Politico's Allen touted McCain campaign assertion that Obama "is the most liberal senator in the United States Senate"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Mike Allen uncritically quoted an assertion by Sen. John McCain's campaign manager that Sen. Barack Obama "is the most liberal senator in the United States Senate" -- presumably a reference to National Journal's 2007 vote ratings. By repeating the McCain campaign's invocation of the National Journal vote ratings, Allen joined Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan, and other conservative media figures in promoting the ratings, as National Journal anticipated the media would.
On the February 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Politico chief political writer Mike Allen uncritically quoted an assertion by Rick Davis, campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, that Sen. Barack Obama "is the most liberal senator in the United States Senate." Allen did not cite a source for Davis' claim -- presumably National Journal's 2007 vote ratings. By repeating the McCain campaign's invocation of the National Journal vote ratings, Allen joined Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan, and other conservative media figures in promoting the ratings. National Journal "anticipate[d]" the media would promote these ratings "across the 2008 election cycle," despite the publication's acknowledgment that the methodology it used in 2003 to rate then-presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) the "most liberal senator" was flawed.
Moreover, Allen did not note during his appearance on Hannity & Colmes that McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score" from National Journal. Nor did Allen mention Obama's response when asked about the rating, even though it occurred at an interview sponsored by the Politico itself. When asked about the National Journal's 2007 vote ratings by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris during the February 11 interview, Obama said:
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.
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has documented, among the votes that earned Obama National Journal's "most liberal senator" label were those 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.
From the February 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
ALAN COLMES (co-host): Are we going to see a case of conservatives sitting on their hands on Election Day and not turning out in the numbers that they turned out for the Wisconsin primary, for example?
KAREN HANRETTY (Republican strategist): No, they'll turn out. You know, it reminds me a lot of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. When he ran for re-election, you asked a lot of conservative voters if they think Arnold is conservative enough, and most of them would say, "No, he's not as conservative as I wish he was." And yet, you know, it was something like 85 percent, 86 percent of Republican voters turned out, voted for him for re-election; he won overwhelmingly. And I think that for all of the turmoil that you are seeing in the Republican Party right now, in a general election, Republicans will, in fact, turn out and vote for John McCain because --
COLMES: California may not be a --
HANRETTY: -- they have eight months -- they have eight months to be reminded, Alan, that --
COLMES: California may not be a great analogy. You had a very unpopular governor in Gray Davis. You had a party switch. We having a very unpopular president, Mike Allen, in George W. Bush --
HANRETTY: No, actually I think it's a very good analogy, because here you have, you have two Republicans who are actually more moderate Republicans -- actually, John McCain is more conservative than Arnold Schwarzenegger -- but, you know, you have Republicans who really do appeal to independent voters, who can appeal to moderate Democrats, and that's what we are going to see from John McCain in a general election.
COLMES: You are saying hard-core -- if I may get Mike Allen here -- you're saying hard-core conservatives, Mike, not happy with John McCain, voting for Mike Huckabee. Are they going to vote in the general? And that California analogy again: you've got dissatisfaction with the party in power, just like you had in California; they switched parties, which is what I think we're likely to see here in November.
ALLEN: Right. Republicans face a two-pronged, huge problem. One is the lack of enthusiasm. You look at the numbers right at the bottom of the screen at this very moment, look at the difference between the number of Democrats and the number of Republicans that voted tonight. It's astounding, as you guys know; we see it on your coverage. It's happened on primary after primary after primary.
The other problem is what Senator Obama calls the "Obamacans," the Republicans who might vote for him. And it is amazing the people in my personal life -- even people who have worked for the president, people who are evangelicals, home-schoolers -- who say either "Senator Obama doesn't offend me," or they say, "Let's give him a chance."
Now, a lot of those people won't vote for him, but will they turnout? Now, the McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, says, "We haven't had the chance" -- and this was Karen's point -- "we haven't had the chance to remind people this is the most liberal senator in the United States Senate." By the time they vote in November, everyone will know that.
SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Hey, Karen, let me break this down in a little more detail for our audience here tonight as we look at the exit polls tonight. The question was, on political matters, do you consider yourself liberal, moderate, conservative. When you break it down in those three categories, actually, Senator McCain won tonight. It was by a small margin, but he did win that against Mike Huckabee, 45-43.
And John McCain is the most absent Senator, with the exception of Tim Johnson (who was recovering from brain surgery last year).
At least they used to wheel Strom Thurmond into the Senate chamber. McCain is just too busy campaigning to come back to Washington and vote on anything...
The National Journal is a well-known Con ragsheet.
Why should we believe anything they put out? The Democrats should tout some rating from say, The Nation, or Mother Jones magazine showing McLame to be the most conservative senator.
It would be a great stain on McCain to be known as "most Conservative." Conservative should be walking around with burkas on, afraid to show their faces in public. They've become a national disgrace.
A. Because it's not true, Ted Kennedy has him beat as do others
B. Because it's a fringe...it puts you on the far left which is as bad as the far right, it insinuates that you lead soley by ideology bereft of facts
C. Because it is UNDENIABLY a mark that is used only to marginalize, be honest man do you think when Bill O'Reilly calls someone an SP he means it as a compliment?
This is implied in other posts, but I want to make sure it is absolutely clear. What the republican party is trying to do is make McCain look right-leaning liberal (i.e. centrist while redefining the center) and Obama look left-leaning liberal (i.e. extreme). By this characterization, they hope to polarize Obama's image and make the swing voters vote for the more "centrist" candidate, McCain.
There are problems with the analysis. 1.) Obama is a true liberal, but I consider him moderately liberal. He is not a socialist and is not as vocal as some senators (such a the aforementioned Kennedy and even Clinton) on progressive agendas. While I'm proud he is liberal, I get angry with mis-labeling him the most liberal because it may confuse some of those swing voters.
2.) McCain is NOT liberal. He might be liberal compared to Romney, Huckabee, and Gulianni, but he is left-leaning conservative (also moderate) at the most extreme labeling of him. This whole "Maverick" thing is a joke, although unfortunately a very serious, eroding joke (maverick has a positive connotation. Notice they are not calling him a malcontent, a dissenter, or radical, which all mean essentially the same thing with a slightly different connotation.)
3.) National Journal is not a rag, it is a piece of propaganda. A respectable journalist should feel ashamed for using any analysis done by that institution. Can it give them ideas to look into, sure, but they should not be quoting results from its analysis. Unfortunately, I feel the same way about this site, although at least most of the content here is just calling awareness to the propaganda in the media from the other side. However, if journalists are using the standards of the National Journal for their reporting, they should also be reporting on the ANALYSIS of this site as well (if they're really fair and balanced at all.)
That doesn't make too much sense.
Just like you, Tommy. :-)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
(KEY 'JAWS' MUSIC) Tommy, feel the fear, watch as the girl feels the first swipe of the shark, then again, and again, until blood is in the water and the girl has disappeared into the depths.
A good metaphor for the upcoming Republican skinny dipping in their dark waters of conservatism, sure they are safe from the coming disaster.
2-1 Democrats turned out compared to the Republicans, that my dear detractor is the sound of the air coming out!!! The girl being pulled to the bottom, the perverbial severed leg falling to the bottom of the bay.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Why should we believe anything they put out? The Democrats should tout some rating from say, The Nation, or Mother Jones magazine showing McLame to be the most conservative senator.
I’ve been saying in here for months now that the only way to beat the Republicans is to start playing the game using their rules (meaning you make them up as you go along). When in Rome do as the Romans do – the only way to outfox the fox is to think like one.
It’s not as if Dems are the stupid ones here, but the Republicans look at it that way. The whole concept of what you suggest goes against our free-thinking Democratic ideology. Instilling their will on the masses exemplifies the fascist side of the Republican Party ideology - Evangelical churches printing voting guides for their congregation, pointing to biblical passages as modern day guidelines for ideas that support their agenda, wingnut pundits and radio-hosts telling them what they should think - Republicans LOVE rules, lists, and guides – they NEED to be told what to do. WE will tell you what is right for you.
As silly as it might sound to us Dems, your idea makes sense – even if not a single Democrat ever reads it – you can bet the Republicans would take notice!
I think the use of "instill their will" does not accurately describe religious voting guides or organized labor endorsements.
Pete,
The point is each party has their constituencies, the ones they depend on during election cycles to be in their column; the loyalists that both parties need, and court, and pander to, and placate, and soothe, and promise, and are bound and determined not to piss off.
I was an active GCIU union member for over 20 years and am still a vested member. I have never once received a voting guide. I must say I've had to listen to politicians who showed up at union meetings but I have NEVER been pressured to vote for anyone.
Have you ever been in a labor Union Tommy, or do you just fall for all you hear from wingnuts and see on TV or in Hollywood movies?
There's a small dark underbelly to all institutions - Religions, Military, Law Enforcement, Politics, Corporations - why should labor unions be any different?
But if being a liberal means being proud, then even if it were awarded incorrectly, why run from it?
Because that would be dishonest.
Nonsense, McCain would love to be known as the most Conservative, no matter what source deemed him that. IMO its why he invokes Reagan's name in speeches. He wants to appear Conservative.
My question is why would Obama not wish the title as most Liberal?
Dave,
Let me answer that, it's because the rightwing has so corrupted and mutilated that word that the left has chosen to abandon it, they are now called "progressives". The word "liberal" is like a wayward child that will never come home, and if it's foisted back upon them, it has been disowned.
Thanks Tommy,
You are right. I never thought of it that way. When I hear the term Liberal to describe a voting base, I think of tree hugging, hippies, and Meathead from All in the Family. When I hear progressive, I just think of car insurance.
and there it is Tommy, the reason why...
tree hugging, hippies, and Meathead from All in the Family
That does not define Obama, why should he embrace it?
My Dearest Tommy:
Please SHUT UP! Nobody has abandoned a perfectly lovely word like “Liberal" It’s lyrical, like music to my ears. But you are correct the wingers have attempted to corrupt a perfectly decent word and their wing nut followers conflate the word Liberal with Marxist and Communist and you know they do, hell the trolls do it here all the time.Lynn,
If the word liberal is music to your ears, then I suggest you contact the moderators here - for they have thread after thread, almost every day, made sure that that lyrical label is not affixed to Obama, no way, no how!!
Being the "most liberal" Senator doesn't bother me at all, because I know by and large the U.S. Senate is a pretty conservative body and you don't get elected if you are too far whacked out. But if they said Obama was as liberal as the most liberal poster on MMFA?
Whoa, that would stop me in my tracks.
You have to understand Vermont. That electorate takes pride in bucking trends and being fiercly idependent. He got elected in a very liberal district for the House and over the years people read his editorials and listened to what he said and didnt allow the label to influence them. After quite a while he became very popular in the state because what he was SAYING resonated with them. When he ran for Senate there probably wasnt anyone in the state that could have beaten him.
Well, for someone who just told me to "SHUT UP", and then says they aren't controlling, ok.........
;)
Let me answer that, it's because the rightwing has so corrupted and mutilated that word that the left has chosen to abandon it, they are now called "progressives".
Only some have abandoned it.
Well how about this site?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Why not identify themselves as a LIBERAL research and information center? Mmmmm?
To my knowledge, that mission statement has always said, "progressive."
So in other words, they never adopted "liberal" IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Exactly my point!
So you admit MMFA was too embarrassed or ashamed to use LIBERAL & opted for Progressive instead?
My point. Thanks.
I admit to no such thing. Your allegation of embarrassment and shame is completely without substance or basis.
MMFA's agenda, as I understand it, to expose and bring about change in the state of our media, is a progressive agenda, not a liberal one.
The desire for a media that actually performs a public service is not a liberal position.
Until you actually make some actual effort to understand the difference between liberal and progressive, instead of simply subscribing to what he right-wing slime machine tells you, this reasoning will continually not register with you.
My question is why would Obama not wish the title as most Liberal?
Because everyone from the evil Right-Wing media to Archie Bunker has allegedly made Liberal a dirty word.
OR
Regular folks don't really approve of a great many Liberal policies.
I report, you decide ;-)
In as few words as possible define Liberalism then define Conservatism...try not to be biased but use the most commonly accepted terminology.
Now compare the two and you will see why the labels are unfair
Eden,
Many come on these boards every day and tout the concept of liberalism, while slamming conservatism. Yet when they, or one of their leaders, are called the "most", it's somehow the rightwing's fault and should be avoided? What's up with that?
Hi Tommy,
What connotations does the word liberal bring when you hear it? The only times I hear "liberal" in the media or otherwise, its used derisively. Can you think of when its been used, outside of Paul Krugman, as a positive or a compliment?
Fried,
I disagree with many liberal policies, but when I see someone come here and defend that label with all their integrity and wear it proudly, I have respect for that person.
On the other hand, when I see some come here tout liberal policies all day long, yet run from the label because of some rightwing effort to demonize it, I view that stance as slightly cowardly.
it insinuates that you lead soley by ideology bereft of facts
I really don't understand why anyone would embrace that, even conservatives, nothing is that black and white
Tommy this says it all
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx
and I'd never run from the label Liberal, but MOST Liberal...that just plays into the enemies hands
Partisan vs HYPER partisan??
yes, I think the idea that facts matter more than ideology is the better temperment for a candidate, do you disagree Tommy?
Tommy,
and that is why you don't let yourself get labled hyper partisan because that denotes no room for mobility if that facts demand it, sometimes an issue is grey enough for compromise but not if you are already pigeonholed and marginalized by an unfriendly media source
Tommy,
for perspective answer me these two questions:
Are you a far right person like Mike Savage?
Would you vote for a far right guy like Mike Savage?
Tommy,
so you would not vote for a far right guy the same way a lot of cats won't vote for a far left or far right guy...we agree, hand me a beer on you, I think you get my point now. It's the way a person is marginalized by being the most extreme.
It's not the liberal bit, it's the qualifier of MOST
I don't think of Liberals as Far-Left. Just like I don't define Conservatives as Far-Right.
Both "FAR" terms are used for the extremists wings of Liberals & Conservatives. IMO.
Jeter
and that's my point in why being labeled most is never good
I posit the same question to you, do you consider yourself a far right guy like Ann Coulter? Would you vote for a far right guy like Ann Coulter?
BTW...I was blocked from greeting you as a fellow Mass- ryhmes with pole by the MMFA decency Nazis, cheers
Eden,
Yeah labels can be a pain at times, but I think they are often necessary when defining or comparing policy or politicians.
Not all Conservatives are "neocons", but that term is thrown around here quite frequently when folks are referring to Conservatives/Republicans. So I'm glad we can find other labels for those of us that don't fall into that extreme Far-Right category.
Liberal is not Far-Left. Most Liberal is not Far-Left. Far-Left is Far-Left.
As far as Coulter goes, well while she does get me to chuckle on occasion I'd never vote for her, nor do I consider her a Moderate Conservative like myself. She's Far-Right. So see sometimes labels are useful.
You're from Massachusetts too? Cool :-)
As much as I gripe about being surrounded by Moonbats here it's still a pretty great state to live in.
and that's why being labeled the most anything is detrimental to your campaign...you owe me a beer too as Tommy has left the building
yep I'm a mass guy, not a fan of Ted "No Cape Wind" Kennedy or Tom " I got a radio show so now I'm conservative" Finneran, but I'm at home with the moonbats...I can even laugh at Howie from time to time
Howie is the man! Finneran should be in jail, not on the radio!! Don't get me started on Teddy...
I'll get ya a beer on Friday that's when we do our drinking around here, I even do the packie runs ;-)
The Mumbles Menino bit cracks me up...if that makes me a bad Lib then I'm a bad Lib...I hate that Jay Severin though, he's a Romney stooge
on Friday make it a PBR, no cheese eating wine sipper here
man alive...I had Tommy almost in agreement and then * poof * brotha disappers like Hillarys chance at being the nominee
regardless, thanks for the back and forth Tommy, always a fun battle
Eden,
But a Progressive is still a Liberal. All that's changed is the label.
It's like calling someone a sanitation worker instead of a garbage man.
And NO I don't think of Libs as garbage men [and women]...my point is a Liberal by any other name is still a Liberal.
If folks have a negative view of Liberals, it ain't gonna change by calling them Progressives. Same policies & ideology, different name.
"Regular folks don't really approve of a great many Liberal policies."
What is the definition of "regular folks"? Is it political? Is it economical? Is it morality?
What are the "great many liberal policies"?
How do the "great many Liberal policies" correlate with the criteria used to label Obama?
Regular folks???
"My question is why would Obama not wish the title as most Liberal?"
Because he's not.
Unfortunately, none of these people who tout the Journal's study actually detail what Obama voted for. Don't you think they should include examples from his voting record when labelling him this way?
So if it said "most progressive", would that be ok?
I guess MMfA doesn't want the independent centrists to be scared off of Obama or something, I dunno.
So if it said "most progressive", would that be ok?
Get rid of the adverb and that would be okay.
So if it said "most progressive", would that be ok?
I guess MMfA doesn't want the independent centrists to be scared off of Obama or something, I dunno.
What is supposed to pass as real news shouldn't quot blatantly partisan sources. The National Journal isn't good for anything but laying out for my puppy to do his business on.
Why are liberals ashamed of being called liberal?
late to the dance?
read through the comments and your confusion will go away
Why are conservatives ashamed of being called conservative?
See, your question is based on a false premise. That's one of the easiest ways in the world to fool yourself, but you know you're a conservative when you can pull the wool over your own eyes and not suspect a thing. There's no bigger fool than the one who falls for his own b.s.
Bets Eden?
Heard the democratic cacuses attendence figures on Ms. Maddow's show. They were thinking maybe three times the 2004 figure of 4000. 37,000 showed up. I don't think the winner's labeling by NR and ilk had much effect, today. Maddow feels he is not being agressive enough refutting the media slime machine. I'd like to see more action from them (the Obama campaign) myself.
It would be a 47 way tie. except for Specter a couple of times, and mr. maverick (who missed too many votes to qualify) the rest voted in lockstep.
Of course I, a casual observer heard an interview with the editor of the Journal admit the rating was completely capricious. He was asked why Obama went from sixteen to one in a year and had identical voting record as senators rated much lower.
The point, if I know this then a reporter whose job it is to present FACTS is either a liar or incompetent. Take your pick.