National Journal's anticipation fulfilled: On Fox, Rove called Obama "the most liberal member of the United States Senate"
SUMMARY: Following the National Journal's "anticipat[ion]" of the "attention" its Vote Ratings will receive "across the 2008 election cycle," on The O'Reilly Factor, Karl Rove presumably referred to the Journal's 2007 ratings when he called Barack Obama "the most liberal member of the United States Senate" -- a rating that counted as "liberal" Obama's votes to implement the 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, and which conflicts with a highly respected study ranking Obama lower.
When the National Journal Group released its 2007 vote ratings -- which ranked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) the "most liberal Senator in 2007" -- it sent readers a February 5 email proclaiming: "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 National Journal Group continues to tout its rating of Kerry from 2004, despite having acknowledged that its methodology at that time was flawed. On the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, former Bush White House adviser and Fox News contributor Karl Rove gave the "anticipate[d]" attention to the "Vote Ratings," calling Obama "the most liberal member of the United States Senate." Rove added: "If a Republican presidential candidate can't make meat -- you know, mincemeat out of that, I don't know what."
Rove did not cite a source for his claim about Obama -- presumably the National Journal's 2007 vote ratings. Rather, he simply asserted as fact that Obama is the "most liberal senator in 2007." But the National Journal's result differ with those of a highly respected study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as the 10th "most liberal" senator in 2007. Moreover, as Media Matters for America noted, among the votes Obama took that purportedly earned him "the most liberal senator in 2007" label were: to implement the 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. Indeed, Obama himself made this point during the February 11 Politico/WJLA forum, when he was asked about the rating:
OBAMA: Well, first of all, not to grouse against the National Journal, but let me give you an example of why I was rated the most liberal was because I wanted an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress. Now, I didn't know that it was a liberal or Democratic issue. I thought that was a good government issue that a lot of Republicans would like to see. So that's the problem with some of these ratings --- how they score things. It uses categories that I think don't make sense to a lot of Americans.
From the February 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (host): Who's the tougher candidate for the Republicans, Obama or [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)]?
ROVE: You know, you can make a case for each one of them.
O'REILLY: No, but you tell me. You're the guy. You tell me.
ROVE: Well, you know, my gut tells me that over the long haul, Obama is -- look, he is inexperienced and does not have what is needed to be the commander in chief. And he's the most liberal member of the United States Senate. If a Republican presidential candidate can't make meat -- you know, mincemeat out of that, I don't know what.
On the other hand, Clinton has very strong negatives. On the other hand, she has very strong positives. In fact, what's interesting to me is that in the Fox poll, she does better at grabbing -- at keeping Democrats in her column than does Obama. She sees 15 percent of the Democrats sliding over to McCain; he sees 18 percent. And I think that's because there is a weakness among some Democrats who view Obama as not fit to be commander in chief.
O'REILLY: All right. Mr. Rove, nice to have you here at the Fox News Channel. And we'll be speaking to you on a regular basis throughout the campaign. And we appreciate it very much.
Exactly...and they'll keep repeating it over and over and over again until it's as firmly ingrained in the minds of Republican voters as John Kerry did not deserve his war medals.
I thought being defined as a liberal would be something to be proud of?
It is. But these eejits have tried to make it a perjorative. Of course you know that.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet without looking that Russ Feingold might be the most liberal or among the most liberal senators. I only wish Obama was the most liberal. Then I would have a clear choice between him and Hillary. Neither one is particularly liberal.
Loonz, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response on the "Castro platform" question. That's the kind of rhetorical question that gets the dittoheads pumping their fists in the air. It doesn't have to make any sense.
This is a pretty clever talking point (I only mean clever in that it works on the target audience,i.e. the real concrete thinkers), naming Obama America's Most Liberal .Everybody who's paying attention understands that;
A. It's not true, just the opinion of somebody with a motive, and
B. The term "liberal" has been very purposefully defined as a negative by conservative media people for many years now.
So, pointing out this bit of BS gets a very calculated response from the zombies, as seen above- "I thought being liberal was a good thing".
I saw it here a week or so ago when this designation of Obama happened, it was explained at length, but the "slow children" will be repeatig this feeble gotcha for a while.The GOP machine knows who their customers are.
The more that comes out about "Che" Obama's background and Senate voting record, the more "buyer's remorse" the Dems will have.
I'm not saying the She-Devil is any better...*GACK*...but at least she was a known quantity...sort of. You knew what you were going to get with her.
Che's myriad closet skeletons are just are going to surprise a whole buncha folks.
edrossinoelwein9669
Hate to say it, but Solon is incapable of raising the bar. He only has a few words he can read and understand, and most are insults. Must be sad to go through life in such a fashion.
Wow--we get ProudConservative (credibility rating 10%), RINO Hunter (4%), and The Stranger (1%) all in one thread. Why don't you all go over to the Savage (2%) thread and defend him, like Finarfin (0%)?
Yes, my numbers are my own creation (based on my guess as to the percentage of time that these people present good points in argumentation), which makes them about as legitimate as those of the National Journal. Anyone with at least half a brain (this automatically excludes the right-wingnuts, of course) knows that Bernie Sanders is the farthest-left senator.
Anyway, hats off to Obama for addressing the issue so well. He'll have to do it again and again as long as buffoons like Rove (3%) bring it up. What Obama can't do is ignore it (like Kerry), or retreat from it (like Dukakis)--the neocons need to be challenged to look up the word "liberal" in a dictionary and see what it is that they've been slandering for so long.
Politicallyincorrect and shame,shame (no souls were every saved by correct politics),
Thank you for the high rating (10% credibility, my wife puts it closer to 2.5). And thanks for making my point. You cannot blame media or conservatives for the negative connotation surrounding the word 'liberal'. Lefties have done it to themselves.
Rather than embracing the term, they let liberal policies be defined as socialistic and higher socialistic-communistic. And that is part of the liberal label problem, it has been defined by Americans as antithetical to what the voting public sees as the way this country is unique and exceptional. It is why successful candidates seek to be defined as conservative, even when they aren't, because they know that is what Americans want.
Call yourselves what you will, liberals, progressives or the left, it's your candidates and their policies who will always run for the cover of the middle ground, ie conservatism to win in a general election.
I think a radical minority of agenda driven conservatives have coordinated this false definition of liberalism and broadcast it far and wide via a massive communication infrastructure.
So, basically your argument boils down to a matter of liberals are to blame for not saving conservatives from themselves.
And how is it none of the genuine conservatives in the race managed to gain any traction with a pure conservative agenda?
When the conservatives lose this year it will be because they are not liberal enough :)
squarecottage,
I think that most conservatives didn't find a candidate they could solidly support. Many now will hold their noses and vote for McCain. As far as his liberal credentials, he has already established those for years but it is actually the conservative moniker that he will continue to seek.
I will watch to see who moves where in the general election.
All but three didn't believe in evolution. The ones who took an early leave of absence would build a glorious fence on our borders. They all spout the taxcuts solves everything line. All but a couple want to stay indefinitely in Iraq. They are all, except Huck, market fundies. They all want to out-Reagan the other guy. Yet, the last ones standing feature liberal values as the main plank in their platform. The out of Iraq candidate, the economic populist and the immigration moderate. The only thing they are unified on is taxes. How's that tax thing playin' to a population that would make the noble sacrifice of paying higher taxes if it meant healthcare for their neighbors?
Enough is enough. Conservatism is bad for people.
Stranger,
How on earth would you know more about Obama's "skeletons" than anyone else? This is coming from a guy who voted for Bush twice. How are Bush's skeletons? They certainly didn't play much of a role in his elections.
What do you think of McCain's flips?
Loonz, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response on the "Castro platform" question.
Especially since "Rino Hunter" almost never responds to any of the stuff he posts here. He just comes in, dumps stuff like so much elephant dung, and takes off for places that are more to his liking - like Free Republic...
Indeed.
RINO HUNTER and his ilk are what I like to call "Seagull posters."
They fly in out of nowhere, make a lot of noise, crap all over everything, and fly out again.
They contribute nothing, even in the form of substantive debate, and should be utterly ignored.
theleft,
Here it is!
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
It's Hillary's platform. Or Barack Obama's, should he win the nomination. Democrats are socialists, which are a type of Communist, and they take their marching orders from Havana.
I thought being defined as a liberal would be something to be proud of?
It is. And after eight years of Bush and a long line of GOP-produced misery dating back to the Reagan Administration, I see absolutely NOTHING to be proud of by calling yourself a conservative. Conservatism is a PROBLEM - not a solution.
Difficultrider,
I wish that we had people that had governed as conservatives in congress and in the whitehouse. It has been a disappointment for us to see them be more like the democrats with spending, education and border security. I wish they had done more of the tax cutting, down-sizing rather than expansion of government, and more vociferously prosecuted the war on terror. I guess the left says the same about the more recent congress, as well.
But conservative principles always work, Even now, the democrats in congress led the way in giving us a tax rate cut for this last year. They recognize that by giving individuals more of their own money the economy will be stimulated. We won that argument again, conservatism works whenever and wherever it is applied. Liberalsim, to the contrary, always creates the exact opposite of its stated intent. (Quinns first Law)
Oh to be as perfect as conservatism, the doctrine that never ever fails. The current state of our government and our country is not an indictment of the supposed conservatives who had complete control of things from 2001-2007. No, it is an indictment of those politicians for just not being conservative enough.
Funny thing how conservatism never fails the people but people are always failing conservatism, isn't it?
Lunnyyoubet,
The point of my posting was that the Republicans had a great opportunity. We agree. But they legislated like democrats, including the president on so many issues. I wish that they had done what was necessary to resolve issues with huge entitlements for instance but instead increased spending. The results of the 2006 election show that conservative GOPer's felt less inclined to support them because they had done little to warrant our support. We need to find more conservatives like Andy Harris in MD to support and build the party again.
They did not "legislate like democrats." They legislated exactly the way they wanted to and this denial of that is why the whole of the "True Conservative" movement is such a collossal fantasy. There was nothing standing in the way of them getting what they wanted, no strong minority party, no independent judiciary, no opposing executive. Heck, they barely even paid attention to the constitution.
And yet the results didn't even come close to the promise of a grand conservative utopia. They governed like pigs at a trough with no concern for the good of the country. That leaves us with two possibilities: 1) They never were "True Conservatives" and all of you behind them were duped. In this case that destroys any credibility you have to recommend anyone as you have shown severely flawed judgement. OR 2) They really were "True Conservatives" and this level of corruption, greed and sheer incompetence is the natural state of "True Conservatives."
Take your pick.
I thought being defined as a liberal would be something to be proud of?...PC
Who said it isn't? Assuming something never stated, typical right-wing tactic.
When was the last time Turdblossom was right about anything???
I think it's great he's on TV ... the more he's on, the more people will be reminded of the colossal failure of the administration he helped put in office.
And hey,Karl will need the money for lawyer's fees.
athleticsupporterdave,
Why do candidates run away from the title or are agrieved when they are called liberals in general elections?
Who is the likely winner of the Republican nomination? (Clue it isn't the most conservative of the bunch)
Neither side is going to win with moderate or independent voters if their perceived to be too conservative or liberal.
The R & D parties tend to move towards the center in a national elections, but by all means don't let reality stop a good talking point or smear you've heard on talk radio.
myinitials,
Problem was there weren't any good conservatives in the bunch, although they all proclaimed to be the next Ronald Reagan.
I agree with your observation of candidates moving to the middle. I just think that those on the left are required to transform themselves move severely to be acceptable to those undecideds than just about anyone from the right. That is where America resides.
So who's the Republican nominee again? Oh yeah, some leftist socialist wannabe who turned right just to get the massive swarm of the American people who are so hungry for a "True Conservative."
Hmmm, no, turns out it's a career centrist/moderate Republican who could only be called liberal in comparison to the failed and flawed hard right ideology that is costing the Republic Party any claims of power or relevance that it used to have. Odd that, isn't it?
Proud Wingnut:
Being the principled troll we all know you to be, of course you have some examples to back up your assertion, right?.... I'm sure you can name someone who ran away from the liberal label ...
athleticsupporterdavy,
Bill Clinton has his 'sister soldjha'moment, lowering taxes (after 94), welfare reform, military interventions, attempting to address Saddam's WMD's, and NAFTA pro-business stance. He never won a majority but he moved to the right after the 1994 cleansing of congress. Remember he promised a tax cut when first elected, reneged and then got slammed by the Republicans in that cleansing?
Is that good enough for ya?
Who the hell cares about Turd Blossom!?!?!?
It would take 10 Karl Roves to over come these numbers here
And those don't even include Super Tuesday numbers!
Whatever the Republican party is/was is DOA...... since we don't hear about these real numbers in the corporate owned press and that propaganda channel FOX Noise, which makes sense!
I have high hopes for real change...... Barack preferably but I'll take Hillary too!
What Rove would really like to do is use the N word but they turned "liberal" into an N word too.
Too bad it ain't working anymore hahaha. Watching Rove is like examining a fossil in the Museum of Unnatural History.
I have two points about this topic.
1. After the colossal implosion of the conservative movement over the last few years, these idiots should be careful about how they are throwing around the liberal label as if it is a big hiderance.
2. At what point during the time that this stupid talking point makes its rounds is the media going to actually do its job and ask one of these fools why Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2004, but all of the sudden Obama took the title in 2008? Did Kerry start voting really conservatively starting in 2005, or did Obama just storm into the senate and out-liberal everybody?
Chinsick12,
Because even lefty candidates know they cannot win if they have to define themselves as liberals. Most Americans do not see it as reflective of their desire for individual freedoms, smaller government and belief of American exceptionalism.
Funny I always thought that conservatism stood for the principles of corporate freedom, ineffectual government and American Imperialism.
I really need to get me one of those conservative looking glasses to transport me off to the never never land that you come from.
Looneyyoubet,
Contrasting today's Liberalism and Conservatism
Conservatives value individual freedoms established apriori to any government (you know, endowed by our Creator), enlarging personal liberties especially from the dependency created by government to wit smaller government, equality of all citizens and the economic liberty that free markets provide.
Today's liberalism finds it home more with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Feingold, Obama.
Unrestrained free markets tend naturally towards the creation of monopolies and the supression of competitionn. This must be more of that inverted conservative wackyvision that makes you see economic liberty in that result.
The rest of your nonsense screed is really just the typical camoflaging of radical Libertarianism under the guise of "True Conservatism" and Libertarianism is just Anarchism with lipstick on.
If you truly believe that government should not intervene in my economic freedom of choice, would it be cool with you if I hacked your bank account and stole every dime you have? Since we're both entitled to equality above all else I don't see why we should go to the authorities just because of a little thing like that.
Loonieswatyouwager,
C'mon you need to be more intellectually honest. Monopolies are established by those who don't want competition. Monopolies are not the end result of free economics. Capitalism and market economies drive down prices and improve product quality and ingenuity. Monopolies are the things that Chavez and Castro adore, but neither quality, availablility nor affordable pricing for even basic products ever occurs.
Good examples of free economics are the computer industry. Look at how the prices have dropped and speed, power, etc has improved. Autos now are made to last and are more reliable. Thank goodness Japan makers came in and provided alternatives to lumbering gas guzzling that we were stuck with in 1970's. Rather than now expecting a car to last well in the 100,000 miles, we hoped an auto would make it to 60,000 miles.
NAFTA is about free trade and improving the quality of life both here and in the rest of the world. This is a conservative position that our country has taken. What we need to strengthen here and export are the ideals of freedom, individual liberty and capitalistic opportunities and fight the totalitarianism that exists in the leftist dictators that still opperate in the world.
That's why people are turning out 2 and 3 to 1 to vote and caucus for the liberals over the conservatives this year.
PC,
Nice attempt with your joke about my screen name. It took me a while to figure out where you got it from, since I did not create it based on the words jaw and ill.
To your point, you can repeat a talking point a million times on the same thread, but the more you say it does not make it any closer to being true. There is no empirical evidence to support your point, and there is plenty of evidence to discount it. As an overview, just look back to how the conservative movement was a joke until the GOP decided to embrace the radical christians in the '80's. Look again to 2004 when the GOP had to put social issues like gay marriage on state ballots to get wins in many states such as Ohio. Or, how about the colossal failure of the GOP to convince America that Social Security should be privatized. Or, the fact that the majority of America would like to have Universal Health Care. Etc, etc.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Well, you know, my gut tells me that over the long haul, Obama is -- look, he is inexperienced and does not have what is needed to be the commander in chief. And he's the most liberal member of the United States Senate. If a Republican presidential candidate can't make meat -- you know, mincemeat out of that, I don't know what./// ROVE
Like George W. Bush with 3years as a Texas Govenor that has the least authority, and responsibilty of any governorship in the nation? A failed businessman, a Draft-Dodger along with the man whom was CEO of Haliburton when he decided he was the best choice for VP, and decided he was entitled to no-bid contract to his old company, and friends?
The man is the Maury of Politics! By the way, did you know Karl's dad was a repeated cover model for a 'body piercing' magazine, and had his genitiles on the cover. Karl should be very proud, I wonder if he's going to follow his father's legacy, you know he wants to.
I need to bath now, so we'll for go the "Happy Thoughts" this time.
Happy Thoughts