination to Ninth Circuit Court blocked.</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/19/goodwin-liu-nomination-to-ninth-circuit-court-blocked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/19/goodwin-liu-nomination-to-ninth-circuit-court-blocked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 01:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comic-sans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[get-overruled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ninth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ninth-circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[their-decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting-present]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/19/goodwin-liu-nomination-to-ninth-circuit-court-blocked/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Almost a pity, in its way: the Ninth Circus has a certain reputation of being where we put the more&#8230; awkward &#8230; liberal judges.  You know: the ones who might as well write their decisions in crayon and/or Comic Sans, because they&#8217;re just going to get overruled on appeal anyway. Background here : suffice it to say that Liu had issues with both his judicial philosophy and, frankly, his experience .  The final score was : 52 for cloture, 43 against, 1 present, 4 not voting.  The vote split along party lines, with Murkowski voting for cloture, Hatch voting present, and Vitter/Moran/Hutchinson not voting on our side; I don&#8217;t know if the last three have a legitimate excuse for not being there.  Note, though, that of that list only one (Hatch) is actually up for re-election in the near future&#8230; Good job to everybody that called on this one. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/19/goodwin-liu-nomination-to-ninth-circuit-court-blocked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Support the RSC Budget Along With Ryan’s Budget Today</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/15/support-the-rsc-budget-along-with-ryan%e2%80%99s-budget-today/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/15/support-the-rsc-budget-along-with-ryan%e2%80%99s-budget-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jordan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morris-rodgers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paul ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[study-committee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/15/support-the-rsc-budget-along-with-ryan%e2%80%99s-budget-today/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ ** Update: The RSC budget garnered 119 Republican votes, roughly half of the conference.  Keep in mind that there are 176 members of the Republican Study Committee.  Republican leadership members Cathy McMorris Rodgers and David Dreier switched their votes from yes to no in the last minute in order to thwart a Democrat plan to let the amendment pass by voting present. Yesterday, Congress voted for the final continuing budget resolution of FY 2011.  The House vote was 260-167 and the Senate vote was 81-19.  Due to the meager cuts provided in this convoluted budget deal and the fact that it failed to defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, 59 Republican congressmen and 15 senators indomitably opposed their leadership and voted against the bill.  Republican leadership offered wild gyrations and employed arm twisting to ensure that there wasn&#8217;t too much dissent.  They even solicited the help of Steny Hoyer to whip up enough Democrats in support of the budget.  Nonetheless, enough conservative House members opposed the bill that its final passage was secured only with Democrat support. Clearly, there are more than 59 unvarnished conservatives in the House who intuitively know that this was a bad deal.  Unfortunately, yet understandably, many of them were tepid about undermining their leaders in the last hours of debate.  They were all eager to move onto the &#8220;real fight&#8221;, the 2012 budget.  Well, today is their chance to show that they are serious about repudiating the past 80 years of socialism and profligate spending, by voting for the Republican Study Committee budget . Later today, the House will vote to adopt Paul Ryan&#8217;s FY 2012 budget as part of the first step of the budgetary process-a concurrent budget resolution ( H.Con.Res. 34 ).  Unlike the Democrats who failed to pass a budget resolution in 2011, Ryan will pass his budget on the exact date, April 15, which is prescribed in the 1974 Budget Act. The Concurrent Budget Resolution provides a blueprint for the entire congressional budget for the next fiscal year, as well as a plan for the 10-year budget frame.  Additionally, the resolution, if adopted, provides a top-line cap - known as a 302(a) allocation - on all discretionary spending, and an individual spending limit on all appropriations subcommittees - known as 302(b) allocations.  Ryan&#8217;s top-line figure for FY 2012 is $1.019 trillion. While Ryan&#8217;s budget is a great start, it doesn&#8217;t cut enough discretionary spending and fails to balance the budget for another 26 years.  The RSC, under the leadership of Congressman Jim Jordan, will submit its budget, Honest Solutions , as an amendment to the budget resolution.  Their plan will cut $9.1 trillion and balance the budget in 9 years (see our full report here ).  Every conservative should support this amendment.  Call your congressman today and request that they draw a line in the sand and prove that they are worthy of holding public office.  Tell them to vote for the RSC budget amendment !  After all, this is the real fight, isn&#8217;t it? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/15/support-the-rsc-budget-along-with-ryan%e2%80%99s-budget-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President Obama Votes Present Again</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/07/president-obama-votes-present-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/07/president-obama-votes-present-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaigning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philadelphia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidenting is hard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schedule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/07/president-obama-votes-present-again/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Well, I suppose we can say at least he&#8217;s consistent in his inability to ever, you know, lead: A fiery President Obama insisted Tuesday that if he and congressional leaders couldn’t reach a deal to avert a government shutdown, “I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House.” “I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.” Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the  impasse in Washington over federal spending , the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York. If the schedule remains intact, it will be the president’s first trip outside the capital since he officially  declared Monday he will seek a second term. And while Obama (D) and his aides have repeated said he will not focus on his campaign in the next few months, his schedule may contradict those words . Oooh, but he&#8217;s fiery and stuff! Totally fired up! For campaigning . And a little schmoozing with his race baiting buddy Sharpton: In New York City, Obama he won’t be  wooing big-money donors , like he did last week. Instead, he will appear at the 20th anniversary of  National Action Network , the group run by black activist and Obama backer the Rev. Al Sharpton. President stuff is hard! Can&#8217;t he just finish his waffle? (and sneak a smoke out back?) In fact, I&#8217;m fairly certain that is why he is running for re-election. He wants to continue his habitual campaigning so as to duck that pesky having to actually govern thing. h/t Michelle Malkin ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/07/president-obama-votes-present-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Voting Present on Steroids: The Obama Administration Prepares to take Both Sides in the Libyan Civil War</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/01/voting-present-on-steroids-the-obama-administration-prepares-to-take-both-sides-in-the-libyan-civil-war/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/01/voting-present-on-steroids-the-obama-administration-prepares-to-take-both-sides-in-the-libyan-civil-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 23:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paper tiger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/01/voting-present-on-steroids-the-obama-administration-prepares-to-take-both-sides-in-the-libyan-civil-war/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Let me begin by saying, though the date on this post is 4/1/2011, this is not an April Fool&#8217;s gag - it&#8217;s real. I. Fresh off claiming victory not over Qaddafi, but over responsibility itself, with its touted handoff of the war kinetic military effort to itself-under-different-name , the Obama administration is now swinging the guns around on those on whose behalf we have, until now, been firing, and is threatening to start bombarding the rebels along with Qaddafi&#8217;s military . This is an amazing change of direction for an administration which spent the last several days not only defending its rush to war on behalf of a group about which it had little knowledge, but openly defending its right to arm the Libyan opposition , while reportedly debating whether or not it would exercise that supposed right - though, as Scott Johnson writes at Power Line , it may &#8220;be more accurate to say that Obama was holding the debate with himself: &#8220;I&#8217;m not ruling it out. But I&#8217;m also not ruling it in,&#8221; Obama told NBC News in an interview Tuesday evening.&#8221; Johnson suggested that Obama may &#8220;be able to rule on [arming the Libyan opposition] once he figures out who the heck the &#8220;rebels&#8221; are .&#8221;  However, the needle appears to have swung right past the answer to that question on the Wheel-of-Kinetic-Military-Decision, and to have landed on the &#8220;go after the other side too!&#8221; panel. In other words, we&#8217;ve apparently (finally) learned enough about this group of rebels/ al Qaeda terrorists / rapists - and - indiscriminant - killers /who-knows-what-else that we&#8217;ve been fighting alongside (primarily from 15,000 feet and up, of course) that the Obama administration is now ready to fight them , as well - an action which would, amazingly and dumbfoundingly, make the U.S. a participant in both sides of an Arab civil war being fought in the desert of North Africa.  Just amazing. The realization of who it is they rushed into war to support must be hitting Samantha Power, President Obama, and their band of merry humanitarian interventionists pretty hard.  This is worse than waking up and finding the person you brought home last night required beer goggles about eighteen bottles thick to seem attractive. Rather, it&#8217;s akin to bringing home the already-not-so-hot girl who was hanging out alone in a dark corner of the bar, only to find out shortly after leaving with her that she&#8217;s actually a hairy-backed man man named Steve (or, in this case, something more like Abdul Hakim al Hasadi ). As Allahpundit notes at Hot Air : &#8220;The fact that they think violence against defenseless people by their putative ally is so likely that deterring it requires a formal warning backed by a threat of bombardment tells you a lot about how suspicious the coalition is of its new best friends. Good thing the CIA vetting process is ongoing; hopefully we&#8217;ll find out whether they&#8217;re good guys or bad guys before they&#8217;re installed in power.&#8221; II. Allahpundit also makes the good point that a serious obstacle to the &#8220;protection of civilians&#8221; which is the supposed basis for our engagement in combat against Qaddafi&#8217;s forces now, as well as the basis for our potential engagement of the opposition, as well, is the basic task of identifying who the civilians are , as opposed to who makes up legitimate military targets.  OGA operatives on the ground can only do so much, particularly when (1) so much of the combat is taking place in Libya&#8217;s few cities, and (2) participants, like the events themselves, appear to be incredibly fluid. As Bruce McQuain writes (via Jim Geraghty ): As this mess, this civil war ebbs and flows, telling red and blue from white is going to verge on impossible.  And with reports of Gadhafi arming civilians (one assumes to enable them to defend themselves) NATO also gets to decide whether or not armed civilians are fair game. This is the sort of situations you find yourself in when you commit to “dumb wars”.  But then our fearless leader knows all about “dumb wars”, he doesn’t want to fight them.  And yet, there he is, fighting one in Libya. At the Corner , Peter Kirsanow treats this comedy routine like, well, a comedy routine: We bombed Qaddafi’s forces because they were killing civilians. So Qaddafi’s forces began dressing like civilians. So the rebels began killing civilians. So NATO is warning the rebels not to kill civilians, otherwise NATO will bomb the rebels. But the rebels are dressed like civilians.So NATO may end up killing civilians. In other news, the administration continues to debate arming the rebels who are dressed like civilians. But Qaddafi’s forces are also dressed like civilians. So we may be arming Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians while we also bomb the rebels who are killing civilians and bombing civilians who really are civilians but look like Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians. Who’s on first? III. Meanwhile, as the Obama administration is warning those on whose side we&#8217;ve been fighting in this Libyan civil war that we may start bombing them, too, just for good measure - and as his administration is warning Congress it will ignore any bills they pass to restrict U.S. involvement in Libya, and as the Secretary of Defense claims we&#8217;re about to withdraw our fighters from combat and &#8220;hope&#8221; our allies will pick up the slack - calls are increasing for a full ground invasion of this North African desert country. Leaving aside the fact that our military is pretty significantly occupied elsewhere, if the idea of launching a ground invasion of another country not only to intervene in its civil war, but potentially to fight against both sides , sounds to you like the height of folly, then you&#8217;re probably thinking fairly clearly.  However, based on the amount of talk and effort that Obama has put into his kinetic military action against Qaddafi&#8217;s forces (but not against Qaddafi himself, of course), it seems to be growing more and more likely that the only way the U.S. can escape this conflict with its reputation even the slightest bit intact is by pouring into this desert country and simply cleaning house all around.  Whether this will happen is an open question, as is the level of commitment Obama would actually have toward doing the job completely and correctly once Americans are on the ground in force in Libya. I happen to think that even if he did order a ground invasion - something that is unlikely to happen until well after the situation there has spiraled far, far beyond control - Obama would continue to dither on objectives, rules of engagement, etc. to such a degree that the level of bloodshed there on all sides, including our own, could reach a staggering level. While it is the cornered animal which is the most dangerous, that danger isn&#8217;t limited to its opponent alone. If Obama sees himself getting put further into a corner on Libya, the prospect that he will further escalate U.S. involvement in that civil war as a result becomes more real and more frightening. Unfortunately, given what he&#8217;s already put into this effort - particularly his repeated boasts about our involvement, the likely outcome, and the message it should send to dictators elsewhere - it&#8217;s difficult to see how the U.S. avoids repeat exposure as a paper tiger if we don&#8217;t end up going all-in in pursuit of whatever &#8220;victory&#8221; in Libya may mean at this point. On balance, it seems that avoiding involvement in an unimportant nation&#8217;s own civil war, and letting Europe fight its own war for oil, may have been the better decision for the U.S.  Unfortunately, the president didn&#8217;t bother listening to that argument, and here we are as a result. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/04/01/voting-present-on-steroids-the-obama-administration-prepares-to-take-both-sides-in-the-libyan-civil-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Voting Present:  Barone, Cost Push the Meme</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/03/14/voting-present-barone-cost-push-the-meme/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/03/14/voting-present-barone-cost-push-the-meme/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obvious-line]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviously-feckless]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[push-the-meme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[take-credit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting-present]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/03/14/voting-present-barone-cost-push-the-meme/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I can&#8217;t take credit because it&#8217;s an obvious line of attack &#8212; the president is obviously feckless, cowardly, and incapable of making a decision. Given that it&#8217;s obvious, it should be a strong theme for 2012. Barone: In the Illinois&#8230; Original post: Voting Present: Barone, Cost Push the Meme ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/03/14/voting-present-barone-cost-push-the-meme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: Is He Voting “Present” on Egypt?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/28/obama-is-he-voting-%e2%80%9cpresent%e2%80%9d-on-egypt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/28/obama-is-he-voting-%e2%80%9cpresent%e2%80%9d-on-egypt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[based-on-events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egyptian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert-gibbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/28/obama-is-he-voting-%e2%80%9cpresent%e2%80%9d-on-egypt/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Looks like we can Egypt to the list. As for speaking to other world leaders about the deteriorating Egyptian situation? Well, it would appear that we&#8217;re not real sure about that either . ( The Hill ) &#8212; White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called for restraint in Egypt as protesters there continue to square off with government forces. Gibbs said President Obama still has not spoken with endangered Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled the country for nearly 30 years, but he said U.S. officials have been communicating to Egyptian officials American displeasure with the situation. &#8220;We have throughout the process, our ambassador and others in the government have been in touch with the Egyptian government,&#8221; Gibbs said. &#8220;President Obama has not spoken with President Mubarak.&#8221; The White House is threatening to cut off billions of dollars in aid to country if the situation does not improve, with Gibbs saying Friday afternoon that officials are &#8220;reviewing our assistance posture based on events now and in the coming days.&#8221; ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/28/obama-is-he-voting-%e2%80%9cpresent%e2%80%9d-on-egypt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule for Repealing ObamaCare Passes House</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/07/rule-for-repealing-obamacare-passes-house/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/07/rule-for-repealing-obamacare-passes-house/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IDontThinkSo0001</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harry reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[majority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[majority-leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vote-on-repeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting present]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/07/rule-for-repealing-obamacare-passes-house/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The House just passed the rules for the Republican bill to repeal ObamaCare, by a vote of 236 to 181, with two Republicans voting present. The rules call for seven hours of debate, no amendments and one Democratic motion to recommit the bill to committee, which typically allows the minority party to force the majority to cast an unpopular vote. The official roll call hasn't been posted yet, so I don't know which Republicans voted present. Also, it isn't clear which Democrats voted for the rule, though according to the C-Span vote screen, there were four of them. Majority Leader Harry Reid, however, won't allow a vote on repeal in the Senate. "The Republicans have to understand that the health care law is not going to be repealed," he said in a press conference this morning. UPDATE: Roll call is here . The four Democrats voting for it were: Larry Kissell, Dan Boren, Mike McIntyre and Mike Ross. The two Republicans whose vote was recorded as "present" were Mike Fitzpatrick and Pete Sessions, which was the result of their bungled swearing in . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/01/07/rule-for-repealing-obamacare-passes-house/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Votes Present on Afghanistan &#8230; Again</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2009/11/12/obama-votes-presenton-afghanistan-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2009/11/12/obama-votes-presenton-afghanistan-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Present]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/?p=219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Reuters: President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday. That push follows strong reservations about a possible [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2009/11/12/obama-votes-presenton-afghanistan-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

