Politico still ignoring Obama rebuttal to National Journal ranking, study's subjectivity
SUMMARY: Ignoring its own interview with Sen. Barack Obama in which he criticized the National Journal study, the Politico uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's claim that Obama has the "most liberal voting record," without citing any criticism of the study or noting that the ranking was based on subjectively selected votes.
Ignoring its own interview with Sen. Barack Obama in which he criticized the National Journal study, the Politico uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's claim that Obama has the "most liberal voting record in the Senate." In the June 4 article, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin, analyzing McCain's June 3 speech in New Orleans, reported: " 'In just a few years in office, Sen. Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate,' McCain said, citing a National Journey [sic] survey that Republicans have already enthusiastically seized upon."
Martin cited no criticism of the study, not even Obama's in an interview with Politico. During a February 11 Politico/WJLA-TV interview, Obama responded to a question by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris about the Journal's 2007 vote ratings, saying, "[A]n 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."
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the National Journal based its rankings, not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes selected by National Journal reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis, using every non-unanimous vote cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology, placed Obama in a tie for the 10th most liberal senator.
Media Matters has previously noted that Harris and Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei subsequently misrepresented Obama's statement from the February 11 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 criticizing the Journal's methodology. Obama referred to "old politics" moments later, when Harris asked Obama whether he is "comfortable with the liberal label."
In addition, Media Matters has noted that, in an April 28 article, Politico staff writer Josh Kraushaar uncritically reported that the National Republican Congressional Committee aired an ad in Mississippi's 1st District which "refer[ed] to Obama's ranking by National Journal as having 'the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.' "
From the June 4 Politico article:
McCain accused Obama of blocking progress in Iraq and for advocating for a series of big government solutions to the country's domestic problems that were better left discarded in an earlier era.
"In just a few years in office, Sen. Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate," McCain said, citing a National Journey survey [sic] that Republicans have already enthusiastically seized upon. "But the old, tired, big government policies he seeks to dust off and call new won't work in a world that has changed dramatically since they were last tried and failed."
The DNC should do a better job of defending Obama on this matter by ridiculing the National Journal's and showing the specific votes on which the ranking was based. For example, ask the American people if they want to be secure at home in the post 9/11 world and show them that Obama's votes to implement security measures are considered liberal.
LOL! MM questions the NJ study for its "subjectivity" and then cites another study that is based only on "non-unanimous" votes. That's subjective, also!! LOL!
Also, I find it "interesting" that MM criticizes others for "subjective" studies, when MM's own studies have come under similar scrutiny (link).
Shoes,
The American Conservative Union doesn't find Obama to be the most liberal.
Also, I find it "interesting" that MM criticizes others for "subjective" studies, when MM's own studies have come under similar scrutiny (link).
Oh, yeah. "Blogsome" is a real credible, well-known source of factual information - NOT!!!! Why don't you cite some REAL sources for a change, Shoes???
Hmmm... I don't understand. Why is being liberal such a bad thing? It seems that you moonbats are ashamed!
I just wanted to beat the "missing the point" crowd. The I.D.G.U.T.s
How can I miss you when you won't go away, Tommy? ;0)
But don't tell anybody I touched you.
Ahh, you miss us.
Maybe, but our aim is getting better.
Touching.
For you, touched is more like it.
I disagee that Politico has a McCain bias. If you go to their website, you will see several articles casting McCain in a negative light. Same for Obama.
I'm not saying they are accurate; just saying I don't see them taking sides.
Check out this website that is titled, "How interest groups rate the senators". It is a composite of different rankings by different progressive groups. Care to take a guess who shows up as most progressive? (Hint, it is a Senator from Illinois.)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senator_ratings-2005.htmlAA -
Those rankings are from 2005. Care to post something more current and relevant?
not only that, but his ratings from the ACLU and the PTA are non-existent. It's inaccurate data at best.
On searching through that site however, I found something interesting. IN the FAQs section, he links to a similar Republican leaning site:
http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml
Notice, both web-sites currently project the Presidency for Obama. Not only that, but each site projects that both the Senate and the House will gain Democratic seats and lose Republican seats.
Notice, both web-sites currently project the Presidency for Obama. Not only that, but each site projects that both the Senate and the House will gain Democratic seats and lose Republican seats.
Very interesting. Looks like some on the right are facing reality, while others have their heads in the sand (or elsewhere)....
Wonder where Rush's head will be... no, scratch that, wouldn't wanna know.
WOO-HOO! (Thanks for the link, BTW!)
Actually they pretty much predict it the way I did (in the OH/FL and the Racsist/Sexist thread), except that they also give Obama CO and NM. (I called NM a possible upset, but conceded both to McCain to play it safe in my prediction for Obama.)
I'm not sure if it's a good thing that I think almost the same as a right-leaning webstite, but I guess I wasn't letting my liberal bias skew my prediction/analysis. :)
wz,
Nice catch on the date. I hadn't noticed. I found the 2007 ranking which put Obama somewhere down in the middle.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.htmlSo the most recent ranking shows that he's nowhere near the most liberal?
Thanks for proving our point about the scare tactics of the right and how they'll paint whatever Democratic nominee as the most liberal.
DB,
I'll admit these rankings by progressive organizations do show Obama to more conservative than a lot of other Democrats.
The next step would be to find how conservative groups rate the candidates.
I found it interesting that McCain is listed as the 4th most conservative Senator. These rankings seem to go against the "conventional wisdom" regarding both candidates.
"I found it interesting that McCain is listed as the 4th most conservative Senator. These rankings seem to go against the "conventional wisdom" regarding both candidates."
I completely agree, and still stand by my posts way back where I proposed that Obama is actually a very mild conservative voice, as far as international standards go (in the U.S., he's still on the liberal side) backed up by this study:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
So, in Europe for example, Obama is a centrist with a conservative leaning. However, in America, the center has been shifted hard to the right since the '60s.
p.s. It's worth noting that McCain is the only senator from the Republican party that ran for President, so this really plays no bearing on how conservative he is compared to other members of the Senate.
DB,
Oops.. Looks like the 2007 statistics are misleading.
I went to the websites to look at their rankings and how they rated the Senators and I found out the ratings were calculated on the number of votes in favor of those special interests divided by the number of issues.
In Obama's case the reason he scored lower in the ADA, CDF, and LCV in 2007 is because he missed votes. I presume he was out campaigning. He also was not scored by the NAACP because of missing 9 out of 15 votes.
If you factor out his missed votes you come up with a much different story. Here is how his voting record breaks down for those groups not counting missed votes.
ADA 100%
CDF 100%
LCV 91%
NAACP 100%
Recalculating the "How Liberal Interest Groups Rate..." and Obama gets a 95.57%, rounded to 96% which puts him as tied for the most liberal.
If you take out one vote for the ACLU where he voted in favor of Lobbyists!!!! Obama's rating would have been 97% putting him alone as the most liberal.
So it looks to me like these numbers show Obama is at worst, tied for the most liberal Senator.
ps. (If you like, go back and do the math yourself. Correct me if I am wrong.)
Try this one, AA:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=ILIII
AA,
The American Conservative Union gave these Senators a 0% rating in 2007:
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Tim Johnson (D-IL)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Robert Menendez (D)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NY)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
http://www.conservative.org/archive2/Senate_standout.asp
His lifetime rating is behind the following: Durbin, Boxer, Inouye, Akaka, Cardin, Mikulski, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Klobauchar, Lautenberg, Reed, Leahy, Sanders, and Murray all have worse lifetime ratings than Obama according to the ACU. Clinton is only .04 higher. I was not able to link the lifetime ratings, but its on the front page: conservative.org
Interesting, but I don't see any media publications listed.
Also, have numerous media sources repeatedly cited these rankings? If so, has anyone bothered to scrutinize their methodology?
The rightwing consider "LIBERAL" to be a perjorative, and "MOST LIBERAL" to mean "UNFIT FOR OFFICE". So, they will label their opponents in this way, even when they have to LIE (which is most of the time).
I'm interested in the "WHO'S MOST CONSERVATIVE" category. It sure as hell ain't Bush or Cheney, and can in no way be McCain. It's not Romney ... these pro-war NeoCons have abandoned the root principles of "conservatives" ... on entanglements overseas as well as on fiscal and social matters at home.
It seems true Conservative Principles are upheld mostly in Libertarian circles, while the NeoCons have adopted a NEW set of principles:
SECRETIVE government.
NATION BUILDING.
DEFICIT SPENDING ad infinitum.
DISREGARDING laws, the Constitution, treaties, or any otherwise binding rules of conduct.
OPEN borders.
LARGER, more INTRUSIVE government.
Seeking to LEGISLATE MORALITY.
When you hear someone screaming "LIBERAL!", check their own political credentials. They're either lying about being conservative, or have no idea what they might be, other than just opposed to Liberals.
Right, Tex. The GOP & media have done a good job of filling the 28%ers heads with visions of the Liberal Boogeyman. While the current crop of NeoCons should scare decent Americans, nobody is frightened by the phrase "most conservative".
Conservatism (the genuine type), by definition is based on a fear of and reluctance to change. "most conservative" isn't scary, it's boring. Apathy isn't the emotion you want to instill in voters.
"Liberal", on the other hand, evokes "change" and "progress". While in reality being responsible for most of the positive advancements in the world, and for most of the greatness of America, it can be used very effectively to rile up the bedwetters who want everything to be just the way they've always pretended it was.
Tex,
Now you're projecting again....
As a conservative, I don't consider 'liberal' as a pejorative. I consider it a handy way to describe certain people and/or groups on the left just as I consider a convenient way to describe some of those on the right as a conservative. Most of what I've writing that I've read that disdains the use of liberal comes from liberals who now call themselves progressives.
I never quite understood why liberals dropped the term liberals to call themselves progressives? Are progressives more liberal than liberals?
>>I never quite understood why liberals dropped the term liberals to call themselves progressives? Are progressives more liberal than liberals?
Perhaps because of all of the smarmy books linking them to terrorists and despots.
Maybe that is the case. Are liberals trying to hide their associations? ;-)
On the flip side, even though there are more than a few books written critical of conservatives, I don't see conservatives having a problem with being called conservatives or trying to use euphemistic terms to describe themselves.
What do you consider yourself? A progressive or a liberal?
There are differences. It really depends on who you ask. There almost as many opinions on this as there are people who call themselves "liberal" or "progressive."
David Sirota had one of the more coherent takes on the question.
I keep the following quotation in a text file on my PC for occasions such as this. It's one of the best definitions I ever came across for "liberal", and why I proudly call myself a liberal:
“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘Liberal’? If by ‘Liberal’ they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of ‘Liberal.’ But if by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal’.” - John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960DB,
Now you are just being argumentative. :-)
wizz pretty good, but I think it should read just a tiny bit different on this one sentance:
But if by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead "AS WELL AS behind",
If we do not know what is behind us we are more than likely to repeat errors much more frequently.
I don't find fault with liberals who are upset with the moniker of "most" liberal senator assigned to Obama. Most data would support their complaints.
However, what cannot be refuted is that Obama is an "extremely" liberal senator. In 2007, on the votes he cast, he opposed the position of the American Conservative Union 14 out of 15 times.
Most liberal senator...I don't think so. A very liberal senator...damn skippy.
Wow Colonel, the American people will be thrilled you are coming to their rescue by letting them know they are really liberal, and not conservative as the media has been telling them; clueless American people, now they know better.
Liberal elitism is alive and well,
"clueless American people"
Your words, Tommy. You wrote them, you own them. And I, for one, don’t agree with your sentiment.
"clueless American people"
That of course would include Jeff Christie's radio audience....
Tommy, Darling, put down your little Japanese fan and move away from the fainting couch you delicate orchid. My point was about definitions and how they're manipulated. Which is really the point of this item.
Now you and Wesley run along to your next adventure in not understanding something.
By sidestep, you mean not humoring your hallucinations? OK, I'm sure I sidestepped something in your fantastic little world. I wish I had the time to try to figure out what it was exactly. Wait, no I don't.
Tommy, I've heard from several sources that what Col. is saying rings true. However, it's been phrased differently, in that most people hold more liberal views on certain issues, or at least more than what conventional wisdom dictates. The problem is that hardly anyone agrees with the next person about each and every issue.
If I can find the studies, I'll definitely post them. Until then, you can take this as opinion.
Tommy, I know your shift is over [ ;0) ], but DBeden got it, although I wasn't all that clear. I wasn't implying that people don't know what they believe, or where they stand on issues, but that the ideologies have been defined a certain way (in the "conventional wisdom") that isn't always accurate.
Does that make more sense? To pick a really simple example, it's like Rush Limbaugh's "quiz" he gives to callers who are confused about their political orientation. He'll ask them if they want the government controlling every aspect of their personal life.Naturally, any sane human being answers "no", at which point Rush informs them that they're conservative.
I realize something that ham-fisted only works on the bottom-feeders, but there are more subtle examples that exist in that same "conventional wisdom". Strangely enough, the Liberal Media seems to promote a lot of them that go against their socialist agenda. Go figure.
Now tell me I'm an elitist for slamming bottom-feeders. you animal!.
Nice sidestep Colonel, be careful you're about to trip over that fainting couch.
Then you should make sure he doesn't fall over you when he trips.
There you go eddie...precise and straight forward...you support the fact that Obama is a very liberal politician.
To quote Seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that". Many others are reacting to the mmfa dog whistle to cry foul and moan about the mis-characterization of Obama as "the most liberal".
You obviously like Obama's very liberal stance...good for you. Irregardless of the stories about Obama being the most liberal...he cannot distance himself from the fact that he is very liberal...that's why we have elections.
-- if you guys...you've been largely successful... It may occur to y'all at some point -- eddie
I am not a part of any of those groups. If you're going to lump every one who disagrees with your position into broad, irrelevant categories...then your complaint about Obama being termed as the most liberal rings hollow.
Yet, I think we mostly agree...the election should be about issues...not about silly campaign labels and tactics. Obama is way too liberal for my taste...and my vote will reflect that. Let me repeat...that's why we have elections.
Well, you definitely nailed me on my tone. It was a bit obnoxious, and I apolgize for that. The way I wrote that, it certainly did seem like I was generalizing.
BUT I won't apologize for "lumping you in with those guys" if you're defending the survey that seems to name [whomever is the Democratic frontrunner at any ginev time] as "the most liberal", or if you are defending those who would would quote such a survey as if it was legit and could used to make a valid point. If you see that as legit, then you are, in fact one of those guys.
Putting aside my obvious partisanship, it seems agree that these kinds of tactics should not be considered acceptable. So, if I misunderstood you (which is definitely a possibility, when I get on a rant like that,) then I also apologize for the misunderstanding.
eddie
I clearly stated earlier, "I don't find fault with liberals who are upset with the moniker of "most" liberal senator assigned to Obama. Most data would support their complaints."
Was your tone obnoxious? Nah...no apology necessary. I just wanted to set the record straight...and yep...I think we mostly agree that it should be about issues and not about labels.
Nice and Wes,
The point of these rankings is to quantify just where a particular candidate stands relative to the organization (and other candidates.) I see no problem with that. It is human nature to group. That is why we have political partys, football teams, states, families, religions, etc.
Granted it is a shorthand way to assess the candidate, but not everyone has the interest or the time to research every issue and every vote.
Of course Obama is "very liberal" in that special wingnut definition of liberal that means "anything that isn't 110% on board with the loudest mouths that espouse the meaningless ideology of modern conservatism." This is the same definition they use to call McCain a liberal and that really started coming in vogue when those loudmouths saw that Bush's goose was cooked and started labelling him a liberal as well.
Now that is not to say that real conservatism isn't out there and that it isn't a valid viewpoint worthy of debate, but it does point to the fact that the unelected and irresponsible chorus of the "True Conservatives" don't have an ideaology of their so much as a position against any form of socially responsible government or concept of shared success and failure. Modern "Conservatives" are nothing more than selfish nihilists who want to destroy government. Until the real conservatives out there can successfully remove these people from their bully pulpits there is no such thing as conservatism except as an empty talking point.
Unfortunately these people have been very successful in removing any meaning or value from the the idea of liberalism as well, which is why so many of us who lean to the left no longer use the word. I am not afraid to voice my beliefs, but I will not use a label that has been so deformed that it is now nothing more than a one size fits all insult.
moonbat
Your doctoral thesis on defining conservatism is completely in the dark.
There is a great difference between "true conservatives" and the current republican leadership...which you confuse. Many conservatives today are unhappy with some facets of Pres.Bush's leadership and the actions of the elected republicans.
But you can climb down from your high horse...real conservatives are not in any fashion supportive of destroying the government. In fact, we are 100% in support of a socially responsible government. The contrast between liberals and conservatives is how that should actually work.
That is a legitimate debate...without the histrionics of your effort to describe conservatism.
Tommy,
Does that make Bush a liberal ;)? I couldn't disagree with you more on the facts vs. opinion thing, but I think each side thinks it argues facts.
Gov,
It's a bit more complex. Bush's economic record is mixed. He's a low taxing, big spender. Many conservatives, (including me,) knew he was not fiscally conservative going in. I don't know why the Iraq war turned out to be so partisan. But it now has become anethema to liberals and embraced by conservatives. Add to that Bush is a social conservative and you see that on two of the three main ideological points, (fiscal, war, social,) Bush is conservative. Lots of us conservatives feel Bush gave away the store by being fiscally liberal.
"I don't know why the Iraq war turned out to be so partisan."--aa
Perhaps it was the way the administration went about things. To some of us, it seemed the president was not listening or addressing our dissent. He constantly dismissed what turned out to be the truth. I can only speak for myself, but that is where he lost me. The administration was so convinced they were right, they thought everyone who disagreed was just some crazy peacenik or something. The only thing that could redeem Bush to me would be a heart-felt and real apology - not the BS "we were all wrong" crap he tried to pull a while back, but that will never happen.
I don't know why the Iraq war turned out to be so partisan.- anotheramerican
That one should go on your greatest hits album, AA ! And to call Bush "fiscally liberal" is just falling into the GOP trap they've been setting over and over; That their continuous, consistent and predictable behavior is an aberration, and that the Dems better record on the economy in recent history is due to magical forces, or is a myth.
As I have said many times Wes, generally speaking, conservatives argue facts, liberals emotion.
And you have been wrong every time you said it. Conservatives argue the emotions of fear and terror because facts contradict everything they stand for.
easy,
You just proved his point. Your argument is based solely on your emotional viewpoint. You provide nothing in your argument to back up your contention. You simply express it as if it were fact.
AA,
Pure emotion got us into Iraq. Bush felt they were a threat, but the facts told a different story
That needs fixing. Try this:
Conservatives call their opinions facts and denounce the opinions of liberals as nothing more than emotion.
That is actually a lie you've been led to believe. The founders of the conservative movement; Richard Viguery and Paul Weyrich laid out the gameplan that in order to sway voters to conservatism it would take gut level appeals. They understood policy speak did not light the fire in the belly. They knew that the way to win the mind was to first to win the heart.
So Wes, what did this mean to you then?
"Modern "Conservatives" are nothing more than selfish nihilists who want to destroy government. Until the real conservatives out there can successfully remove these people from their bully pulpits there is no such thing as conservatism except as an empty talking point." -Moonbat
My take was, by "Modern Conservatives" he means Neo-Cons, which are a large part of the current Republican leadership. Though in truth, they've failed miserably at "want(ing) to destroy government." the Neo-Conservative movement, IMO, is something everyone has a problem with, conservatives and liberals alike. And I do believe Moonbat was making the point that until the Republicans get these a-holes out of office and put in some real conservatives, the brand "conservative" will be tied to the Neo-Cons until further notice.
until the Republicans get these a-holes out of office and put in some real conservatives, the brand "conservative" will be tied to the Neo-Cons until further notice.
Careful there - I am a conservative democrat currently in Texas - where many of our demorcats are far more conservative than northeastern republicans I left behind. Only here at MMFA is the brand "conservative" tied to the extreme right wing.
"Only here at MMFA is the brand "conservative" tied to the extreme right wing."
Uhm, no...most of the pundits who label themselves "conservative" are neo-cons. William Kristol is a good one that comes to mind.
I'm not knocking on the real conservatives, those that believe in limited government and free markets. In fact, I share some of those views. And in no way am I tying you to those in power. The ones who represent the Republican party today are by and large not conservative, and that's in large part because of the Bush Administration. There are a few still in the house and senate who still hold true to their views.
And Wes, as per your question, see:
Bush Administration - Social Security Privatization and the exponential growth of government. Somehow, they are still considered conservative by the MSM.
but I will not use a label that has been so deformed that it is now nothing more than a one size fits all insult - Moonbatyoubet
OK - I guess I was more responding to Moonbat's contention that being called a "liberal" is now deemed and insult, where as conservatives do not look upon that label as such.
dbeden
Tell me how Kristol has attempted to destroy the government.
Your other examples...tell me how some form of privatization of social security destroys the government.
Exponential growth of government? The growth that has produced a bloated, ineffective government certainly works to its eventual destruction...but tell me how that agenda fits with neocon strategy.
-- government is being destroyed when taxes are cut -- tommy
I agree...and then the argument usually runs off the rails with liberals. They spout such drivel like "I guess you oppose public schools, fire depts. police depts, interstate highways" and on and on.
In fact, this conservative supports all those measures and many more provided by the fed. govt. Where the line is drawn is on those wasteful and ineffective programs...runaway entitlements...onerous regulations...and higher taxes.
In general the govt should provide basic services and then get the hell out of the way...and 3 TRILLION DOLLARS is damn sure plenty of money to provide the necessary services.
Yes. And I want my own oompaloompah now, daddy!
The problem is how do we get there from here? When the Republicans were entirely in charge, earmarks were used as a tool by Delay as a way to shore up election districts that were vulnerable.
What amazes me is that people think government becomes fiscally responsible by supporting one party over another. I suggest that splitting up the power is the only practical way to control spending. It is an utter impossible dream to reduce government spending to mere essentials - the way libertarians advocate it. The best we can hope for is to have both parties duke it out for every penny in opposition to each other.
"streamlining government for efficiency is not an option - for some liberals"
Thanks for a perfect example of how liberal is used as an insult. You put forward this idea that growing government for the sake of merely having a big government and refusal to make it more efficient is somehow a piece of the liberal belief system. Nicely done and very typical.
Me personally? Will you require a web citation for proof of my past opinions?
I have a better idea, show me one instance of a national office holding or politically influential liberal working to grow government or prevent a reduction of its size for no reason other than they just love "big government."
As a counterpoint to that, you may want to look at the cultish followers of one Grover Norquist, who does indeed espouse a philosophy of reducing government for no other reason than to reduce it to the point at which it can easily be completely dismantled. ie. "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
National Security is pretty huge, tommy. Why do you want that taken off the table? The war in Iraq has cost us about a half-trillion dollars so far. Do you think that is chickenfeed?
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
My take is that if he meant neocons...he should have said neocons.
On your take...for clarity...would you care to name the neocons and their failed attempts at destroying the government?
On your take...for clarity...would you care to name the neocons and their failed attempts at destroying the government?
The Project for a New American Century. The Northwoods Project.
It's all there.
Oooh, "doctoral thesis" and "high horse" all in one reply. I do so love that bizarre combination of anti-intellectualism and condescension that the wingnuts work so well. Could you maybe fit in an accusation of "elitism" while you're at it?
I do not confuse the current Republican leadership and actual conservatism. Current Repub leadership as well as their enablers on talk radio and on cable news do that all by themselves. All the thieves, liars and obstructionists that used the Republican majority of 2001-2006 to do nothing for this country but to instead enrich themselves and their cronies very loudly and proudly declared themselves to be "True Conservatives." Apparently you identify more with them than actual thoughtful conservatives, whom I would gladly engage in rational debate with, because you decided to take offense.
The Neo-Cons are merely a symptom of the decay of conservatism from a rational political philosophy to a dogmatic political religion. The cult of "True Conservatism," which is neither of those things, has taken control of the Republican Party and removed real conservative thinking from the landscape.
-- The Neo-Cons are merely a symptom of the decay of conservatism -- moonbat
The neocons are runaways from the democrat party...sorry charlie, but only the finest tuna get to be Chicken of the Sea.
Pretty good Moonbatty. The description of the "modern Conservative" as a selfish nihilists out to destroy government has some merit.
Myself I see a line of leadership perhaps starting with the English Royalists though our own Southern leadership in our own civil war, too todays Neocon movers and shakers. There is in these intances the desire to be the saving leader, to aquire the honor and acclaim. To have the power to hurt the people who disagreed with them.
Government by coersion versis individual freedom. Another of those enduring dielectics.
However, what cannot be refuted is that Obama is an "extremely" liberal senator. In 2007, on the votes he cast, he opposed the position of the American Conservative Union 14 out of 15 times.
There is noting wrong with being an "extreme liberal," but it can and has been refuted that Obama is one. And opposing the positions of the national Conservative Union proves he is sensible and intelligent.
Easy,
Go back to the beginning of this thread and look up my discussion with DB.
It has been proven by using progressive scorecards, (corrected to include actual votes,) that Obama is one of the most liberal Senators, if not the most.
"It has been proven by using progressive scorecards, (corrected to include actual votes,) that Obama is one of the most liberal Senators, if not the most."--AA
You cannot "prove" something that is subjective. Congressional votes do not cover the entire array of a congressman's opinions. Besides, there are liberal and conservative rationales for voting the exact same way on some issues. Is McCain a liberal for opposing torture? I suppose there may be a conservative argument against it. Republicans largely opposed fighting in Bosnia, does that make them liberals for opposing war? Were Democrats conservative on that issue? The more you look at this subjectivity the less sense any of it makes.
Open,
Your opinion regarding ranking Senators as liberal or conservative is in the extreme minority. When progressive groups, like NARAL, ADA, and others rank Senators in terms of their voting record on issues important to those groups, they definitely believe you can rank Senators.
Using a composite of those rankings we are able to see who most closely aligns themselves with progressive causes.
Of course the same can be said in reverse about conservative Senators.
I think the issue of war has to be argued separately. Obviously there are incredible differences between Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. To try to lump them together is much different than voting scorecards by special interests.
No, not LA, MS, AR and FL. He wants to spend all of our money on war in the Persian Gulf states.
Hi-Yoooooooooooooooo !!!
You're on a hateful ageist roll, King.
There is a great difference between "true conservatives" and the current republican leadership...
Wesley, I fail to see the differences between "true conservatives" and current republican leadership,
I am referring to the very unified voting of both the House and Senate. Dems could only wish to vote so singularly.
Possible exception for the farm bill.
.
I love it. Liberals, progressives, lefties, marxists run as fast as they can from their true beliefs. Rather than try to define their values honestly and persuade the populace, they hide in shame from anything that sheds light on what they stand truely stand for. If it weren't so, why would first place be worse than 10th place in the Lib special olympics?!
As soon as an election cycle gets humming, all the wonderous intellectual insight that leftward thinking has provided heads for the hills!
Still playing the game of stating an opinion that has no basis in fact and insisting it is true just because you said so? Perhaps it is beyond your ability to comprehend because they weren't wrrapped in bite size slogans surrounded by musical bumpers and insipid parody bits, but quite a few people have declared their beliefs in this thread and declared exactly why they don't wnat to take part in the scheme of false labelling that the wingnuts have created.
I say this to you with all the respect that your commentary has shown that you have earned: Go choke on sewage you slogan spouting parrot.
Moon, you gotta admit, Loudcon completely demolished...uhh.. some point of view that... he had a dream... that...somebody...
WTF ?!?! Loudcon, get it together, that wasn't even a good pile of bullsh*t.