Politico uncritically described NRCC ad's reference to National Journal's flawed ranking of Obama
SUMMARY: Reporting on advertising buys by the National Republican Congressional Committee "and GOP allies," the Politico's Josh Kraushaar cited an ad that refers to Sen. Barack Obama's "ranking by National Journal as having 'the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.' " But Kraushaar did not mention that a respected, comprehensive vote study contradicts the National Journal's ratings, which were based on "99 key Senate votes" selected by Journal staff members.
In an April 28 article about advertising buys by the National Republican Congressional Committee "and GOP allies," Politico staff writer Josh Kraushaar reported: "The NRCC is up with a new spot in Mississippi's 1st District in which [Democrat Travis] Childers is flanked by [Sen. John] Kerry and [Sen. Barack] Obama. The ad refers to Obama's ranking by National Journal as having 'the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.' " However, Kraushaar failed to note the results of a respected vote study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that, in contrast with the National Journal's subjective selection of votes, considers every non-unanimous vote cast by every legislator to determine his or her relative ideology. Poole and Lewis' study placed Obama in a tie for the ranking of 10th most liberal senator in 2007. The Journal used "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, and here), among the votes Obama cast that purportedly earned him the 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. Obama himself, when asked by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris about the Journal's 2007 vote ratings during a February 11 Politico/WJLA interview, criticized the Journal's methodology by noting that it considered "liberal" his vote for "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." Media Matters has previously noted that Harris and Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei subsequently misrepresented Obama's statement from the interview. In a March 18 article, Harris and VandeHei reported that "[w]hen pressed on a voting record that the National Journal called the most liberal in the Senate, Obama dismissed ideological labels as 'old politics,' " but they did not report Obama's initial response in which he criticized the methodology the Journal used. Obama referred to "old politics" moments later, when Harris asked Obama whether he is "comfortable with the liberal label."
American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norman J. Ornstein has also criticized the Journal's rating of Obama as "most liberal senator," calling it "pretty ridiculous."
Furthermore, Kraushaar did not note that in the report releasing Obama's ranking, the Journal stated that Sen. John McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score." Media Matters has also noted that the Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication's previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the "most liberal senator" in 2003.
From the April 28 Politico article:
But those concerns aren't deterring a collection of groups from testing the waters with anti-Obama ads in Mississippi and Louisiana. The NRCC, the conservative advocacy group Freedom's Watch and the campaign of Mississippi candidate Greg Davis combined have put up about $500,000 in advertising explicitly connecting [Don] Cazayoux and Childers to Obama.
The NRCC is up with a new spot in Mississippi's 1st District in which Childers is flanked by Kerry and Obama. The ad refers to Obama's ranking by National Journal as having "the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate."
Davis' newly released ad invokes Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, arguing that Childers should have spoken out against Wright's divisive rhetoric but instead "said nothing."
"Travis Childers. He took Obama's endorsement over our conservative values," a narrator in the ad goes on to say.
Whatever this idiotic "ranking" is supposed to signify, it's got to be based on someone's voting record, right? And someone's voting record is simply their votes on some number or many pieces of Legislation, right? Well, rather than have somebody do my thinking and my concluding for me, and summarize somehow a Senator's many votes into a "ranking", why not just tell me how that Senator voted on specific Laws... why not cite one or two or several key votes, and cite them? Why insult everyone's intelligence, by skipping over the all-important particulars of a Senator's vote on particular matters, in favor of squeezing down a Senator's voting record into an abstract and misleading "ranking"?
If you don't need MMFA's opinion or description of these studies, then why do you read them?
I don't need to fall into the mouth of a volcano, so I just don't go near one... what's the point of you reading MMFA's opinion or description of these studies, if you don't need it?
First, doesn't this buy into the premise that there is something wrong with being a liberal?
Second, if Obama is not the "most liberal" member of the Senate, then where would he be on the list? 2nd? 3rd?
Finally, is there more than one instance in which Obama has actually voted against the liberal/left wing of the Dem. party?
-- doesn't this buy into the premise that there is something wrong with being a liberal? -- operationchaos
Oh my aching side...that's hitting them where it hurts...turning down the honor of being the best liberal.
If you published a "flawed" study that proclaimed me the most conservative senator? Here would be my response:
-- No, I'm not the most conservative senator. But, I'm sure near the top of that list...and damn proud of it. --
What's with the leftwing's outrage at Obama being classified as very liberal?
Wes and Jeter,
I'll put it another way, if a liberal publication was quoted by the entire media saying that McCain was the most conservative member of the Senate, would you two, as conservatives, be insulted?
Fried,
I'm with Wes on this one. I'm proud to be a Conservative. Now I'm a fairly moderate Conservative but I would not be the least bit offended if someone said I was the most Conservative member of the Senate, or most Conservative poster on this on this forum.
Why do you Libs get so uptight about being called Liberals? If one is proud of being a Lib, then wouldn't it stand to reason you'd love to wear the title as Most Liberal?
Just because Limbaugh etc put down Liberals shouldn't be a reason to run away from who you are.
Wes and Jeter,
I don't think Obama is that liberal. I think he is pretty liberal, but I thought John Edwards was far more liberal. I thought Kucinich was far more liberal. The problem that I have with him being called the most liberal is that he isn't the most liberal. To me, he isn't liberal enough and, as someone who considers himself to be very liberal, I don't see Obama that way.
My "outrage" is the influence on those who call themselves "moderates" or "independents" who are not looking to vote for the "most liberal" or the "most conservative" candidates. Obama is hardly the most liberal Senator. Independents are not going to vote for the "most liberal" guy and they should know that Obama is far from the most liberal. Does that make sense?
No it isnt. You just WISH it were. Again not wanting to be misrepresented while running for President which is LARGELY about letting the poeple konw WHO you are isnt saying something bad about liberals. That simpleminded black and white thinking you exhibit will keep you from ever understanding ANYTHING.
Operation Chaos, thank you for hurting America.
To answer your question, because the study is flawed does not mean that they are buying into the premise that being a liberal is a bad thing. Those two are mutually exclusive, though I can see where you could dumb it down to equate the two.
In other words,
P=>Q
~P=>~Q
however, in this instance, ~P=>~Q is false.
If Obama is the most liberal senator, then Bernie Sanders should be hop-skipping mad that Obama beat him out. I mean, Sanders is quasi-socialist after all.
Of course, I doubt you're going to take anything I say into consideration. With a name like Operation Chaos, its almost a wonder you're not Limbaugh himself.
You're welcome!
>>>If Obama is the most liberal senator, then Bernie Sanders should be hop-skipping mad that Obama beat him out. I mean, Sanders is quasi-socialist after all.<<<
Well, you managed to name at least ONE Senator who is more "liberal" than Obama (maybe). So are you suggesting that Obama is the "2nd most liberal"?
>>>With a name like Operation Chaos, its almost a wonder you're not Limbaugh himself.<<<
You flatter me!
"Well, you managed to name at least ONE Senator who is more "liberal" than Obama (maybe). So are you suggesting that Obama is the "2nd most liberal"?"
Does that matter? It no longer makes Obama the most liberal senator, thus the study is flawed. you're projecting, and not doing a very good job of it either.
I dont know what those squiggly lines and Ps and Qs mean, so I'm going to dumb it down for myself;
Opinion: Wesley and OperationRushbot are the smartest guys in town.
Fact:Wesley and OperationRushbot are not the smartest guys in town.
Conclusion of W. and OR: I have just demonized smartness.
haha...it's a way of expressing logic. It basically says, if P then Q, where P is: the National Journal study is flawed, and Q is: MMfA is buying into the premise that there is something wrong with being a liberal. The Tildes mean not. So it logically follows that if P then Q (If the study is flawed, then MMfA is buying into the notion that there is something wrong with being a liberal), then if not P then not Q (If the study is not flawed then MMfA is not buying into the notion that there is something wrong with being a liberal.) The logic does not follow, because those statements are mutually exclusive and do not correlate to the other's statement as fact.
Huh?
You lost me D.
How about this: Just watch your P's & Q's ;-)
NO it doesnt. Obama is not the most liberal member of the Senate that is obvious. The Senate has Bernie Saunders, Russ Fiengold and Sherrod Brown all CLEARLY more liberal than Obama. That he doesnt want to be misrepresented does NOT mean he is objecting to being called A liberal. Its like this. I am not a Methodist, nor a Catholic, now I have nothing against Methodists or Catholics but I wouldnt want people SAYING I was a Methodist or a Catholic.
Where he would rank is a subjective judgement that really isnt very meaningful but there is an outright Democratic Socialist in the Senate and its ludicrous to say Obama is more liberal than he is. As for has he voted against the left. Again why would that have any meaning? Does he have to not be a DEMOCRAT to not be the most liberal member of the Senate? Does he have to have SOME rightwing votes or else its fair to misrepresent him?
Those amazing liberals. Thirty years of the finest anti liberal media money can buy. Somehow the threat they represent has not decreased.
Good yob boyce?
It's ironic that MMFA and its liberal following are bent out of shape over Obama being ranked as having "the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate." :)
I find it funny that you don't know the meaning of the word ironic.
It was ironic to me. - JG
Oh you made the fact that you don't know the meaning of the word ironic very clear.
JG,
If you were given a compliment about yourself that wasn't true, would you own it and spread it or would you acknowledge its false?
Actually you dont think at all. You are an idiot. THINKING is WAY past your capabilities. Stupidity, now THAT you have going on. When you beg borrow or steal a couple of functioning brain cells and IF they allow you to actually PERFORM the function known as thinking then get back to us. Till then thanks for the laughs moron.
It's ironic that MMFA and its liberal following are bent out of shape over Obama being ranked as having "the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate." :)
But it's not true. It's false. It's inaccurate. It's fallacious. It's erroneous. Call me crazy, but I do think there is a bit of a difference between the most liberal senator and being tied as the 10th most liberal. How is making that distinction splitting hairs?
-- But it's not true. It's false. It's inaccurate. -- carn
This from mmfa's expert, Norm Ornstein's site:
-- the criteria were based on 99 key roll call votes last year: 'Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.' --
It doesn't matter what rank you assign Obama...his record for this period was 98.5% liberal. Why are the liberals running away from this liberal badge of honor.
It doesn't matter what rank you assign Obama...his record for this period was 98.5% liberal. Why are the liberals running away from this liberal badge of honor.
First, no one's "running away" from anything. The point is that it's inaccurate to call Obama the most liberal, when there are more liberal senators with longer voting records. How hard is it to say that he's in the top 10 or one of the most liberal? Making a distinction between the #1 spot and being tied at 10 is NOT splitting hairs.
If conservatives want to use this most liberal label to cast Obama as an extemist, then fine, so long as it's true. Let everyone determine on their own whether his votes on various issues merit such criticism as an extremist. But don't fudge the facts to do it.
As for your cherry-picking of Norm's blog, maybe you should have read the rest of it:
"To be sure, both Obama and Kerry would fit within the liberal camp; both would be in the top 20 in the Senate. But these rankings can't really get any more precise than that. That is the second problem with vote ratings of this sort. As the political scientists Joshua Clinton, Simon Jackman and Doug Rivers pointed out in a political science journal, the ratings ignore ranges that reflect the gross imperfections of roll-call votes on the floor--many relying on shaky judgment calls to define "liberal" or "conservative"--that statisticians call "confidence intervals." National Journal, like every other ratings operation, opts for false precision to have greater effect....As Binder notes, the best ideological rankings are actually done by scholars Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, relying on all votes and a very complex method widely adopted by scholars. The Poole-Rosenthal scores make Obama the 10th most liberal Senator in 2007--and, by the way, make McCain the seventh most conservative."
-- How hard is it to say that he's in the top 10 or one of the most liberal? -- carn
It's not hard at all.
I read the entire Ornstein post and told you where the info came from. There was no cherry picking...unless one is too lazy to follow the link. I also said quite clearly that "It doesn't matter what rank you assign Obama"...hence no need for me to cut/paste the arguments about the methodology of the studies.
I'm more impressed by the 65 of 66 liberal votes cast by Obama...that makes him very liberal...and makes me wonder why those words cause sputtering and choking by some liberals.
Wes,
The problem with the info you selected from Norm's site is that it's the criteria based on the National Journal's ranking, which is flawed. The whole point of his blog is to prove why it is flawed (shaped dramatically by attendance and absences since Obama and Kerry were campaigning ) and to a provide a more accurate ranking.
Let me repeat...I'm not arguing the methodology of any study or ranking.
The raw count was 65 of 66 liberal votes by Obama...and by any standard that makes him very liberal...why is that so hard to admit?
This ranking is pretty worthless. It is based on a flawed premise. Democrat and liberal are NOT the same things. Personally I am an Independent liberal and I haven't felt the Democrats have represented my point of view for some time. The only measure of liberalness I see in the methodology is the party affiliation breakdown on the votes (a good deal of them on things like cloiture - which IMO does not definitively indicate belief one way or another). Barack voted for increased port security, which could easily be described as a conservative position as well - again, the prism appears to be the premise that Democrats love to spend money and Conservatives don't, but national security and defense used to be exceptions to that rule of thumb. I guess it was decided based purely on the party line vote. It just doesn't make any sense outside of a partisan model - which Obama has admitted he would like to obliterate.
What CAN be said is that Barack voted with the majority of Democrats more often than any other Senator based on the sample taken - for what little that is worth.
Whether that makes him a "liberal" or not is neither here nor there - let alone the "most liberal" senator.
I'm more impressed by the 65 of 66 liberal votes cast by Obama...that makes him very liberal...and makes me wonder why those words cause sputtering and choking by some liberals.
Yes, he is very liberal (not as liberal as I'd prefer). What liberal poster here has objected to that? The issue has been with calling him the most liberal when it's not true. That is the issue and I don't know why you keep trying to make it seem like someone is "sputtering and choking".
So many of the votes by Obama and others that are said to be liberal appear to fall in the mainstream to me. Minimum wage is liberal--Port security. Basically if the vote is not with far right conservatives, then by default, the vote is considered liberal.
Obviously the right wing media machine has demonized the word liberal so voters who consider themselves moderates can take the safe road McCain offers.