What makes a "liberal"? National Journal says: support for 9-11 Commission recommendations, health care for more kids, and stem-cell research funding
SUMMARY: Among the "liberal" votes Sen. Barack Obama took that purportedly earned him "the most liberal senator in 2007" label in the National Journal's "2007 Vote Ratings" were: to implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, permit federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.
On January 31, the National Journal released its "2007 Vote Ratings," which ranked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "the most liberal senator in 2007." Among the "liberal" positions Obama took to earn the distinction were his votes to implement the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, permit federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.
According to the Journal, its 27th annual vote ratings of members of Congress were based on "a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories": economic, social, and foreign policy. Among the Senate votes the National Journal considered in ranking Obama the "most liberal senator in 2007" were:
- Vote No. 24: on an amendment to "[r]epeal the federal minimum wage by giving states the authority to set minimum wages," according to the Journal. The magazine determined that the liberal position was to vote against the amendment, as Obama did.
- Vote No. 56: to "[t]able an amendment that would require the Homeland Security Department to screen 100 percent of cargo containers entering the country within five years," according to the Journal. Obama voted against tabling the amendment to the Improving America's Security Act of 2007, which the magazine considered to be the liberal position; the conservative position was to kill the amendment.
- Vote No. 73: on passage of the Improving America's Security Act of 2007 itself, which the Journal described as "a bill implementing the 9/11 commission's homeland-security recommendations, including a provision extending collective bargaining rights to federal security screeners." The liberal position, according to the magazine, was to vote for the bill, as Obama did.
- Vote No. 127: on passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which the Journal described as "[s]upport[ing] embryonic-stem-cell research." The liberal position, according to the magazine, was to vote for the bill, as Obama did.
- Vote No. 307: concerning "legislation reauthorizing and expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program," as the Journal noted. The liberal position, according to the magazine, was to vote for the bill, as Obama did.
Following the Journal's release of its ratings, some bloggers criticized the report's methodology. As Media Matters for America has noted, the National Journal Group recently sent out an email to readers calling attention to the 2007 ratings and touting the results of its 2003 ratings, which labeled then-presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as the most liberal senator, despite its recent admission that the 2003 ratings were flawed because Kerry had missed a significant number of the votes that the study had analyzed. According to Journal editor Charles Green, the magazine was aware of the issue at the time, but decided to publish the ratings anyway and change its methodology later, rather than "change the rules in the middle of the game ... after we learned Kerry's ranking." Under the new methodology applied in the 2007 study, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) did not receive a rating because he missed too many votes; Media Matters has documented that numerous media outlets have reported Obama's rating while not mentioning that McCain missed too many votes to be evaluated.
The Journal's full 2007 ratings have yet to be released. According to the initial January 31 article about the study on the Journal's website, "The full results for both chambers will be published in our March 8 issue." Only the ratings for nine senators (including McCain's non-rating) were mentioned in the article: the five most liberal senators, presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), and the two senators who received the closest rating to Clinton -- Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Charles Schumer (D-NY). The rating of Rep. Ron Paul (TX) -- the one House member who is still in the race for the Republican nomination -- was also mentioned in the January 31 article.
In a January 31 "explanation of the vote ratings," Green explained why the findings for Clinton and Obama were released before other members of Congress:
Q: Why are you releasing the scores for Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton before you release the scores for all other members of Congress?
Green: Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season.
Q: Can't you be accused of trying to influence the Super Tuesday election results by releasing the ratings now?
Green: The Super Tuesday timing is coincidental. We received the final vote ratings from Brookings on January 25. We decided to publish the Obama and Clinton scores in the next issue of National Journal. We spent the time between January 25 and January 31, when the magazine was sent to the printer, double-checking the ratings and preparing stories and tables about them.
This reminds me of the Christian "voter guides" that they pass out in churches. The select and word the questions in order to make the preferred candidate have a column of green checkmarks next to his name (I would say "his/her" but there are no female theocrats running for Pres this year), and the other candidates have columns of red x's. It's flat-out electioneering and yet they're never punished for it.
Obama scores the highest on BeliefNet's God-o-meter, I think that takes him out of the running of "most liberal".
Well, if you say you have never seen it, that's good enough for me!
link
Not the best link, funnyman.
Try this one from 2006: http://www.religionlink.org/tip_061009b.php
According to a Sept. 18, 2006, story in The New York Times, the IRS reported in February that nearly half of the 110 tax-exempt organizations it investigated after the 2004 elections were churches. The IRS said 37 of 40 cases it completed against the churches showed violations of the law, but the churches were issued warnings or hit with an excise tax, and none lost their tax-exempt status.
I live in a small to medium town in South Central Missouri. I have seen with my own eyes "voter guides" that were passed out in the local Catholic Church as well as in the Assembly of God church.
To be fair, after receiving attention in the local newspaper , the Catholic Church did apologize for it's voter guide, but never stopped talking about how Republicans are more likely to support "Life" than Democrats.
The Assembly of God Church still hands out voter guides every single election.
"(I would say "his/her" but there are no female theocrats running for Pres this year)"
But there is one for the demoncats. She is a staunch Christian who follows the beliefs of the United Methodist branch. How will her religious beliefs affect your vote? BTW, Obama is another staunch Christian. Golly, you just can't get away from Christians can you?? Actually, ALL the candidates are Christians, except one. Who are the atheists going to vote for, this time??
As with all other elections we'll vote for the candidate whose policy positions most closely match ours. We're not, as a rule, so narrow-minded as to automatically endorse or reject a candidate solely on the basis of that person's religious opinions. If a candidate expresses a desire to govern or legislate on the basis of that faith, without a secular basis for those policies, that would be a legitimate reason to reject that candidate. That candidate would be choosing an un-American approach to government.
For the most part, atheists have been ale to find candidates to support who can separate their faiths from public policy, the way it should be.
"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."
Personally, I find the word "conservative" repulsive. It conjures up immediate thoughts of "snobbish, hypocritical, and selfish”.
As Hermann Goehring said, "When I hear the world culture, I reach for a gun."
HistyBuff schrieb:
>>As Hermann Goehring said, "When I hear the world culture, I reach for a gun."
Yes, Goehringn is one of my heroes, too. I always quote him. So what if he was a military leader under Hitler.
I always quote him. So what if he was a military leader under Hitler.
Hahahaha !!!!
"Yes, Goehringn is one of my heroes, too... So what if he was a military leader under Hitler."
I hear complaints when goehringn is quoted and I hear complaints when Jesus is quoted. Who would you like to have quoted? You don't seem to be happy with anyone. Maybe if quotes are restricted to heroes of this site...babs striesand, michael douglass, robya riener
Get it?
"Green: The Super Tuesday timing is coincidental."
Sure it is. And Obama being the most liberal senator is just coincidental too.
I'm sure they'd consider Ronald Reagan a liberal too since he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 into law.
JihnnyNYC, off topic, but speaking of Reagan, I was listening to Tom Hartmann's show the other day, and he had on the guy who made that new Hillary Clinton "documentary". As the guy started to distance himself from the current GOP party, he naturally invoked the mythical Reagan as his Lord.
Hartmann started hammering the guy on Reagans historic tax hikes and other issues,and the Hillary-hate guy just crumbled.If you didn't catch it, you missed a good laugh.
Fascinating, even more so when you look at the word "liberal". You can take this two ways.
If you go with the new demonized version of "liberal", what the Journal is saying is that now even the most mainstream views, healthcare, stem cells, etc, are now these fringe wild left concepts. And of course that's outrageous misinformation.
If you look at it another way, you could say that liberals have their pulse on the mainstream of America, because, as we all know, the majority of Americans believe in these ideas. So it works both ways.
Too bad, Buf. I was always taught to look out for the least among us. I am glad that Obama and HRC seem to share that view. Its much better than voting for tax breaks for oil companies in my view.
Stem-cell research? Hilarious. So if you think that research to cure diseases is more important than the notion that a deity that might exist might be upset about it because he might consider it to be murder under some possible definition, then you're a liberal.
That should cover an awful lot of people.
this This is my “hot list” for issues that I’d like to see addressed by the next Administration in order of importance to me…
My guess is only one of my "pet peeves" is on the list of most liberals – and the other two haven’t even been mentioned by ANY candidate in ANY debate thus far.:(
stop the sale of all tobacco, huh. several states have high tobacco taxes to pay for education and healthcare. where you get the money when you make it illegal to sell the weed?
why does the government need to support embryo stem-cell research which has not (as opposed to adult stem cell research) not produced anything, except a boondoggle.
First off I live in North Carolina, so you’re not telling me anything didn’t already realize as far as taxes go. When I first moved here 10 years ago, tobacco was a common site in rural areas around here. One thing I’ve noticed since is that the small farmers across the state have virtually abandoned tobacco as a cash crop – probably mostly because they have a conscience, which is more than can be said for the tobacco corporations. If private farmers can switch crops and survive so can RJ Reynolds, etc.
Maybe you have never smoked, nor lost a family member to lung cancer at an early age? I lost a brother a year ago who was so addicted he continued to smoked literally until the day he died, despite suffering from lung cancer, a year of chemo, and 3 months on a respirator. I moved in with him for 9 years before he was diagnosed and throughout that time, before suspecting he had cancer, he would wake up every morning hacking loud enough to wake the neighborhood. You’d think I would have learned my lesson after seeing him and being with him 24/7 and as his caregiver during home hospice care ‘til the end. But I am STILL smoking. I am not alone. There are millions of addicted Americans.
Before you make me out to be a weakling… I developed health issues myself 20 years ago and completely gave up alcohol and marijuana 10 year ago because of it, both which I was a heavy user for 30 years. So anyone who makes marijuana out to be “physically addictive” is talking out their butt. Compared to tobacco, quitting marijuana was a piece of cake. Tobacco is by far the most addictive and dangerous drug in use in America – perhaps every bit as addictive as heroin.
The addiction and death statistics aren’t enough? How about the loss of work? How about Social Security Disability (approx. $20,000 a year per patient)? How about the costs to our health care system? Have you ever seen hospital billing or insurance claim statements showing the costs for diagnosis, hospital stays, chemotherapy, scans, pharmaceutical drugs, etc. for treatment of lung cancer? My brother’s illness cost the health insurance companies over $300,000 – and over $20,000 from his own pockets. In 2004 89,575 men and 68,431 women died from lung cancer in America. Then there is the millions, maybe billions, in other losses associated with smoking – like the healthcare costs from chronic lung diseases other than cancer, and lives and property loss due to fires caused by smoking. You do the math!
Yeah, let the tobacco companies keep growing the poison, so long as the stockholders are happy. Probably the only way I will quit is if it’s no longer available. Yeah HSTYBUF, let’s just keep pushing the crap on one generation after another. Then start “anti-smoking” campaigns and “secession drugs” (That don’t work) so the pharmaceutical corporations make even MORE money off the scourge.
You worry about states that make money off tobacco, but I’m sure you’re patting The Bush Administration on the back for spraying cash crops that people and families of other nations around the world have been growing and relying on for centuries. That’s a GOOD THING to you? As long as back home in the good ol’ USA, moral compass of the world - WE’RE getting tax dollars out of our “killer crop” – it’s ok? What KILLS more people - Marijuana, poppies, coca, or tobacco???? You know the answer, by a LONGSHOT – and the only one of these NOT used for medicinal purposed is tobacco.
Was my argument strong enough for you to have a change of heart?
i have had several deaths in my family related to smoking. I mywelf was a smoker for about 15 years and unfortunately still chew cigars.
i do not invest in tobacco companies.
my point was that liberals, like rob reiner, foist governent programs on us that are to be paid for with tobacco taxes, then turn around and want to end the sale of tobacco (which wouldn't bother me), but then we are still saddled with the same govt programs but no way to pay for them except with more taxes.
Histbuff awrita
>>if you cut taxes that affect the higher incomes, you get more tax revenue than if you cut taxes for lower incomes.
It takes a bunch of research to get to the truth behind the crap you fling. I guess that's your hope.
The L.A. Mayor who made the bid for the offices of the CIRM (who only receive grant applications for the Prop 71 money and disburse it, they don't do any research) was Mayor Hahn. That bid was made on March 16, 2005. CIRM officially signed the lease for the San Francisco site that won the bid in June 2005. Mayor Villaraigosa, the current mayor of L.A. who did have a controversial affair with a Telemundo reporter and is of Latino descent, was elected in a run-off election on March 17, 2005 and inaugurated on July 1, 2005. The scandal started making the news in 2007.
If you don't know what the *^^%& you're talking about, why don't you just stfu?
WTF! Is history buff that wrong! That is really, really laughable! Good work, Moonbat!
Your whole life? Sure you havent lived anywhere else?
It's ridiculous how often this has to be pointed out, but here we go again.a
Adult stem cell research has several decades of research behind it. Embryonic stem cell research has had less than one decade to begin experiments. Comparing the two on the basis of results is either dishonest or ignorant. There are no other alternatives.
I'm on a mission to define just what a "liberal" is, in American politics...
I hear the word a lot, but I'm usually stumped as to what exactly it means. I weigh all that I think I know about National Policy in America, and I align those thoughts with the various Representatives and Senators and Administrators who seem to personify those Policies, and still I can't with certainty attach this word "liberal" to any one person, or any specific Policy.
And so I continue on investigating the matter... I'll crack the case for sure, as sure as Lt. Columbo always did.
One thing I can report: That from the usage of the word "liberal", from inferring it's meaning from hearing that word used by those who mostly use it, from inferring the meaning of the word "liberal" from the context of the speech of those who use it, I have learned this much...
That to those who seem to use the word "liberal" most of all, it seems to mean "All those persons and all those things, that we hate and despise and speak ill of, as though they were evil incarnate, and a dark and destructive quality in American politics"...
That's the crazy warped meaning of the word "liberal" that I have inferred from hearing it used publicly, which is why I never use it myself, preferring to speak specifically in terms of National Policy, and the Agents thereof, instead of using hateful and vague labels.
Dem posted:
"All those persons and all those things, that we hate and despise and speak ill of, as though they were evil incarnate, and a dark and destructive quality in American politics"...
_______________________________________________________
Very perceptive Dem. I wouldn't go so far as using words like "hate" and "despise", but that's just me.
"Liberal", "New Democrat" or "Progressive"...you can change the name, but the policy stays the same. Please have Hills or Obama run on "Liberal" policy during the General. I doubt they would take you up on it though!
Even King Wilhelm Der Sleikmeister couldn't run on "Liberal" policy, remember he was about "new democrat" ideas; just take a gander at his '92 Campaign speech on Foreign Policy:
"...the two elements that were absolutely critical to our victory in the Gulf: our superbly trained and motivated personnel and our world class weapons technology. "
"At the same time, there are those, some in my party, who see defense cuts as largely a piggybank to fund domestic wish lists. With our defense structures and missions as a mere afterthought rather than a starting premise. "
"For there can be no growth without increased productivity in the private sector. "
"The second imperative of Presidential leadership in this new era is to reinforce the powerful global movement toward democracy and free market economies. Our strategic interest and our moral values are both rooted in this goal."
"Growing market economies expand individual opportunity and social tolerance. "
"The currency of national strength in this new era will be denominated not only in ships and tanks and planes, but in diplomas and patents and paychecks."
-Candidate William Jefferson Clinton circa 1992
Slicky is sounding right of center to me???? Yes Dem, please have your candidates run on "PICK YOUR CURRENT TAG-LINE" (read: "Liberal" policy) this fall. It makes our job easier!
Thank you preston, I could not agree more. Why does the democrat party run from the scourge of being labeled a liberal? I think it is because people understand and prefer those who expouse true conservatism and let them live their lives without the heavihandedness of a progressive agenda.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080207.asp
Exactly which conservative govt. keeps us from a heavy hand?
The conservative government that arrests men in Texas in their own home under sodomy statutes?
The conservative government that wants government involved in abortion decisions?
The conservative government that continues to allow high medical costs to run up from preventing research funding under the "sanctity of life" of diseases that kill people?
The conservative government that takes a 2001 surplus and runs up 3-trillion dollars of debt... and rising?
The conservative government that continues borrowing money from China rather than even trying to balance the budget?
I would like to thank conservatives for keeping government out of my life like this. You're doing a great job.
Then, you continue to add to the richness of your post by linking a column by one of the biggest kooks in the political realm... Brent Bozell. I wonder how many more awards he has for Rush. LOL