Media figures continue to cite National Journal ranking of Obama as "most liberal" senator in '07 without noting subjectivity
SUMMARY: NPR's Renée Montagne, MSNBC's Pat Buchanan, and CNN's Bill Bennett all referred to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, which ranked Sen. Barack Obama the most liberal senator that year, without noting the subjectivity of the ratings. The National Journal based its rankings not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale."
NPR Morning Edition co-host Renée Montagne, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, and CNN contributor Bill Bennett all referred to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, which ranked Sen. Barack Obama the most liberal senator that year, without noting the subjectivity of the ratings. The National Journal based its rankings not on all votes cast by senators in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ 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 ranking of 10th most liberal senator. Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances in which media figures have cited the National Journal ratings without noting their subjectivity.
On the June 27 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, Montagne stated: "[A]s this presidential campaign goes on, Barack Obama has been moving steadily to the center. Obama was ranked the most liberal senator in Congress last year by the National Journal. Now it appears he's trying to moderate his image as he prepares for the general election." On the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, Buchanan referred to the National Journal ranking by saying: "He's got ... the most left-wing voting record in the United States Senate. As we've said, [Sen.] Bernie Sanders [I-VT] has been demanding a recount." On the June 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Bennett said Obama "has got the most far-left record in the U.S. Senate." Moments later, Bennett cited the National Journal ranking, saying: "[CNN senior political analyst] Bill Schneider, not Bill Bennett, did the metrics for the National Journal review."
In a June 16 PolitiFact.com article analyzing the Journal ratings, St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief and PolitiFact editor Bill Adair reported that National Journal editor Charles Green "says voters shouldn't rely on a single rating to determine a candidate's ideology" and quoted Green as saying, "There's pluses and minuses to each rating system. If you look at a number of them, I think you have a pretty good picture." Additionally, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norman J. Ornstein has also criticized the National Journal's rating of Obama as the "most liberal senator" in 2007, calling it "pretty ridiculous."
From the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory:
DAVID GREGORY (host): Let me move on now to these analytical attacks, the spin, the counter-spin coming from the campaigns today.
The first one from team McCain questioning Obama's bipartisanship. A very interesting memo from strategist Steve Schmidt with the campaign, sort of saying, where is the outrage in the press corps about Obama's lack of bipartisanship?
This is how he argued it. This is from Steve Schmidt.
"There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance. He has never been a part of a bipartisan group that came together to solve a controversial issue. He has never put his career on the line for a cause greater than himself."
"We don't need to trade Republican partisanship for Democratic partisanship. We need to put our country first and put our politics second. That is what John McCain has done his whole life, and that is what he will do as president."
Ed [Schultz, progressive radio host], take it on.
SCHULTZ: Well, I think that Senator McCain needs to refresh his memory a little bit. You can go to the Foreign Relations Committee. You can see the good work that Barack Obama did with Senator Lugar from Indiana dealing with loose nukes in Russia. That is a key issue that both of those gentlemen worked on.
Also, when it comes to ethics reform, Barack Obama did some excellent work with Senator Coburn from Oklahoma.
So this is really a straw-man argument for the McCain camp. I don't -- I don't believe that the American people believe that -- that Barack Obama isn't going to cross party lines to get things done. He's got a record of doing just that.
GREGORY: Pat, is there -- what is the evidence of him actually leading in bipartisan consensus on an issue?
BUCHANAN: No, I don't think there really is. I mean, everybody's for loose nukes in Russia being controlled. Take a look at the Supreme Court votes. John McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and [Stephen] Breyer, the Clinton justices, both liberals. Barack Obama, as I understand it, was against [Samuel] Alito and against Chief Justice John Roberts. He's a left-wing guy. He's got a -- the most left-wing voting record in the United States Senate. As we've said, Bernie Sanders has been demanding a recount.
From the June 27 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
MONTAGNE: And as this presidential campaign goes on, Barack Obama has been moving steadily to the center. Obama was ranked the most liberal senator in Congress last year by the National Journal. Now it appears he's trying to moderate his image as he prepares for the general election. Joining us now is NPR's Mara Liasson. Good morning.
From the June 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BENNETT: Well, just to make a comment on the press conference. The reason I wrote that piece is there's the charge that a lot of the media is soft on Obama. That press conference demonstrated it.
WOLF BLITZER (host): This one?
BENNETT: I mean, oh, my gosh, you know, will you -- do you want Bill Clinton to help? Do you want Hillary to help? Would you like to say something nice about Chicago? Would you like to say something un-nice about Charlie Black?
I mean, there is a record here. This guy is maybe eight or 10 points ahead in the presidential sweepstakes. He has got the most far-left record in the U.S. Senate.
How about some serious questions?
So that's why some of us are very frustrated.
BLITZER: But, you know, there were some pretty serious questions --
BENNETT: Not many.
BLITZER: -- including on the Supreme Court decision today that --
BENNETT: What did you think, they said? They asked him?
BLITZER: Yes. But he -- and he gave a pretty -- a pretty strong -- a pretty strong sense that he was going against what the liberal justices, the majority in this 5-4 decision --
[...]
DONNA BRAZILE (CNN political analyst): Well, first of all, I disagree with Bill, because I think that --
BENNETT: On the abortion issues?
BRAZILE: I -- look, they -- Barack Obama got around to talking about FISA and his vote on that. He got around to talking about gas prices, about drilling in -- on our coastlines. He got a chance to talk about the economy. So he is answering the questions that are not only coming to him from the media, but also the -- some of the constant negative charges coming from Republicans, who want to paint him as some old-fashioned, old-style liberal -- the old playbook that we've heard time and time again against any Democrat, not just this Democrat, but every Democrat that gets --
BENNETT: Bill Schneider, not Bill Bennett, did the metrics for the National Journal review.
BRAZILE: Well, he --
BENNETT: He's to the left of Bernie Sanders in his votes, Donna.
BRAZILE: But is it about his liberalism or is his leadership on the issues that matter?
BENNETT: His liberalism. His policies --
BRAZILE: His leadership on the economy --
BENNETT: -- his positions.
BRAZILE: -- whether the non-partisan Tax Policy Center that says that Barack Obama will provide more tax relief to working Americans?
Is that what we want to discuss?
Yes, talk about this issue.
BENNETT: We -- yes, absolutely. Let's talk about the issues.
BRAZILE: But are we going to talk about the labels?
BENNETT: No, the issues. He was asked --
BLITZER: You know, he was --
BENNETT: The policies, his votes --
BLITZER: He was asked --
BENNETT: -- his votes. His votes.
All one has to say is ...
4 years ago, the National Journal found Senator Kerry, the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee was the Most Liberal Senator. Today, they find Senator Obama, the current presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee to be the Most Liberal Senator. Ya think they have an agenda?
"Maybe it means if you would run a centrist like Bill Clinton you might win a presidential election. "
We do keep running centrists, but the cons found a meme that works better agains them than what they used against Clinton. Will be interesting to see if the same tired chant of "most liberal" still works in new circumstances.
In other words, as usual, we're trying to look forward to a better future and elect a President who is also...and the cons are still trying to fight the LAST election using the same worn out weapons.
You don't think "most liberal" Sen. Obama is going to win the upcoming presidential election?
You don't think much, do you.
Whats funny here is that MM keeps crying about the National Journal stating Obama is the most liberal senator. When in fact, democratic congressman Dan Boren has also said the same thing. Why doesnt MM also include that in their post?
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1581
When these political media hacks say "most liberal Senator" to any spokeperson for Sen. Obama, or even were they to say it to the Senator himself, they and he should plow right over and right through what they've said, like as if they didn't even say it, and as if they weren't even there.
Plow right over them and their stupid charge of "liberal", who cares and so what: Just like Sen. Obama or any spokesperson for him, like as if they were a big Full-Back in football, and there's some scrawny little Safety thinks he's gonna bring down the Full-Back, one on one: and the FB, instead of even acting like he's going to run around or away from the S, he instead just plows right at him, and over him, and steps on his face on his way to a TOUCHDOWN... and as he's stepping on the face of the Safety, the S is crying out "most liberal... most liberal...ouch... ouch!"
TOUCHDOWN OBAMA!
And then just for the fun of it, you spike the ball right in the face of the person crying "most liberal... ouch... most liberal... OUCH!"
I've got a good one for you. Senators Vitter and Larry Craig just introduced legislation to clarify that marriage is between a man and a woman. See, the pesky liberals that want to interfere in our daily lives....hmm.
So those two are guilty of attempting to interepret the constition, and create legislation that may or may not hinder on the constitutional rights of the public....much like the recent attempt by democrats to interepret the second ammendment to band handguns in your own home thus violating the 2nd ammendment.
However, in the case of homosexuality - while I may disagree with it - I firmly believe that it should be up to each state to decide for themselves, seeing as how the marriage, divorce, alimony, child support, etc laws differ between them.
But again, you tried to make an attempt to curb my statement - can you provide me with a legslation by democrats that DOES NOT hinder the the 3 agenda views that I gave? Betcha can't.
St Peter says, "drop dead."
I doesn't change the fact that you conservative justices are inconsistent on guns and torture.
Round, you shouldn't be surprised on their hipocracy when it comes to any amendment. They've got the 2nd interpreted to the nth degree now, but the fourth was pretty straight forward:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And what are those conservatives doing? That's right, interpreting. Bush and Cheney should be in jail for their warrentless wiretaps but these hipocrites just keep interpreting to their heart's content when it suits them.
So those two are guilty of attempting to interepret the constition, and create legislation that may or may not hinder on the constitutional rights of the public
They're not intrepreting the Constitution; they're intrepreting their bible.
much like the recent attempt by democrats to interepret the second ammendment to band handguns in your own home thus violating the 2nd ammendment.
The second amendment says a right to bare arms to establish a well regulated militia. When this was written, we didn't have a standing army or a National Guard but now we do. So if you want a gun you should join the army.
However, in the case of homosexuality - while I may disagree with it - I firmly believe that it should be up to each state to decide for themselves, seeing as how the marriage, divorce, alimony, child support, etc laws differ between them.
This issue can't be left to the states.
Nice rewriting.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I guess you don't like commas.
Senators Vitter and Larry Craig just introduced legislation to clarify that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You mean the closeted gay guy and the serial adulterer want to define marriage in terms that don't describe what one wants and how the other lives?
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
But if you want to talk about wealth redistribution, look no further than Grampy McCsames $300 million redistribution offer of our money to corporate millionares.
But if you want to talk about wealth redistribution, look no further than Grampy McCsames $300 million redistribution offer of our money to corporate millionares.
Call me crazy, but aren't you someone who hates capitalism & "big oil", and want alternatives to breach the market as soon as possible, while wanting to Windfall Tax the oil companies to raise prices and generate a larger market for alternatives? Then again, your argument would contain merit if McCain himself was actually a conservative.
And McCain's proposal is classic conservative free market fundamentalism: privatize, deregulate, redistribut the commonwealth to corporations. He must be conservative enough if Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the rest aren't supporting Obama. I mean if McCain is so liberal, they might as well support a principled liberal. But no, they are doing their level best to derail Obama. I know, I know the rightwing talkers bash McCain too, but don't try to pretend for a second, with the exception of the convicted fellons among them, that they won't vote for McCain.
Science,
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've tried to extend the courtesy of believing that YOU believe what you're saying, but I don't think you even WANT to understand reality. Why are you wasting everybody's time with your posts? You spout Republican talking points and nothing else, contributing nothing to any discussion.
Why doesnt MM also include that in their post?
"Having said that, I am voting for Democrats this year," Boren said.
"I'm talking about the "most liberal senator" comment that MMFA keeps throwing around like the National Journal is the only one who believes it"
They ARE the only ones who believe it. That's why, when it's repeated by other MEDIA personalities, it shows up here.
Science brings out another version of the "but Clinton" defense. Weak.
"So would a democratic congressmen saying it be objective or subjective?"
If he offered no objective evidence...just stated it off the top of his head...it would be, surprise! Subjective.
And you know (don't you?) about statements "off the top of your head" - they're like dandruff, small and flaky.
"My point in the original post was citing that MMFA continues to point to conservative media outlets offering their subjective opinion about BO's "most liberal senator" classification, while not noting that someone from their own party has also stated the same."
Once again...with emphasis...it is NOT the "most liberal" designation that is the issue. The ISSUE is the MEDIA repeating it WITHOUT NOTING that it was a SUBJECTIVE judgement.
It doesn't matter if Obama is or isn't the "most" liberal Senator...the issue is the MEDIA and how they report one organization's use of the designation based on SUBJECTIVE criteria.
Once again, and always, "IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID" (with apologies to Bill Clinton)
YOU said: Why doesnt MM also include that in their post?
THAT was your answer.
Ok Pearl - so let me get this straight...as long as he says "hes voting democrat", the fact that he claimed Obama is "the most liberal senator" never happened?
*rolls eyes*
"Ok Pearl - so let me get this straight...as long as he says "hes voting democrat", the fact that he claimed Obama is "the most liberal senator" never happened?"
How many times, oh Lord?! HE'S NOT IN THE MEDIA. His opinions do not come under the pervue of a MEDIA WATCHDOG site.
YOU said:
When in fact, democratic congressman Dan Boren has also said the same thing. Why doesnt MM also include that in their post?
BOREN IS NOT THE MEDIA!!!!!!!!!
Ok Pearl - so let me get this straight...as long as he says "hes voting democrat", the fact that he claimed Obama is "the most liberal senator" never happened?
ONCE AGAIN: BOREN IS NOT THE MEDIA!!!!!!!!!
Save the eye roll crap!
And this other bull mentioned in the transcript, about "bi-partisanship"?
Does anybody remember well, when the Democrats captured both Chambers of the Congress in a stunning and historic reversal, in 2006?
Remember in the House, where the reversal was so dramatic, about thirty or more seats... remember what House Republicans started crying about, immediately, even before the new House was Sworn, and then for days after? If you have a good memory, then you remember how much they cried about "bi-partisanship"!
Suddenly now that they were out of the Congressional leadership, out of the majority and in the minority, suddenly "bi-partisanship" was the single most important Principle of Government!
Read above how McCain spokesman Schmidt was quoted as crying about "bi-partisanship": I'd ask you, if the American People were so interested in Democrats being "bi-partisan" with Republicans, then why did such extraordinary numbers of those Americans flock to the Democratic Primaries in record-breaking numbers... why did Americans turn out Republicans in 2006, shut them out actually, in favor of Democrats, if those Americans wanted "bi-partisanship" so much?
The fact is it's a lie: it's not what Americans want: as a matter of fact, it's more the truth to say that Americans don't want Mr. Obama to compromise in the least little bit, or concede the least little thing at all, to Republicans in this election... it is why Americans did what they did in 2006, and why they are doing what they're doing now.
It's not about "bi-partisanship": that's a Republican lie, and a Republican talking point...
Reasearch it what House Republicans cried so much about when they found themselves shut out in 2006: "bi-partisanship"
I'm reasonably sure that MMFA had several items at the time, dealing with what Republicans were crying about back then... and here's this item today: not much changes, does it.
Just to sharpen what I referred to there: it took all of a minute, to search MMFA's pages, start 11-06-06 (Election day) and end 3-01-07 (about six weeks into the 110th Congress), for the word "bipartisanship"...
Only on Fox: "Are Congressional Democrats killing spirit of bipartisanship?"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701030016?f=s_search
...that item is dated January 3 2006, just a few days before the new Congress was Sworn: it's just two simple paragraphs, read them.
I love this one, dated only 11 days after that historic election...
NPR's Liasson touted McCain's "maverick conservatism," bipartisanship as "what voters are looking for now," ignoring voters' rejection of his view on Iraq
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611170011?f=s_search
"Bi-partisanship" is what Republicans cry for, when they realize the American People are turning away from them: and so they look to Democrats with their hands out, like a beggar, looking for a handout of some of the power they have lost... like a beggar, who instead of saying "spare change?", says "bipartisanship?"
"For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders."
That is the only thing the execrable, and indicted, Tom DeLay ever said that I agree with. That "core priniples" bit is the kicker, however. To the right, the core principle seems to have become the enabling of oligarchy, masked by a concern for "innocent life."
I get sick to death of these people.
Today Campbell Brown actually tried to stop a Republican woman who was saying Obama is flip flopping blahblahblah by saying wait a minute, like John McCain doesn't and asked about it. The woman stopped for a second and then just went on as if the question was never asked, she never answered and no one mentioned it again.
Well, at least she tried. (of course I was listening and not watching so it could have been someone besides campbell but it did sound like her.)
Anyway, when they start with that garbage of the most liberal senator they should use some of theses stats that counterpunch put together.
(they were not being complimentary but the point is these are not "the most liberal" stands to make and even if counterpunch was using them as criticisms if done right they can be turned into pushing back the "most liberal" label.
I have nothing against "the most liberal" label.
But it isn't true.
on many of his positions:
http://tinyurl.com/35urv7
Another good/interesting article.
http://tinyurl.com/33hlfo
Also,
As has been noted in several articles over the last month or so Hillary Clinton is more liberal on many social issues though less on foreign policy
I said this on another thread: So what? These people act like the radical warrish right has gotten it right the past 8 years. We are where we are because of 8 years of the most conservative administration we've ever had. IN OTHER WORDS, OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN TRAMPLED AND OUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS THIS ADMINISTRATION SAW FIT ALL UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING AMERICA FROM INSURGENTS.
Keep in mind we still haven't found Bin Laden 3,000 dead American bodies later. And everyone always seems to leave out the hundreds of thousand Iraqi's dead because of this radical conservatism.
So really, why is liberal still being tossed around like a bad word. Again, neo-con is the new four leter word, even though its six.
"3,000 dead American bodies later."
4,100 and counting
- August Heat ,doggone-ga---Public school I guess --Freedom is not Free, it was earned here It has to be protected, and freeing others comes w/ a cost--its removing autocracies and replacing w/ democracies --we should have done Iraq in 91--and should have removed the soviets in 45 when we had everything in place i.e. east vs west Germany--I donot think the French people bitched when France assisted our liberation from England????Actually remember the moronic DEMS called for 10,000 body bags for the original Gulf war--we know what these morons know --nothing
We can't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Democracy rises up, organically, from the grassroots.
I find it so inconsistent that you cons are all for nonintervention here at home but sure do love the idea of intervention around the world.
We can't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Democracy rises up, organically, from the grassroots.
In a civil society, your method works in changing the political spectrum of a country. But when the barrel of a gun is already pointed at your head just in case you attempt to rise up....well, then that calls for a different method of spreading democracy, by force of the "barrel of a gun".
Keep living in your violent visions of America as the Conqueror.
I also wasn't aware that Korea is an open democracy. I thought Germany leaned toward socialism. Whatevs.
Just keep believing that we can build nations in our own image. It's a real winning and healthy idea. Just look at the flourishing democracy we have built in Iraq. Good times.
Err, if we built them in our own image, they wouldnt be a true democracy. They'd be a republic. You ought to learn a bit more about what the forms of government really are.
However, when people talk about promoting democracy, they are referring to forming a government that represents the people by voting methods as opposed to a dictator ruling by force - must like Saddam, Hitler, and Kim Jong Il.
You are either being purposely obtuse, or running out of ways to alter what really happened throughout history as a method to justify your skewed opinions.
Err, if we built them in our own image, they wouldnt be a true democracy. They'd be a republic. You ought to learn a bit more about what the forms of government really are.
A republic is a form of democracy.
However, when people talk about promoting democracy, they are referring to forming a government that represents the people by voting methods as opposed to a dictator ruling by force - must like Saddam, Hitler, and Kim Jong Il.
The republicans' idea of "promoting democracy" (I don't even think republicans care about democracy; the democracy thing is a charade) is war.
Great minds. That's exactly what crossed my mind when I read that phrase.
Comparing democracy and republic is comparing oranges to Valencias.
Democracies are a type of government that resides it's authority in the people. A Republic is a way to actuate that government. All democracies are democratic, they can also be a republic. But not all republics are democratic.
It is, and always has been, a FALSE comparison. It is inaccurate to say "the USA is a repblic, not a democracy"...the CORRECT statement is "the USA is a DEMOCRATIC Republic"
How was invading Iraq protecting our democracy and our way of life? They never attacked us, they had no weapons of mass decstruction, they were contained from attacking even their closest neighbors.
You said freedom is not free and must be defended. HOW was if defending OUR freedom to attack Iraq on false pretenses? It wasn't. 4,100 and counting American lives, countless Iraqi lives (because they HAVEN'T been counted, and aren't BEING counted), loss of world prestige and all for LIES.
They called it right the first time when they named it "Operation Iraqi Liberation. It was NEVER about "protecting our freedoms" OR "liberating" the Iraqis. I've never forgotten that original name and I never will.
Assuming that Iraq is now the 51st state?
No, ignorance is the 51st state, and you're its Representative.
It certainly is free. The majority of the people who use this phrase as their political philosophy have never served their country.
These people, and those they listen to and vote for, are mostly Chickenhawks who support war as long as someone else is putting their ass on the line.
They're people who when their country called had other priorities, cowards who found doctors willing to say that they weren't fit for duty because of cysts or NG members who were allowed to take time off to serve a political campaign while other's were dying in the rice paddies in SE Asia.
Or people who took off to Canada when their name was called...
None the less, the "freedom isnt free" phrase does not only refer to obtaining freedoms through war & force. They also include defending your freedoms from people/places who want to take it away.
Similar to purchasing a car, once you pay it off, the car isn't really free. You still have costs of maintaining it & paying for insurance.
But I've got none for those who supported sending others to die as they became wealthy at home. And now that they're too old, they advocate war and more war.
Your side is full of the later types. The majority of the people on the right worship at least one of these Chickenhawks.
But I've got none for those who supported sending others to die as they became wealthy at home. And now that they're too old, they advocate war and more war.
Then its clear to say, as a result, you have no respect for the overwhelming majority of Congress. Lets for forget the millions that HRC made on her book, while she voted to send the military to Iraq. I can go on and on of the examples of your thoughts. But merely you are spouting liberal talking points as opposed to a common sense of reality. Could we also go on about the use of force approved by Dodd, who during the time of war, is too busy taking $75,000 gimme's from Countrywide, to even stand pat in his role of the banking committee?
However, what counters your point is that its been reported through multiple outlets that Bush's net worth has actually decreased during his administration. Now I'm not a big fan of the Iraq war, nor am I present back of George W Bush, however this whole "war for proft" stuff is a fascination.
You ignore the core of my argument which is that we've got a group of people in the Executive Branch and in the right wing media who avoided their own service while supporting the very war they all refused to serve in. Now those same people are the ones sending men to war and those in the media are selling this war to the public and calling anyone who questions them unpatriotic or traitors.
You made an argument earlier about the right to bear arms. The Constitution gives you that right. It doesn't give you the right to use leathal force whenever you feel like it.
The congress authorized the president to use force, but he is the one who chose when and where to use that force. He is the only one responsible for "pulling the trigger".
There was no burglar in our house. We were not in eminent danger. Our security was never an issue. We invaded a country that was not a threat to us and ignored one that was a threat.
"The congress authorized the president to use force, but he is the one who chose when and where to use that force. He is the only one responsible for "pulling the trigger"."
Absolutely. I was SO ANGRY when the bill passed...because *I* knew he would abuse that authorization and could NOT BELIEVE that the Congress, as a whole, was stupid enough not to know it too. And I was proved correct.
They authorized force to be used only after all other options had been exhausted.
Bush ignored that.
Saddam let the weapons inspectors back in, they announced there were no WMD's, and so the threat of invasion was enough.
Bush went ahead with the invasion when a threat of invasion was enough.
The blood is ALL on his hands.
"But merely you are spouting liberal talking points as opposed to a common sense of reality." Columbus1492
I don't think you realize that worrierking served in Viet Nam. I don't think you understand that what he said is from his heart and is derived from reality.
Mr. Science is a hard case and thinks himself a hard ass.
I've been arguing with him for a long time, under at least 3 or 4 different names that he's used, but the routine is always the same.
Lets for forget the millions that HRC made on her book, while she voted to send the military to Iraq.
Actually, she voted for no such thing, her mistake was believeing the lies of the GOP President that war would be the last resort instead of the first.
"we should have done Iraq in 91"
Back in '91, Dick Cheney would have disagreed with you.
You can't spread Democracy with the barrel of a gun.
squarehut,
If you believe it is indeed no bfd, then so be it. For many, the words are probably like manna from heaven. Read the other articles and check out what the 'new party' stands for.
http://www.chicagodsa.org/page2.html
It's from the DSA-Chicago, the Democrat Socialists of America, that ain't your daddy's regular Democrat party.
It's what he does. It's part of his history. He invites everyone to the table, encourages participation. I know you authoritarian cons will only listen to like minded people, but that's not the way of Democrats. We believe everyone has an equal voice.
RH, Hi my righteous brother.
Obama's a consensus builder, something we need right now. He's also someone who beleives in cooperation, something we need right now. He also beleives in diplomacy, something we need right now. Some other words to describe him: motivator, energizer, catalyst, facilitator. morale builder.
I'm sure he could even bring PC around if given the chance :-0)
I think alot of the conservative and liberal worldview is indeed connected to the way we relate to our families. For cons, it's strict obedience to daddy, a daddy who will beat you for your own good if you get out of line because daddy knows best. Everybody submits to daddy's rule and accepts their roles.
Liberals share equal roles as head of the home and we defer to the best idea, not the best intimidator. We nurture and reward good behavior instead of relying on violent forms of punishment (watch how fast a con will label that as permissive.)
The analogy ripples further and further but I won't bore you, not when George Lakoff put it so much better than I.
circularouthose,
His asking them to join in his campaign. It's wonderful that he is looking to bond with folks, he just won't admit that he looks for the 'inner marxist' in each he seeks to align with.
Again, why complain about being called a liberal? For him, it's a move to the center!
Please Mary, just read their platform.
http://www.chicagodsa.org/page2.html
Remember he sought their endorsement. He has associated himself with those who believe in marxism, or those who eschew private property, individual rights, proprietorship of capital and the necessary struggle of the proletariet. I contend that Obama's platform mimicks this kind of political thought.
Talk smack all day and all night, it only reveals your desperation.
Why should we care what their platform says when no one currently running for President is even considering membership?
Look at the KKK platform, it has more in common with McCain, but McCain isn't a member, either, so it's irrelevant.
windypinstriper,
What about John Murtha's apologies to those Marines he was more than happy to call, "cold blooded murders"?
And here's what their sacrifice has brought about....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080623/wl_nm/iraq_anbar_dc
You're talking stuff from 2005. It's 2008 and the military is winning, I mean America's military no thanks to the dems attempts to secure defeat.
It's 2008 and the military is winning, I mean America's military no thanks to the dems attempts to secure defeat.
NOT a single general will say "we are winning" but YOU have the nerve to say it,. Maybe if your butt was being fired at or blown up daily you wouldn't be spreading that lie!
Gen. David Petraeus:We think we won’t know that we’ve reached a turning point until we’re six months past it. We have repeatedly said that there is no lights at the end of the tunnel that we’re seeing. We’re certainly not dancing in the end zone or anything like that. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/22/petraeus-six-months/
American soldiers are STILL dying and your "we are winning" crap is still bullsh*t!
http://icasualties.org/oif/
I mean America's military no thanks to the dems attempts to secure defeat.
Such as?
Boy, I say boy, listen here,
from the HR Puff-in-stuff site: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-steele/why-the-democrats-should-_b_92828.html
"Iraq is the Republicans' weakest link. Are the Democrats really unable to exploit it? Iraq needs to be at the centre of the Democrats' campaign. Holding Congressional hearings over a series of weeks is the best way to lift the Iraq debate above the level of soundbites, and keep the public spotlight on what went wrong, and why.
Some American analysts to whom I have been making this case in Washington in recent days say the strategy may be too risky in domestic political terms because defeat is such an explosive concept. Yet they also concede that the Republicans will have no compunction about using the D-word if the Democrats regain the White House. On balance, therefore, it looks best to seize the moment now. In 2009, for the Republicans to accuse the Democrats of defeat in Iraq would be pure political spin. In 2008, for the Democrats to accuse the Republicans of defeat is a charge that carries the weight of irrefutable evidence. The fingerprints on the Iraq disaster belong to Bush and those who worked with him."
The battle cry for Dems, "Let's find nothing that ever speaks of victory"? And this stands for support and not creating an atmosphere of defeatism? Pure political hedging, not support.
Or Pelosi, rallying the allies to victory!! http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/14/us.turkey/
"Mullen told Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's chief of staff, that the Pentagon is working hard to inform Congress of what the military implications might be if the Turks were to respond by cutting off U.S. access to the air base at Incirlik in Turkey.
Seventy percent of U.S. air cargo bound for Iraq passes over or through Turkey."
Hooray for our side?!?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/12/genocide.resolution/index.html
So THIS was just the right time to settle accounts that were 80 years old Nancy? Another great help to war effort from the left!
And more from the dear speaktress (if speculation is founded...ouch)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2000566/posts
And foggylegs, dare I mention all the trashing of the military by Kerry, Kennedy, Reid and Murtha. It's like the left wants to throw stones at the military and ask, or should we say dodge questions later?
Yeah, all these things just must warm the hearts of those in harm's way. I know when my team is on the field how I can cheer them onto victory! I just do the democrat thang and root for my team to falter, boo them when they fail, stay quiet when they do well or call them names or tell them they are nothing but loosers and look for oppotunities to give the away team the advantage. Now that's liberal/leftist support! Go Team!
I'm reading some conservative posts on this thread and the ignorance is astounding. You have a tendency to support America going to fight to spread democracy. You're so gung-ho about democracy being spread around the world.
And yet, not one of you mention the atrocities going on in Africa in regards to democracy and tyranny.
Gee, I wonder why.
I guess then you don't care much for the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
RH, he doesn't care about Africa because they don't have oil. As Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on the topic of the extreme right wing's attempts at abolishing social security, "Their number is negligible and they are stupid." I believe that that applies to Science's current understanding of foreign policy.
RH, he doesn't care about Africa because they don't have oil.
No, they have too much melanin for him.
Gee, I wonder why."
In discussions like this you DO have to separate Afganistan and Iraq. We had legitimate complaint against Afghanistan and the ruling party's support of al-qaida made an invasion not only necessary but just.
But Iraq? Only one answer to "why?" = OIL. Starting that war had nothing to do with spreading democracy, "freeing" the people, taking out Sadam Hussein...it was, and is, about OIL. All of those other reasons popped up once the cover of the orignal name for the invasion was blown.
fargone-ga,
Are you for real? Lest you forget, the world believed Hussein had WMD and would use them. Here's some info just to refresh your memory.....
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
And here's more bad news for the dems and fellow leftists..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080623/wl_nm/iraq_anbar_dc
Yes, I'm for real. The inspectors were on site. They found NOTHING. They went where they wanted to go without interference. They found NOTHING.
"The World" didn't start that war. Bush did and he did it under false pretenses. Rember what they first called that invastion: Operation Iraqi Liberation.
Iraq never was an threat to the USA. Invading was NEVER about "protecting" our freedoms. It was never about "freeing" the Iraqi people. It WAS about OIL.
foregoneconclusion-ga
Any idea who said this, it was January 03.
"we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm."
This statement also referred to UN Resolution 1441. Not so unilateral as the leftists here would want to remember.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
Hussein did both. He released a 12,000 page report stating that the weapons he had obtained in the 1980s were destroyed in the 1990s. The Bush Administration cut out 8,000 pages, classified the rest, and called him a liar.
After five plus years, we know who the liar was.
"The World" didn't start that war. Bush did and he did it under false pretenses.
Bush promised to take the war declaration to the UN Security Council. When it was clear they were going to vote against it, he never went. Instead, he pulled out the inspectors (Sadaam did not pull them out, BUSH did), and ordered the bombing to begin.