Are you saying that he voted present 143 times, instead of “yea” or “nay”? That is something, in itself!
His explanation, excuse if you will, was that he failed to understand the difference between voting present in the state senate and the US Senate. In the state a present vote sets the stage for another run at something. In the US Senate a present vote means nothing.
If he can serve in the Senate and have so little understanding of the its rules how can he possible hope to convince us that he would not be a real and present danger in the oval office?
This was the Clinton approach to several early power-grabs. When the facts came out it was put off to a clerical error or something like that. Sure, it hurt them to admit they had made a silly error, but in return they were able to slowly but surely take on more and more power.