Buchanan simply asserted Obama has "most liberal voting record in the United States Senate"
SUMMARY: MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan claimed that if Sen. Barack Obama (IL) wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Republicans will "tear him apart because ... he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate." Buchanan was presumably referencing the National Journal's 2007 vote rankings that claimed Obama was the "most liberal senator in 2007," but he did not mention that the Journal changed its methodology and has acknowledged a flaw in a previous vote rating. Buchanan also did not note a study that ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden as the 10th "most liberal" senator last year.
During MSNBC's coverage of the February 9 Democratic primaries, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan claimed that if Sen. Barack Obama (IL) wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Republicans will "tear him apart because ... he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate." Buchanan did not cite a source for his claim -- presumably the National Journal's 2007 vote ratings; did not mention that the Journal changed its methodology after it rated Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as the "most liberal senator" of 2003; did not touch upon the criteria used in the study; and did not note that a highly respected study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as the 10th "most liberal" senator in 2007.
The Poole-Rosenthal system, developed by Poole and political science professor Howard Rosenthal and known as NOMINATE, has become widely used and cited among political scientists (see here for a list of academic studies that have utilized the Poole-Rosenthal system to evaluate legislative votes in both the U.S. and other countries). The Poole-Rosenthal ratings have a number of advantages over the National Journal ratings, most notably that they use every non-unanimous vote cast by every legislator to determine his or her relative ideology. By contrast, the National Journal's ratings were based on its own necessarily subjective selection of votes, what it describes as "a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories." Among the "liberal" positions Obama took to earn the distinction of "most liberal senator in 2007" were his votes to implement the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.
In a February 1 entry on The Monkey Cage, a political science blog, Brookings Institution senior fellow Sarah Binder wrote: "Because of the selective character of the NJ rating system and the unevenness of senators' participation, we should compare the NJ ranking to the 2007 ideological rankings produced by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal -- developers of the widely-used NOMINATE scores."
Appearing with Buchanan on MSNBC, Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow noted that the "National Journal ranking ... conveniently in 2004 said that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in the United States Senate," adding: "You know I think that [Sen.] Bernie Sanders [I-VT], I think that Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist senator, should be suing the National Journal at this point, because they keep deciding that the Democratic presidential candidate is more liberal even than he. If that's the only thing they've got to throw at him [Obama], it's ridiculous."
From the 8 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's February 9 Democratic primary coverage:
BUCHANAN: I think Hillary clearly would run a stronger race. See, I generally believe that if Obama gets nominated, they're going to tear him apart because of his -- he's got to want -- you know, he has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. And Republicans know how to run against those candidates.
MADDOW: Oh, Pat --
BUCHANAN: Hold it, Rachel. Hold it, I can feel your hot breath coming through this. Now, on the -- there's no doubt on national security, national security and the war, Obama was against it from the beginning. No doubt about it; he's got a clear record. But McCain, that's all he's going to run on, see? McCain, that's what he really cares about. Immigration's almost off the table. And on that issue, national security, and "we're going to stay and fight and there's going to be no white flag of surrender," that is perfectly tailored to go after Obama's case, who says "we're coming out, like it or not." So you've got that issue right there. And frankly for Republicans, that's about the one issue they've got, since McCain has pretty much thrown immigration off the table.
EUGENE ROBINSON (Washington Post columnist): There are a couple of problems, in that McCain promises more wars. And I don't think that's what the American --
BUCHANAN: Yeah, he's got 100 years in Iraq. He'll have to back off from that a little bit, I think.
ROBINSON: I don't think that's what the American people want.
BUCHANAN: I agree.
NORAH O'DONNELL (co-anchor): What about the argument, Rachel? I mean, Barack Obama says that he presents the clearer contrast with John McCain on the war because, as Barack Obama has made his point, he opposed the war from the beginning. John McCain has supported this war. He has said that it was mismanaged, but he of course was one of the strong supporters of the surge and has said that we might be there for another 100 years.
MADDOW: Sure. I mean, Barack Obama would want to make the contest about Iraq to be about the decision to go in the first place. John McCain and, actually, Hillary Clinton both would like to make the discussion about Iraq be about what to do now and how to get out and whether or not to get out.
But, you know, when Pat mentioned -- and you heard me kind of scratching and clawing from over here about it -- when Pat mentioned this idea that Barack Obama is the most liberal senator, has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, that's from a National Journal ranking that conveniently in 2004 said that John Kerry was the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. You know, I think that Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist senator, should be suing the National Journal at this point, because they keep deciding that the Democratic presidential candidate is more liberal even than he. If that's the only thing they've got to throw at him, it's ridiculous.
This is from the guy who runs the "Oreilly Sucks.com" site
"They claim that Obama and Clinton only differed on 10 votes, but somehow Obama comes in first and Clinton is #16. In fact, looking at the voting chart the National Journal uses to draw their conclusions, it's obvious that there are a few senators who are clearly more liberal than Obama.
As Progressive Punch reports, every Democratic Senator has a more liberal voting record than Obama, except Baucus, Biden, Pryor, Dodd, Landrieu and Ben Nelson. But since when do right wing journalists like O'Reilly let the pesky facts get in the way? And don't forget that in 2004, they also claimed that......you guessed it, John Kerry and John Edwards were the most liberal senators. What a coincidence, not hardly.
It's just more propaganda put out by right-wingers like O'Reilly to make Democrats running for President look bad by claiming they are too liberal to be President."
That about sums it up, I believe.
I like Maddow as well, but it's a bit premature to say she's debunked Buchanan's analyses. My understanding of what he's been saying lately is that HC would make a better general election candidate, in part because she's stronger on economics and has already faced the rightwing . . . Pat thinks, correctly, that the rightwing "assault machine" hasn't even begun on Obama, and that he'll be torn up a bit if and when he gets the nomination.
That's been my take from listening to him, and it remains to be seen whether he's right. Though certainly not the only one, recall that Pat's been ever prescient on issues stemming from american foreign policy, trade, the collapse of the neocons . . .
Buchanan is speculating, and he may be right, but it's my view that Obama's campaign has foreseen this and is pro actively combating the smears and lies. For example, the viral e-mail that said he was a Muslim. That e-mail even made it on to an official Republican party website, but it was debunked quickly and efficiently.
I think Obama can handle the right wing machine, mostly because McCain has a snowball's chance in H-E-double hockey sticks of winning the Presidency.
Maybe you're right. However, I agree with Buchanan that Obama's "new meat" compared to HC. A few months from now, if Obama's the nominee, repub operatives will be dissecting every single vote ever cast by Obama. Besides active primary voters, the public at large still is unfamiliar with Obama's positions. Not so with HC, who's already been through the ringer and whose every word has been scrutinized at length. Anyhow, I think that's Pat's take on things, and he's got a point.
I was referring to the way she swatted Buchanan's "most liberal voting record in the Senate" remark he made which isn't accurate if one includes Feingold, Kennedy and Sanders in the mix.
No doubt Republicans are going to Swiftboat Obama. I don't think anyone can deny that since that has always been the Republican strategy to defeat an opponent. No one is good at attack-ad politics as the Republicans—they’re masters at it. But I think Irony below raised a great point that if they try this with Obama it may backfire since many—even self-identified conservatives, moderates and libertarians—like Obama than Kerry. Just look at Jeter and Tommy, two who aren’t liberals but like Obama. Actually, Tommy and I had this discussion a month ago about Obama’s likeability, and he made the point that Obama handles attacks made by Hillary Clinton quite well. Most of her attacks against him don't stick; they often backfire and make her look silly and desperate. Now, I will say that going toe-to-toe with the Republicans is an entirely different brand of opponents, ones who are far more ruthless than the Clintons. And they’re better at creating convincing propaganda that captivates the public. I guess I'm on the fence with this on how Obama will take the Republican attacks, because on the one hand, I don't think he's much of a fighter, but on the other hand, maybe that's not his style and his non-confrontational, laugh-off-silly-remarks strategy tends to work. Even when Brian Williams in one debate brought up that email floating around about Obama secretly being Muslim, Obama laughed it off and responded to the accusation in this carefree attitude that made the entire issue seem frivolous. That befuddles Republicans and forces them to rethink their way of peddling such Swiftboat propaganda.
I don't think this label will do much harm. I also think it really doesn't say much. The republicans are always going to say the oppostion is too far left and the dems will always say the other is too far right. I have my doubts that these type of labels have a significant effect on a candidates supporters. I don't think Obama or Clinton are trying to hide the fact that they support the democratic platform (with a tweek here and there of course) so I don't think the liberal label being used by the republicans will register as some big surprise and change voters support. IMO both democratic candidates are fairly moderate in their stances.
"IMO both democratic candidates are fairly moderate in their stances"
Compared to who? Fidel Castro?
It probably wasn't fair to call him a liberal. My point was simply that he isn't a true conservative but is more of a neo-con like Bush. But if you're going by ACU ratings Hillary has a 9% lifetime rating from the ACU, so that's not exactly moderate. Obama has a 8% lifetime rating which is slightly more liberal. So if you want to go by that Hillary is liberal 91% of the time, Obama is liberal 92% of the time, and McCain is conservative 82% of the time. It's obvious that McCain is more moderate than either Obama or Hillary.
ACU ratings aren't relevant to me. I would think they're relevant to you, that's why I brought them up. I'm not sure their standards can be adequately applied to Democrats.
This is probably a better measure.
I understand that concern. So let's say you stretch it towards the bottom left, so Paul crosses over the line. Where does Hillary end up? Pretty close to the center.
I just don't know any liberals who think Hillary is liberal. She's moderate compared to liberals.
RH,
Did you try the test?
Yeah, I was about where Ron Paul was on the test. I was just barely on the authoritarian side. So that means since Paul was there as well I'm probably more of a libertarian than authoritarian. I think the test is skewed. Some of the questions weren't really political but simply social questions which weren't related to public policy. But it said my economic left/right was 6.50 and my social libertarian/authoritarian was .62. I'll see if this link works to show you the results, but I'm not sure if it will.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
RH,
I agree with you on the social policy questions, but there are some politicians who run for office based on their positions on gay marriage and homosexuality so it makes some sense to include the questions in my opinion.
I did take it. I was close to Mandela on the left.
I wonder where FDR would chart?
Ok. That didn't work. I'll try it again.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=6.50&soc=0.62
RH,
What in Hillary or Obama's voting record concerns you? I would say Ted Kennedy, Sanders, maybe Biden, Feingold, and Leahy off the top of my head would be more liberal than either of these two.
RH,
I don't disagree too much, but if that's true, why aren't they all mentioned by the National Journal? Could it be that the Journal is being dishonest?
He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and he voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.
Also, in 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.
Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.
In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) was sent, Obama prevented it from even getting a hearing. BAIPA, by the way, stated that all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
"See, I generally believe that if Obama gets nominated, they're going to tear him apart..."
See, I hope they try...because I believe the Repubs are looking at a backlash. They will attack Obama if he gets the nomination...just like thay did John Kerry in 2004. They can't help themselves. It's what they do. But Barack Obama is not John Kerry. In 2004 Kerry's biggest asset was that he was not George W. Bush. The difference between Obama and Kerry is that people are crazy about Obama. His support is much firmer and enthusiastic than Kerry could have dreamed of. Let the Repubs start their bullsh*t attacks on Obama and I believe it will bite them on the butt. People have seen it before hoe Repubs operate and will be turned off by attacks on Obama.
Good God almighty Roundhouse!!!!! How dare you throw pebbles at Hillary with your blatant (but correct) sarcasm of her supporters issues with Obama.
It just seesm so unreasonable to me to attack someone in your own party because he is electrifying and can actually unify something other than opposition. I also love the "where's the specifics?" which is obviously a free admittance of laziness as they won't even take the time to go to his website for Pete's Sakes!! I also guess 4 more years in the senate and 8 years as first lady also automatically makes you the most qualified person in the world to be President. I guess that all Laura Bush lacks now is a 6 year Senate term to be fully qualified for the job.
The longer this nomination fight goes on the weaker the party becomes. 23 states to 8 (or whatever) is evidence enough to me who the party wants. I think now she is at the point in which she is holding on, either out of pride or disbelief that something she thought to be entitled to is being taken away. That has to be a bad feeling, kind of like getting nothing but socks for Christmas.
Lost,
I think there needs to be an asterisk regarding Florida and Michigan for those who voted, and those who didn't, went to those polls knowing there would be no delegates awarded the winner.
"If your candidate of choice is truly who the people support then he should have no problem coming out ahead in the end."
This is really what I was referring to, so "popular support" can rest on what you meant. Whatever definition you or I use, there's still a pretty significant outside factor there that can defy the will of the majority. I'm just saying that if Hillary is nominated because of a huge advantage among superdelegates, then I wouldn't want that to imply that Obama didn't really have the people's support.
I'm not sure what they should do with Michigan and Florida. The way things are going in Michigan I think we should sell the whole state to Canada and then we can make Washington D.C. a state without having to change the flag.
Stop being show ashamed of the liberal values of these candidates that you have been supporting this entire time.
So where's the middle ground there? You admit what Buchanan said may not be true, but then pointing that out means shame of the label. How could they point it out without creating that impression to you?
Besides, the word "liberal" isn't there all on its lonesome. It's "most liberal", which makes a big difference. If someone were to just call him liberal and MMfA had a thread on it, then I would see your point. And I think most mainstream Democrats would think "so what?" if someone were to say that. But to say he's the most suggests that he's at the extreme, and more moderate elements would be wary about supporting that person because they're not as likely to win the general election.
I'm talking about the reaction of moderates. I would say the same thing if someone said McCain had the most conservative record, then I would expect the more moderate element might get a little nervous about that.
A lot of what you're talking about is religious, I think. Huckabee and Romney trading jabs, McCain kissing up to Falwell, etc. There's no flipside to that on the left. Nobody's trying to show how secular they are.
Hi Lynn, well said. I am proud to cll myself a liberal thinker and I think my liberal thinking is one of my best assets if I do say so myself (-; (-:. I think sometimes the problem is while there seems to be a narrow definition to some of what conservative means liberal has more varied meanings to each person. I classify myself as a liberal based on my openness to different ideas and change and tolerance of others views (not that I am tolerant of every view neccesarily since some don't deserve tolerance ie: racism). On political issues many here would probably classify me more as a moderate and I wouldn't argue with that either. I usually prefer using terms like left and right along with the descriptive adjectives to note where people fall on the political spectum on issues. I think liberal speaks to a type of thinking rather then an absolute on politcal positioning. So while I don't shy from the liberal label I often find it is not really discriptive of where I am on political issues per se. I think using that label sometimes leaves people with a false impression of where I stand as it does to others. That is why I don't feel either candidate is overly politcally liberal but rather moderate in their positions but I would probably say they both have liberal thinking. Just my 2 cents.