Chicago Sun-Times uncritically reported McCain attack on Obama over liberal rating, but not McCain's non-rating because of missed votes
SUMMARY: The Chicago Sun-Times uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's assertion that Sen. Barack Obama is "the most liberal Democrat in the United States Senate." However, the Sun-Times made no mention of the fact that the National Journal, which ranked Obama "the most liberal senator in 2007," said that McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score."
In a February 21 Chicago Sun-Times article on Sen. John McCain -- headlined "McCain attacks Obama here: Calls him 'most liberal' in Senate during visit" -- political reporter Abdon M. Pallasch uncritically reported McCain's assertion that Sen. Barack Obama is "the most liberal Democrat in the United States Senate." Pallasch wrote, "Twice during a 12-minute news conference at the Aurora Municipal Airport, McCain called Obama the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate." Pallasch quoted McCain as saying, "There will be ample time to outline the stark differences between the most liberal Democrat in the United States Senate, according to the National Journal, and myself, who is a proud Republican conservative." However, Pallasch made no mention of the fact that the National Journal, which ranked Obama "the most liberal senator in 2007," said that McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score."
As Media Matters for America has previously documented, among the votes Obama took that purportedly earned him National Journal's "most liberal senator in 2007" 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 21 Chicago Sun-Times article:
Twice during a 12-minute news conference at the Aurora Municipal Airport, McCain called Obama the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate.
"There will be ample time to outline the stark differences between the most liberal Democrat in the United States Senate, according to the National Journal, and myself, who is a proud Republican conservative," McCain said.
In his speech after winning the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night, McCain called Obama "an inexperienced candidate" who would exercise "confused leadership."
Well, if someone would offer up a good answer except the stock whine that the right has ruined it's sacred meaning, then some of us would stop asking.
(click, click)
::click:: MMM chicken. KFC colonel?
::click:: Why is this an "attack" again?
::click:: If all Senators were subjected to the same guidelines, why isn't this rating valid? Teddy K, Boxer, etc all had the same criteria.
::click:: ::click:: ::click::
Even MMFA isn't sure about this, one thread they come on here telling us the lofty, well intentioned programs and votes that constituted this liberal rating, and then they come back and try to say he isn't the "most" liberal after all, in spite of those votes.
They have listed the votes; stem cell funding, children's health insurance, minmum wage, etc, that propelled the liberal rating. I assume they are touting those votes, no? Then they say the "most liberal" rating is undeserved, or something?
In any event, either one is proud to be a liberal, a hardline liberal, a committed liberal, the most liberal, or they are not. I am just not sure what liberals want if they don't want that label anymore?
Tommy, I'm assuming you mean this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080004?f=s_search
I believe what they are saying is that the National Journal is using these issues as "liberal issues," when really, they're common sense issues. Like following the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and providing health care for children.
MMfA has been consistent on this issue, their problem comes from the National Journal's intentions on:
1. rating Obama as the most liberal senator, when we all know he is hardly the most liberal...try Mike Gravel, Bernie Sanders, or Russ Feingold.
2. issuing this "study" a few days before Super Tuesday, ostensibly trying to marginalize Obama.
The National Journal's sole mission in this "ranking the most liberal senator" is suspect when Obama is definitely not the most liberal, and when John Kerry somehow claimed that title in 2004 as well, ignoring the fact that he was definitely not the most liberal as well.
In any event, either one is proud to be a liberal, a hardline liberal, a committed liberal, the most liberal, or they are not.
Oh, right, because there's no in-between. It's US vs. THEM. Choose a side, and then get ready to fight!! No compromises!!
Moderates, independents, and free-thinkers be d*mned.
I never saw them originally saying the study was valid. Got a link?- dbeden4153
*beep*...*click*...*beep*.... In any event...LOOK OVER THERE!!! (Tommy)
"Well, if someone would offer up a good answer except the stock whine that the right has ruined it's sacred meaning, then some of us would stop asking."
Tommy - maybe I can clear this up for you. It's not the fact that he's been called liberal, it's that he's framed as the MOST liberal, an extreme case to which he doesn't fit into. It implies inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise, which don't apply to Obama.
Here's an example that maybe you can understand, substitute religion for liberalism. People with a reasonable amount of religion are generally good people. On the other hand, religious extremists tend to be very bad people, such as those who are currently trying to destroy America.
Kyle,
The only logical explanation for shunning the "most liberal" rating is obvious because you believe there is someone out there who is more liberal than you are. In other words, "NO, wait, it's not me, it's him/her!! They are way more liberal than I am!". If that doesn't imply some sense of embarassment or lack of pride in being labeled that, I don't know what does.
I asked this before and was told it was the rightwing hadn't corrupted the word yet, but would you or anyone run from the "most" it if was attached to integrity? No, of course not. So, if liberalism is a badge of honor to be worn proudly, as many here on this website do, then embrace the "most", and stop ducking it.
So, if liberalism is a badge of honor to be worn proudly, as many here on this website do, then embrace the "most", and stop ducking it.
Tommy, I've worn my liberal badge with honor for years however I don't accept Republican/conservative blowhards like Rush, Annie and others definition of what a liberal is, period.
Kyle, don't bother, they're just playing.Either that, or the 100 or so posts discussing this really haven't been any match against the imagined "gotcha" they came up with a few days ago.
I'm trying to be nice, assuming they're playing.On the other hand, the right wingers have been getting progressively thicker lately. with some liberal doses of willful ignorance thrown in.
Geez, I wonder if electability might have anything to do with it? EVERY politician tries to portray themselves as more “middle-of-the-road” around election time. Is it any surprise that Obama might want to downplay any “far-left” perceptions? Hell, before Obama took off, Faux News was blasting Hillary as “far-left”. It’s all relative – to the canidate – to the voter – to the media outlet. It’s not easy keeping it all in perspective when the pendulum is made to look more like a windshield wiper in a thunderstorm.
Cleve,
This is the reason I am admittedly cynical of most politicians. It's all about winning elections and appealing to the most people, principles and being true to one's self always takes a back seat to that. I don't find that endearing at all, in fact I see it as a weakness and I never vote for any candidate who panders and tries to be my buddy on every issue.
Tell me what you really believe and don't apologize for sticking to your guns on any issues, if I disagree enough to vote against you, so be it. But I would be more likely to vote for you than your pandering, feely-good opponent even he or she tells me just what I want to hear.
"Tell me what you really believe and don't apologize for sticking to your guns on any issues, if I disagree enough to vote against you, so be it. But I would be more likely to vote for you than your pandering, feely-good opponent even he or she tells me just what I want to hear."
-Tommy
Man, I don't know what America you've been living in, but the only one I've seen is where politicians don't even have holsters for those guns, much less guns to stick to. And it's my opinion that politicians have to inherently pander anyway, because it should be the will of the people that forces their hand in decisions, not their pre-conceived ideologies.
Politicians should be leaders who lead through their convictions, integrity, honor and knowledge. They should be able to stand in tough times without their finger to the wind and not make decisions on polls and feel good pandering.
We elect them for that reason, they should have enough faith in what they believe in and what is right and lead toward that end, not follow to basically keep their political behind in power at our expense.
Where's my beer Tommy?
Look man I explained this Most liberal thing to death yesterday and you allowed that there were good points...well, those good points should count today too. To refresh: You do not consider yourself the most far right guy in the world, you did not consider that a badge of honor and you stated you would not vote for the most far right guy ala Michael Savage...so why in the world do you think we should embrace the title of most liberal or farthest left as some great crown of achievement? The MOST label is one of derision, used to suggest that one cannot SEE past their own ideology in order to asess the merits of the actual facts on the ground. It suggets one is so blindly partisan that they could never cross the aisle no matter what the scenario dictated.
This is solid reasoning as to why the term MOST is not embraced, now about that frothy cold one...
Eden, I acknowledged you did make good points yesterday, but being the most liberal doesn't automatically mean to me that that person is inflexible, it means they vote a certain way and should be proud of those votes, that being labeled the "most" in that regard is not something to shy away from.
Being extreme and unwilling to listen to another point of view is someone who is blinded by their own ideology, not necessarily someone who holds firm to their convictions, regardless of party whims or waverings.
And you didn't get the beer?, well, see the MMFA waiter up at the bar, and tell her she ain't gettin' a decent tip from me!
Boy did that one arround move.
McCain is the most old-timey Senator on the hill, he's just a stubborn old coot!
How about most Progressive? Would that work for anybody?
Liberal=Bad
Progressive=Good
Oh wait Liberals & Progressives are the same thing aren't they?
Never mind ;-)
Guess I shouldn't have canceled my Progressive Insurance. Now I feel left out. ;-)
Nah, you can use Geico, it's so easy even a caveman can do it. ;-)
Pearlene, Thanks for the laugh! Welcome to the club!
Jeter, I think you need to clarify based on perspective. For example, from the perspective of a conservative:
Liberal = Bad
Progressive = Bad
Conservative = Good
Old-timey = Good
Stubborn = Headstrong
Open-minded = Evil flip-flopper who hates America
"Liberals & Progressives are the same thing aren't they?"
I think everyone has their own opinion on this, and I think there are differences depending on the social or economic issue at hand, but the difference I've come to know in regard to economic is basically this:
Both believe in the power of good government to work for the people but each one has a different focus with regard to how to achieve it:
Liberal: Using the collective wealth of a nation for the benefit all citizens.
Progressive: Using regulation to quell predatory, exploitive and environmentally irresponsible corporate practices.
Like I said, it' just how I've come to know it, and I'm sure others will see it much differently. To each his own.
You're right, in that my understanding of it was opposite of your line of thinking...I don't know why though.
*Ahem*. No mention of Hillary by MMFA and her ranking?
Things are bad when her own website didn't include Hillary in a discussion regarding presidential candidates liberal rankings.
Don't quote me because I just heard it from someone else, but I heard she doesn't score too far from right smack dab in the middle.
Didn't Coulter say Clinton is the most conservative of the three?
*Disregarding all the Coulter bashing replies*
Doesn't that mean that Clinton is NOT the most conservative of the three?
I'm just sayin', odds are when Coulter says something, the opposite is true.
Actually, AnotherAmerican, it's an item about a newspaper article about Obama and McCain.
CDS kicking in?
Col.
I'm trying to keep Hillary in the game, that is all. :-)
Never let it be said that MMFA only sticks to what is written in an article. If they can pull stuff out of left field in their bromides, why restrict anyone else?
Col. You are suffering from Liberal thinking, I.E, where you have to filter everything through your own personal life experience to come up with an explanation that clearly isn't intended. Conservative thinking is much simpler. Simply take what is written at face value.
As any conservative can see, I was only poking fun at MMFA and Hillary. :-) My point about MMFA is that it is not restricting itself to the articles it criticizes is clear in this thread. As you can see MMFA is not limiting it's comments to the Sun Times and it's own mission statement of showing some supposed conservative misinformation, but instead MMFA is trying to make an alternative political point by by selectively adding in a portion that they do like of the Conservative Journal. That is, as we all can see, a lack of ranking toward McCain.
That is what I meant by left-field. McCain's ranking really has nothing to do with his noting Obama's liberal record. There is no misinformation in the Sun-Times article as far as I can see. MMFA only objects because the Sun-Times did not advance MMFA's liberal agenda. To me this is simply another WITDH thread.
ps. Oh well. I don't want you and some of your cohorts to have an unfavorable impression of conservatives based on your leftist political filtering of my comments. I do appreciate your consideration and time expressing your views. ;-)
"McCain's ranking really has nothing to do with his noting Obama's liberal record."
-AA
Actually, and several O'Reilly/Olbermann threads will back me up, McCain mentioning the rating of Obama has everything to do with McCain's own non-rating. McCain himself is selectively using the NJ article as a political point against Obama, while omitting the part of the article that pertains to him. It begs the question as to why McCain would use it when the same study puts him in a bad light as well.
That's the way I read it, too D, but I guess it's just from filtering it through my liberal life experience, or whatever feeble theory AA tried to slap together in his post.
I may have gotten his point wrong, I got bored about halfway through it. All that backpedaling and arse-covering with smiley emoticons really makes me drowsy.