NY Times' Nagourney uncritically repeated Farrakhan, "most liberal" attacks on Obama
SUMMARY: A New York Times article about possible attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in the general election reported that Sen. John McCain's aides said "their first line of attack would be to portray [Obama] as a liberal, and they have already begun pointing to a rating in The National Journal, based on his votes, of Mr. Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate." But 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 29 New York Times article about likely general-election attacks against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, reporter Adam Nagourney wrote that Sen. John McCain's aides said "their first line of attack would be to portray [Obama] as a liberal, and they have already begun pointing to a rating in The National Journal, based on his votes, of Mr. Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate." Yet the National Journal's rating of Obama was based on only some, not all, of his votes. By contrast, a highly respected vote study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, which uses every non-unanimous vote cast by every legislator to determine his or her relative ideology, ranked Obama as tied with Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as the 10th "most liberal" senator in 2007. Moreover, 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. Further, as Obama himself noted in the February 26 debate, one of his "liberal" votes was for a bill that would have established "an office of public integrity, an independent office that would be able to monitor ethics investigations in the Senate."
Additionally, Nagourney reported that the Tennessee Republican Party issued a news release that sought "to link Mr. Obama to the views of some of his most controversial supporters, including Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam" without noting that Obama has denounced both Farrakhan's views and his support of Obama.
From the February 29 New York Times article:
Some of this will almost certainly take the shape of the Internet rumors and whispering campaigns that have popped up against Mr. Obama since he got into the race, like the false reports that he is Muslim. Others will no doubt come from the types of shadowy independent committees that have played a big role in campaigns in recent years.
But others will simply draw on Mr. Obama's voting record and speeches, interviews and debate appearances. Mr. McCain's aides said their first line of attack would be to portray him as a liberal, and they have already begun pointing to a rating in The National Journal, based on his votes, of Mr. Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate.
Though Mr. McCain has vowed repeatedly to wage a tough if respectful campaign -- he chastised a conservative talk radio host this week for disparaging Mr. Obama and invoking his middle name -- his aides have left no doubt that they will draw sharp distinctions with him on issues that Mrs. Clinton has never been able to use. Foremost among them is Iraq.
[...]
But Mr. McCain clearly will not control all of the voices that could oppose Mr. Obama, from bloggers and talk radio hosts to other elected officials. Even parts of the Republican Party apparatus can transmit messages that the presidential nominee cannot or will not.
After the Republican National Committee rebuked the Tennessee Republican Party for a news release this week using Mr. Obama's middle name and a picture showing him in a traditional African outfit -- Mr. McCain also expressed his disapproval -- the state party removed the middle name and the picture.
But for at least some period of time, it left the text of the release on its Web site, seeking to link Mr. Obama to the views of some of his most controversial supporters, including Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said tactics used effectively against Senator John Kerry in 2004 and Vice President Al Gore in 2000 would not work against Mr. Obama.
"They will try to rerun old races and battles and divide along traditional lines," Mr. Axelrod said. "I think the country is eager for something else. And I think the country is not going to be so easily distracted. We are prepared to deal with whatever they offer."
Why is there such disdain for calling Senator Obama a liberal? He should be proud to be identified as such, and with those who follow him.
I don't know where Media Matters is going with this.
Even if National Journal had left out the embryonic stem cell, minimum wage, and other votes outside of the methodology, this omission would not have made Obama less liberal than he is in comparison with other democratic senators, since Ted Kennedy, Schumer and all the other ultra-liberals most likely voted with Obama on those issues.
"their first line of attack would be to portray [Obama] as a liberal..."
OK, I get this, that The Times reporter is defining being called "liberal" an attack, but it seems as if MMFA is veering into what some of the posters have been asserting on this subject; that "liberal" is an insult. Not just as a side-effect of much of the media working very hard at making it one, but in itself.
I'm pretty liberal in most of my positions. I don't give a flying funk who knows it, but then , I'm not running for office against the GOP and their media.
Maybe the Dems should start educating people on what the opposite of "liberal" is. Oppressive, stingy, cowardly,hard, rigid, strict, doctrinal, dogmatic, bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, reactionary, conservative, conventional, nonprogressive, old-fashioned, orthodox, assbackwards, terrified of everything...
And darn mean!
There's a conflict within most progressives about the anger they feel, and its expression. Its been comented on here a few times. Lack of a real forum,the feeling that being very nice and polite makes you a door mat, as far as the neocons are concerned.
Refusing to be a door mat and responing with some fire offers more options. Being a stupid agressive ass tends to close options. Becoming a mirror image of your opponet is worse. Most of the regulars here are at some level concious of this. There's no script, so we make our path as we walk it. We walk it in good company.
Colonelextracrispy,
Although I disagree with your description of the opposite of what 'liberal' is, I believe in your proposition that you should educate the public what it is you stand for or against. The democrats running for office have generally understood that identifying themselves as liberals would always hurt in elections. I agree that candidates should be consistent in what they say and do. That is why many on my side of the aisle disagree with Senator McCain self description as conservative.
So whether liberal, neo-liberal, progressive, socialist, leftist or some other label, I think that the electorate always benefits from seeing more than pithy slogans, rather hearing what the candidates believe, evaluating the consequences or possibility of implementation and mostly will the candidate actually follow through on promises.
By the way, I still believe that promotion of economic freedom, indivdiual liberty and responsibility and smaller government win in elections are have shown time and time again to work to the best interests of any country. I believe these are ideals generally associated with conservatism.
What PlowedRegurgitave said was;
"I believe these are ideals generally associated with conservatism."
Which is not necessarily a flawed statement. He "believes" (because he has been told by countless GOP candidates and spokesmen in the media) that those ideals are "generally associated" with conservatism, just as hot young chicks running around the beach in bikinis are "generally associated" with drinking lousy light beer.
He is the target demographic, and the product is stoopidity.
Sorry, forgot to respond to PC's request, educating the public with definitions.I'd suggest listening to speeches, visiting websites, using your critical thinking skills. Otherwise, you end up, in the same paragraph that you deride pithy slogans and bumper stickers, tricking yourself into believing that your own platitudes are concrete principles;
promotion of economic freedom - They don't get much more vague than that.
indivdiual liberty - Except when you want to marry somebody not approved by the GOP, have a private phone call, undergo a medical procedure that offends the superstitions of certain groups,etc.
and responsibility- I'll give you this one.Conservatism in government does force the individual to take responsibility, at least as needed to compensate for the irresponsibility in that government. Just as a retarded child promotes more pronounced parental responsibility.
and smaller government - checked the books lately? I can't even seriously respond to this, except to say that the conservative program seems to be doing absolutely nothing for the same amount of money as it costs to do something.
ProudMoron. You dont believe anything except what you are TOLD to believe. Obama is not running from being called a liberal. He ISNT the MOST liberal Senator. There is no problem with not wanting people to LIE to misrepresent you. Letting the people get to know WHO YOU ARE is the main way to become president unless you are a rightwinger then its HIDING who you are like Bush did. You can keep hoping that if you say it often enough the conservatives message is the more popular but there are more Democrats than Republicans and liberal social ideas consistantly outpoll conservative ideas. Your delusions and WISHING notwithstanding.
Colonelextracrispy,
!) Economic freedom: The ability to succeed based upon your own effort, skill, initiative and perseverance. Opportunity is available to whomever wants to go after it. The ability for our citizens to move up the ladder is one of the reasons why so many want to move here. Prosperity is not tied to the strata where one was born but rather where they are willing to get to. Think of Gates, what 30 years ago he was working in a garage, now well you know the rest of the story. That really doesn't happen in Rhawnda or Russia, where much of the financial gain is based on either a willingness to engage in criminal activity or be a member of a ruling elite. Also consider how those that oppose this idea have hurt their local economies here in the USA. Where are most of the jobs going to from Ohio or Michigan? Overseas? Nah, South to right to work states where the economy hums away. Why is it that even new immigrants to this country can make it? They benefit from the freedom to identify something that people want to purchase, feel they can provide and often make fortunes at it. Others have also made nice livings, raised families while working for someone else. I know I only worked for someone who could afford to write my check, usually people wealthier than I that had reached the American dream and were willing to give me a boost to the same end.
2) Individual Liberty: I never said that I thought gay marriage was not appropriate. However the concept needs to move forward with a different label. Call them civil unions or whatever but marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, often for the purpose of creating and caring for children. Again, I have no problem letting government or even church theology establish these kinds of unions and enjoy the legal benefits of lifetime commitment. As far as abortions, defining life is paramount. I don't think that abortions can be outlawed, nor should they, but restricted yes. I don't believe that a viable life should be terminated and that is an ever moving target with the medical leaps we have been able to take. I find it difficult to justify the 'demand' part of the equation, it's like saying, "They'll take away my abortion when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!". http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/dishonor/2005/manheim042504/segment1.ram
This is the sacrament of the religion of the left.
Liberty doesn't allow me to conspire to commit terror, especially if my activities, conversations, emails garner enough attention for someone to scrutinize. Liberty is freedom to dissent and disagree freely. It should be on the field of ideas alone. So when I challenge, it is not to name call (besides people's handles) but to have each side rationally justify their position. The nice thing is, these are things that we have been exporting and encouraging others to enjoy these benefits as well.
3) Responsibility: I am not sure what you meant but I believe in the personal responsiblity of opportunity this country provides to all who come here legally or live here. However, the government should not legislate by fiat, equal outcomes, instead allow for the benefit of individual choice in pursuits, economic or otherwise.
4) Smaller government: One of the great disappointments of the last eight years is the performance of the congress and president in this area. Conservatives expected much better and instead have seen our entitlements grow, new federal agencies created rather than removing useless ones and bureacracies increase. I believe that is why we did so poorly in 06 and will in 08. The republican candidate SEnator McCain is not really seen as the new Reagan, although he trie to say as much. I fear that the degree of increasing the size of government will be limited to 'much more' or 'exponential' depending on the victor of presidency.
Signed,
Plowedfieldofreguritation
Dearest PlowedCon,
It's late, so I'll try to make it brief;
1. Bill Gates - typical story,eh?
2.Liberty - separate but equal has been tried with other things besides marriage.Reproducing is only a "purpose" that you've assigned to the institution, or according to some(most) religions.Straight couples who don't have kids are no less married than those who do.
3. Responsibility - Everybody I know, liberal, conservative, and everywhere else on the spectrum, believes in personal responsibility. As a political platform, it's just a feelgood word that appeals to the insecurities of those who want to pump up their sense of rugged individualism and bootstrap-pulling-uppiness.I was only pointing out the irony of conservatives using it as a platform for Gov't. Remember, the government is our employee. Would you hire an employee at your business who promised to shift all responsibility to you?
4. Small government - Are you talking about the real Reagan, or the mythical one Sean Hannity swoons about daily? Cuz if that's what you call "small government", I thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster Ronny didn't decide to try out some BIG Government.Yikes!
Warmest Regards, Col. Extracrispytransfats