Promoting its Senate ratings, National Journal Group email now touts 2003 "most liberal" rating of Kerry that NJ found flawed
SUMMARY: In an email to readers encouraging recipients to read the National Journal article on the magazine's Senate ratings, the National Journal Group wrote: "We expect this story will have immediate traction in the media and blogosphere and at watercoolers around the country. In 2004, President Bush invoked Senator John Kerry's liberal Vote Ratings score repeatedly on the campaign trail and at their head-to-head debates." However, the email did not note that the National Journal has acknowledged the methodology it used to produce its Kerry "most liberal" rating was flawed.
In a February 5 email to readers of National Journal Group publications, Tracy Rana, who is identified as "Director, Office of the Publisher," encouraged recipients to read a "breaking story" at NationalJournal.com, which reported on the results of the magazine's "annual Vote Ratings analysis" finding that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) is the "#1 most liberal senator." Rana wrote: "We expect this story will have immediate traction in the media and blogosphere and at watercoolers around the country. In 2004, President Bush invoked Senator John Kerry's [D-MA] liberal Vote Ratings score repeatedly on the campaign trail and at their head-to-head debates." However, the email did not note that the National Journal has acknowledged the methodology it used to produce its Kerry "most liberal" rating -- which it now touts -- was flawed and is now using a new methodology.
In a January 31 "explanation of the vote ratings" posted on the National Journal website, the magazine's editor, Charles Green, stated that, following the 2003 results labeling Kerry the most liberal senator, "[w]e made one change." He explained:
Q: Have you made any changes in the vote rating system since then?
Green: We made one change. We decided that in order for a member of Congress to receive a composite rating, he or she needed to vote often enough to qualify for scores in each of the three issue categories -- economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy -- that we measure. In Kerry's case, he didn't vote often enough in 2003 to merit scores in the social-policy and foreign-affairs categories. His overall ranking was based on his score in the economic category.
As to why the National Journal made the change, Green wrote: "We didn't want to continue giving composite scores to members of Congress who missed most of the votes we selected." Consequently, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) was not given a composite score in the 2007 ratings "because he missed too many votes," Green wrote.
Finally, when asked, "Why didn't you make the change before Kerry's rating was announced?" Green answered:
Green: The method we used to give Kerry a composite score was the method we had used in the past. To change the rules in the middle of the game, so to speak, after we learned Kerry's ranking, would have exposed us to charges of manipulating our rules for partisan reasons. We instituted the change the following year, before we knew the scores of any lawmakers.
The National Journal article on the rankings also referred to the change in its methodology as a result of the 2003 results:
Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories did not receive a composite score in NJ's ratings. (This rule was imposed after Kerry was ranked the most liberal senator in our 2003 ratings [subscription required] despite having missed more than half of the votes in two categories.) Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59. (McCain's composite scores from his prior years in the Senate, published in our March 2007 vote ratings issue, are available as a PDF.)
From the February 5 email:
February 5, 2008
Dear Reader:
As a valued reader of National Journal Group publications, I wanted to make sure you saw a breaking story that went live on NationalJournal.com this past Thursday afternoon and was featured in the most recent issue of National Journal dated February 2, 2008.
Specifically, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is rated the #1 most liberal senator in our annual Vote Ratings analysis. I encourage you to read the story at NationalJournal.com.
We expect this story will have immediate traction in the media and blogosphere and at watercoolers around the country. In 2004, President Bush invoked Senator John Kerry's liberal Vote Ratings score repeatedly on the campaign trail and at their head-to-head debates. We anticipate similar attention for our Vote Ratings across the 2008 election cycle.
The complete Vote Ratings analysis of every member of Congress will appear in the March 8 issue of National Journal.
Best regards,
Tracy Rana,
Director, Office of the Publisher
National Journal Group
600 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington DC, 20037
From the National Journal's January 31 "explanation of the vote ratings":
Q: Have you made any changes in the vote rating system since then?
Green: We made one change. We decided that in order for a member of Congress to receive a composite rating, he or she needed to vote often enough to qualify for scores in each of the three issue categories-economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy-that we measure. In Kerry's case, he didn't vote often enough in 2003 to merit scores in the social-policy and foreign-affairs categories. His overall ranking was based on his score in the economic category.
Q: Why did you make the change?
Green: We didn't want to continue giving composite scores to members of Congress who missed most of the votes we selected.
Q: Why didn't you make the change before Kerry's rating was announced?
Green: The method we used to give Kerry a composite score was the method we had used in the past. To change the rules in the middle of the game, so to speak, after we learned Kerry's ranking, would have exposed us to charges of manipulating our rules for partisan reasons. We instituted the change the following year, before we knew the scores of any lawmakers.
How conveeeeeeeeeeenient! The biased conservative rag comes out just in time with it's new talking points for its hard right readership on Senator Obama.
Lets hope when the conservative talking heads start using this "ranking" as a talking point the dems reply with a simple sentence that the National Review is a biased conservative magazine with an agenda. End of story.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
This is the definition of hilarious, and the definition of disturbing.
We are not suppose to notice that John Kerry was annoited the "most liberal' about the time he is nominated, and Barak Obama is now annoited the most liberal of 2007 is nothing more than a coincidence, or proof the Democrats are too liberal.
We as the American electorate having granted these airways free of charge with the simple caveat of behaving as a good steward of these airways are to accept that this being broadcast as factual is not an attempt to influenance our election.
This is a problem that has been exploited by a corporate media that seems to believe the public is to stupid to notice. Prove them wrong and refer to the title of this post for guidance.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Why is it that Republican candidates are always running around telling us THEY are the "most conservative", they want to wear that banner like a pageant queen.
Yet Democrats and "progressives" are always running away from the "most liberal" label like it's offensive?
"...liberals, and their vast array of prominent spokespeople and high profile supporters throughout the country, including their many friends in the media..."
Who?
All the elected Democrats, and that's alot considering they control both houses of Congress. All the ultra rich Hollywood liberals who filled most of the seats at the recent Kodak Theater debate last week. Major newspapers like the NY Times. Major networks like NBC, ABC.
Not to worry, being a liberal is not lonely.
All the elected Democrats, and that's alot considering they control both houses of Congress.
How much time do they get to define words to the public at large?
All the ultra rich Hollywood liberals who filled most of the seats at the recent Kodak Theater debate last week.
Yeah, those audience members really have a big impact on public perception of language. (???)
Major newspapers like the NY Times. Major networks like NBC, ABC.
Maybe I miss these things, are you saying these outlets give positive definitions of "liberal" on a regular basis? Negative connotations of "conservative"?
Not to worry, being a liberal is not lonely
Thanks for caring, Tommy, Fortunately I don't rely on the media for companionship. What I was getting at was more the hundreds of hours of right wing talk radio every week, Fox News,the current administration and their operatives, the very media sources you cited who, whether through ideology or laziness, jump right on board with the conservative framing.
I don't think you can honestly say that there are equal liberal counterparts reaching mass audiences .
You asked, I answered.
Sorry, the old "well, you can't count those, and you can't count them" is always the stock response, yet you are seeing the dwindling, overinflated power of conservative talk radio - not to mention the rough 2008 ahead for Fox News as stated on this very website by Eric Boehlert.
So you are right about the inequities between liberal and conservative influences, the liberals win by a mile.
"Sorry, the old "well, you can't count those, and you can't count them" is always the stock response" (Tommy)
I guess, if by "stock", you mean "correct.
I think I'll leave this one Tommy. Apparently, the camera panning across George Costanza's face for 3 seconds = 15 hours a week of Limbaugh propaganda, and a Congressman getting the occasional sound bite on TV or radio has as much influence on public perception as O'Reilly, Hannity and the others who have full time careers specifically shilling for the GOP and demonizing everything liberal.
On Planet Tommy, where marshmallow unicorns eat looking glass pies, or something like that.
how about when you have major companies refusing to have ads run on air america when they are run on conservative shows. is it their right? sure. does that mean it's an even playing surface? no.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120800295.html
So you are right about the inequities between liberal and conservative influences, the liberals win by a mile (Tommy)
Air America is your example. I would say they steer clear because why would they want to throw money down the drain when nobody is listening.(Tommy)
It's Almost art.
That's funny. You want to argue a five year old story under vastly different circumstances than today as some proof of what you're now saying. Tell me, is the atmosphere at MSNBC now what is was in 2003? I would say considering Keith Olbermann's nightly slams of this current adminstration, the answer to that is No.
You didn't answer my question about Olbermann. He is far more critical of this administration than Donohue ever was, and is one of their more celebrated stars - and MSNBC is far more to the left than they were then.
Those are the different circumstances. If you can't even acknowledge that, forget it.
Tommy, one show - Olbermann's - pulls the entire network "far to the left"?
That doesn't seem rational to me.
Your comments that ABC (owned by Disney) and NBC (owned by GE) are "liberal" is also irrational... the same old tired rant about liberal bias that this entire website completely skewers.
So you are right about the inequities between liberal and conservative influences, the liberals win by a mile. (Tommy)
Air America is your example. I would say they steer clear because why would they want to throw money down the drain when nobody is listening (Tommy)
Stay tuned for further dispatches from planet Tommy.
I'd be interested in how you would see that happening. Would a network anchor (ignoring the groundless assumption of his/her liberal-ness) take time out from a broadcast to clarify the defining aspects of liberalism? Should the NY Times run special columns? Do you think one would even be noticed?
Most of the Democratic members of Congress are much more moderate than liberal, but let's say a more liberal member gave a speech explaining how real liberalism differs from the conservative parody with which most people are acquainted. Who would listen? Would it receive more than 15 seconds of news coverage? Even that amount? Almost no one would be exposed to the message.
It's the same for "Hollywood liberals" you mention. Who would pay any attention? They wouldn't be ignored because of what they say. A conservative star who made a speech about conservatism would be pretty much ignored, too.
My point is that liberals really don't have effective methods of challenging the parody version that is so prevalent. Your suggestions range from ineffective to outright silly.
Your excuses for liberal ineptitude in defining themselves and their ideology is what is downright silly.
Of course, your usual diversion approach. You made a post about all the supposed avenues liberals have to alter the perception of liberalism. I pointed out how ludicrous your suggestions are. Unable to challenge the logic and factual nature of that content, you instead pretend I was challenging you to suggest other methods. Classic strawman diversion.
Pretty weak reply.
My point is that liberals really don't have effective methods of challenging the parody version that is so prevalent. Your suggestions range from ineffective to outright silly.
Have you read "conscience of a liberal" by Krugman, self-proclaimed writer for the ny times. If so, and out of curiousity, do you think he fairly describes a liberal's outlook. Also, do you think the writers at the New Republic are progressive?
It's not the fault of conservatives that "liberal" is an elusive concept. Liberals have enough money to define themselves to the public. Hell, they've got more money than repubs.
Hi Tommy,
"All the ultra rich Hollywood liberals who filled most of the seats at the recent Kodak Theater debate last week. Major newspapers like the NY Times. Major networks like NBC, ABC."
I agree with you to a point, but unfortunately, the Republicans have demonized the word so well that any re-definition by Dems would take a while (i.e. years) to take hold with independents.
We often hear of the "liberal" media, but the left doesn't have the echo chamber of the right.
To have a glowing commentary of liberalism on ABC or NBC (which I respectfully disagree with your portrayal of them as liberal) would be unprofessional. ABC, NBC, CBS et al have no place on their news (except when Couric had people on with their "voices" in that weird segment) for commentary towards political parties. As shown by this website, the number of conservative talkers greatly outnumbers those on the left (as an aside, who is able to listen to all of these shows? I would never be able to get a radio at work.). The unity of message is a lot greater on the Right as well so, for me, liberalism is harder to define.
As far as your NYT point, well, editorial writers can glowingly speak of liberalism and they should (on both sides). I would say that editorial writers are the only ones of the people you listed who should do this or could have an influence.
Your Hollywood comment made me laugh (not at you) because of the nature of politics today. People like Hannity and Rush demonize "Hollywood Values" yet embrace a former actor (Reagan) as the father of their movement. Some on the Right even want to amend the Constitution for Arnie. Hannity let Chuck Norris sub once and the Norris-Huckabee connection had McCain scramble and get Sly Stallone. I guess Hollywood and its values work for the Right, but if an actor likes the Left (Clooney, Streisand) they are immediately demonized. I am not sure how this works. Some even wanted another actor in the White House this year (Thompson).
Hi Fried,
Points well taken. I just find it a little hard to believe that the reason for liberals' negative connotation is because of the power of the other side in defining them so incorrectly. Sure, the Limbaughs demonize it in every breath and have for 20 years, but he and the others can't be used as scapegoats forever.
It's about time liberals either actively stand proudly behind their ideology and all that entails or stop whining about it. And how many liberals now use the term "progressive" instead? A lot. To many this just looks a little contrived and silly. If you, not you personally, can't even call yourself a liberal and now must choose "progressive", how can the right be blamed for that? The fact is they can't.
Tommy,
I completely agree, but we need to find someone who can garner and captivate people the way that the right has (talkie wise). Right now though, I think people choose "progressive" because some have given up on the term "liberal" even though there is nothing wrong with it.
The funniest thing I can think of when I think of "liberal" and "conservative" is that I never hear Democrats saying "Dang Conservatives" (I often hear "Dang Republicans"), but I hear a lot of "Dang Liberals."
So why don't liberals, and their vast array of prominent spokespeople and high profile supporters throughout the country, including their many friends in the media, define "liberal" for exactly what it is? And then actual liberal politicians can be as proud of their liberalism as the conservative ones are, or at least those they try to act conservative.
- tommy / Wednesday February 6, 2008 11:57:09 AM EST
The fact that people have to define what "liberal" means implies two things:
1. People don't know what it means at all.
2. People have a definition in mind but it's wrong or biased.
We can fairly agree that 1. is unlikely. A word repeated as often as "liberal", by the MSM, means people, on average, can mentally cogitate the word "liberal", can freely digest and contextualize it.
Thus we can all agree that condition 2. is reality. Which begs the question: why don't people know what "liberal" really means? That's because the conservative dominated MSM has gone to great lengths to pervert not only the meaning of "liberal" but the meaning of "conservative".
"Liberal" has become code for pro-baby killing, anti-military, anti-family, anti-religion, Hollywood-values, San Francisco-values, pro-tax, and pro-welfare.
"Conservative", on the other hand, is code for strong on defense, pro-family, responsible spending, pro-military, pro-religion, lower taxes, and patriotism.
These MSM definitions are easily culled from articles and broadcasts via context. Liberal is almost never offered in a positive context whereas conservative gets the kid gloves time and time again. It's a matter of the MSM setting the tone. For "liberal" to regain its footing, the MSM must cease colorizing it as a negative. Which won't happen in my life time, and I'm not that old.
I can tell you when "liberal" morphed into a pejorative: the day the Fairness Doctrine died in the mid-1980s.
"The venerated Republican Ronald Reagan was, by any other name, an effing demon put on Earth to destroy America."
If a million liberals posted that about Reagan, he'd still be worshipped.
By the same token, if a million liberals posted that "liberal" means to be open minded and concerned for your fellow human beings, to value freedom and privacy more than the illusion of safety, to view a woman's reproductive role as a her choice, to value science as a product of God's greatest gift, the human brain, to respect other cultures, to realize the future lies in alternative fuels, and to understand that government has an essential role in our lives and as such it must be funded responsibly by the people and institutions who depend on it for a way of life, the definition wouldn't change one iota because Rush Limbaugh has, in the same time frame, used "liberal" as a negative a thousand times to the delight of tens of millions of ditto heads, who get their "news" from Rush because Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine.
Reagan: pure demon!
Randy
Yet Democrats and "progressives" are always running away from the "most liberal" label like it's offensive?
That's a rhetorical question, right? (kidding)
Todays Republican party seems to want to exclude all but the right wing. so far the Democratic Party is still open to any of the different factions.
And as pointed out, why is the right always pointing towards potential presidential candidates as the most liberal? Neither kerry, Clinton or Obama is as liberal as Russ Feingold.
The right is in the business of framing the question. To them there are only two sides to any issue, the right and the left. The center is ignored.
The right being the party of strength, patriotism and flag waving. Everyone else is in league with the terrorists and Satan.
God save us from bedwetters.
Worrier,
Because the rightwing of the party is the most vocal, but as evidenced by the current frontrunner, they don't have near the influence in the voting booth as many here suggest all the time. Look at them now, fumbling all over themselves with McCain as the presumptive nominee - their egotistical fantasies of running the party have pretty much been shattered, at least in the present election cycle.
The same is true for the leftwing of the Democratic party - they are very vocal, but the center rules. Both parties better start paying attention to them.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I know this will illude you Tommy, but I'm going to write it anyway!
Democrats= Progressives/Liberals in California voting in the primary(definition of the most likely to vote poll): 3,966,777 Liberal Voters.
Republicans=Conservatives in California voting in the primary(definition of the most likely to vote poll): 2,251,236 Conservative Voters.
1,715,541 more California Liberals than Conservatives.
57% differance!!! Can you say LANDSLIDE IN 'O8 FOR DEMOCRATS ALL AROUND!! I know I can!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Trails GOP;
Dan Grady
California has been in the Democratic column for President for years, your numbers only confirm that as still being the case. If CA went Republican in the fall, I would be flabbergasted, as would most people.
The GOP is a fractured mess of a party, thanks in most part to George W. Bush, in my opinion. So I say good enough for them, they deserve to be in shambles. The Democrats should coast to electoral victory this fall, I could not agree more.
The Democrats should coast to electoral victory this fall, I could not agree more.
Not according to Eric Alterman in his most recent Altercation "Start Me Up" article here at MMFA...
"3) Barring some unforeseen event, I'd pick McCain as the slight favorite over Clinton going in and Obama as a toss-up. "
I do too. The real “liberal media” will rip McCain apart to the point that MSM will have to take notice of the truth in what they have to say.
A few more video clips of him trying to do comedy, trying to speak off-the-cuff, and a constant reminder of the fact he will be 72 at the time of the election will be enough to turn off many voters. Not to mention his history of flipping on issues.
I just don’t see voters flocking to a guy who seems so stiff and impersonal, especially when you have such an eloquent Democratic candidate (either, or) as the alternative.
Dan -
Your post brings to my mind what I think is one of the most underreported aspects of this entire campaign season. The focus has been almost exclusively been on the head-to-head contests, percentages and delegates. A factor that only receives a passing mention is a comparison of the numbers of voters coming out to vote or caucus for each party. With only a few exceptions, the Democrats coming out to participate is dwarfing the number of Republicans doing so.
This really bodes well for the Democratic party for the coming election. If Clinton gets the nomination there will be quite a few of the I-could-never-vote-for-Hillary people, but I believe there will be a large enough number of people coming to vote Democratic to minimize their influence.
The caucus I went to last night was packed solid. Even better than the turnout was the level of enthusiasm. I didn't encounter a single person who felt they couldn't support whichever candidate got the nomination.
BTW - Obama better than doubled Clinton's vote total.
I absolutely agree. I believe that no matter which candidate wins on the Democratic side, most, if not all, will rally around him or her and be united in the fall. McCain and the Republicans have an uphill climb, for sure.
I still maintain that the base and many conservatives within the party view this as a throwaway election, they are resigned to a Democratic win and will just have to live with it. They are fractured and lifeless, which leads to apathy and sitting it out. That's what happens when your leader, aka George Bush, has trampled much of the party and left it for dead, essentially.
Which is why I support Obama's candidacy at this point, even though I am not in agreement with much of his policy. I think he is what the country needs right now, more important than any policy disagreements, for me anyway. The Republicans offer nothing but scare tactics to get them elected. They deserve another "thumpin'".
As it is we allow prevericators like Limbaugh and Hannity to define liberalism.
Well said.
Round, We disagree often but I don't see you as a pandering fence-hugger who is afraid to tell people what you really believe. You are an unabashed liberal who doesn't apologize or shy away from that, and I admire that.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
pandering fence-hugger??? Surely, you can't mean me?
I don't believe I have ever been on the fense regarding my politics.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
On the fense about a brown-wavy haired athletic build woman or redhead athletic build woman, for sure, politics nope! I'm a liberal, I'm a Democrat in every elections since Carter in "76.
Happy Trails GOP;
Dan Grady