Time's Carney is latest media figure to cite National Journal ranking of Obama without noting rankings' subjectivity
SUMMARY: Time's James Carney wrote: "As any Republican will tell you, the National Journal ranked [Sen. Barack] Obama the most liberal member of the Senate." But Carney did not note that the National Journal's rankings are based on subjective criteria.
In a June 30 Time article, Washington bureau chief James Carney wrote: "As any Republican will tell you, the National Journal ranked [Sen. Barack] Obama the most liberal member of the Senate." But what Carney did not tell his readers was that the National Journal's rankings are based on subjective criteria. Indeed, the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings were based 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.
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 Carney's June 30 Time article, "The Week in Politics":
As Obama assumed the role of front-runner, the press this week began to take note, in some cases disapprovingly, of the presumptive Democratic nominee's efforts to shuffle to the political center. As any Republican will tell you, the National Journal ranked Obama the most liberal member of the Senate. And in the primaries Obama took routinely liberal positions on all the major issues of the day. But in tone as well as in substance, Obama has started making the traditional general election move to the middle. His first television spot of the general election was biographical, focusing on his love of family and country, and highlighting his legislative efforts "to move people from welfare to work" and "cut taxes." Much to the dismay of many liberals, Obama supported the bipartisan compromise worked out this week on so-called FISA legislation that allows the Bush Administration to continue its wiretapping program. Obama was also conspicuously centrist, even conservative, in his reaction to two major Supreme Court rulings this week - the first disallowing the death penalty in cases of child rape, and the second affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns for self-defense. Obama criticized the first decision, saying he supports the death penalty for such a heinous crime; his response to the gun ruling was muddled, but it made clear that he supports an individual's right to own a gun.
I have a novel idea: how about the next time that anybody cites this "most liberal" label, they accompany what they're saying, with a definition of the word liberal?
Does this National Journal do that I wonder... do they include along with their rankings, just what it is they mean by liberal?
They must: it only makes sense: how could they claim to formulate a liberal ranking, without bothering to define what it is they mean, by liberal?
They must have a definition for the word, accompanying their rankings... I'd research it and find out, except I don't care about the opinions of the National Journal anyway, and so why waste time deciphering those opinions.
I have a novel idea: how about the next time that anybody cites this "most liberal" label, they accompany what they're saying, with a definition of the word liberal?
Personally, I like JFK's definition:
“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, 1960
I like Winston Churchill's definition, too, particularly when he contrasted it with Socialism, because so many people try to call us Socialists.
Liberalism has its own history and itso own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims.
Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.
Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right.
Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.
Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass.
Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man.
Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly.
Winston Churchill, 1908
History,
Funny how terms change over time. My guess is Churchill would replace the both words:
socialism with liberalism
liberal with conservative
Classic economic liberalism is more in tune with current conservatism than it is with today's liberalism. (IMHO) :-)
Did you even bother reading the Churchill piece before coming up with your knee jerk response? Let's try your experiment with one or two choice phrases and see if it really stands up to scrutiny:
CONSERVATISM seeks to raise up poverty.
CONSERVATISM would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege CONSERVATISM seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass.
Are you sure you want to stick with your answer after further reflection? Because to me it seems like those three bits alone stand blatantly opposed to modern conservatism. Minimum standards for the mass? Helping others out of poverty through government intervention? Rescuing enterprise? That doesn't seem at all like the "own bootstraps" crowd that you are a proud member of at all.
Moon,
I do believe you are referring to modern libertarianism as being pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
My personal view is that modern conservatism seeks to raise the income of the poor primarily through private enterprise rather than government intervention. That is not to say that government does not have a role in helping, but that government's role should be to encourage, (through legislation,) methods by which private enterprise can be more successful rather than overburdening private enterprise with regulation and complex taxation.
Unfortunately government programs do not have effective mechanisms that can offset the bureaucracies, tendencies for fraud, and wastefulness that are inherent in their programs.
Private enterprise is not the perfect solution, but modern conservatism tends to try to tilt 'liberal' ideas toward that end of the solution spectrum rather than modern liberalism's preference for big government.
My personal view is that modern conservatism seeks to raise the income of the poor primarily through private enterprise rather than government intervention.
My view is that modern day conservatism seeks to consolidate the wealth of the wealthy while screwing everyone else.
"My personal view is that modern conservatism seeks to raise the income of the poor primarily through private enterprise rather than government intervention. That is not to say that government does not have a role in helping, but that government's role should be to encourage, (through legislation,) methods by which private enterprise can be more successful rather than overburdening private enterprise with regulation and complex taxation."
Overburdening private enterprise is in the eye of the beholder. Where I see necessary regulations to protect consumer safety, conservatives see overburdening private enterprise with regulation.
"Private enterprise is not the perfect solution, but modern conservatism tends to try to tilt 'liberal' ideas toward that end of the solution spectrum rather than modern liberalism's preference for big government."
No one likes big government. No one. We all are aware of the waste and fraud that has comprised the last 30 years. Clinton helped stem the tide, but as soon as the Republicans got back in office, our deficits ballooned and spending increased.
Saying "modern liberalism's preference for big government" gives away the fact that you rely on talking points from the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly. No, conservatism, as a movement, believe the less government intervention the better, at least as far as business goes. This leads to things like Enron and $4.00 a gallon gas. Liberalism believes in better, more efficient government. A government that protects the people from the hazards of deregulated industries. A government that recognizes that it's "we the people," not "Me, myself and I."
If you believe all us liberals here are just itching for more big government, you aren't thinking for yourself.
DB,
We agree on a lot of what you wrote. I'll grant you that the Repbulican Party under Bush abandoned it's conservative principles, increasing spending by government at an unacceptable pace. The GOP is paying for that, and other unpopular stances lately. No argument there.
The difference I see is that the modern liberals in the Democratic Party want to expand government programs as a whole, even further than the Republicans.
The part I don't agree with is you characterizing my post as being some sort of lipsync with conservative talk show hosts. I don't listen enough to them to say whether they do or do not coincided. In my mind it is immaterial and irrelevant to the discussion.
The difference I see is that the modern liberals in the Democratic Party want to expand government programs as a whole, even further than the Republicans.
Any evidence, or is that yet another fairy tale talking point pulled straight out of your a**?
AA, I do apologize for mischaracterizing you, but you have to understand that that's a favorite talking point of the right-wing.
But let's take a look at say, the Wikipedia definitions of liberalism and conservatism.
I personally believe in this definition of liberalism: "extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.
And if I didn't know any better, I'd say you believe in most of those ideas too.
However, I also believe that the New Deal was one of the greatest advances in the health and prosperity of our nation, which may be where I lose you.
Either way, the word "liberalism" today has been so demonized and so abused by the right that most on the right don't understand exactly what "liberalism" actually is. I'm not saying you don't understand, but I know plenty of people who consider themselves conservative that don't have the faintest clue what liberalism is, besides what Sean Hannity tells them it is.
DBEDEN,
Excellent post! Do you think it valid to say that some self proclaimed liberals have also perverted those ideas in a way which has charicatured true liberalism?
DB,
I would call your definition "classic liberalism" as opposed to the brand of liberalism that is practiced by the leaders of the Democratic Party of today and of the many who post here.
Do you know of any plans by the Democrats to cut any government programs? What about spending? Any budget cuts offered by Obama? What are the modern liberal ideas on education? What is the modern liberal approach to failed school? What is the been the modern liberal approach to welfare for the poor? What about healthcare? Who pays for those programs? What do liberals think about taxes as a rule? What policies does the modern liberal have for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil? What about defense? What is the modern liberal approach to defense? What about traditional family values? What modern liberal policies encourage mother and fathers to stay together for the sake of their children? What is the modern liberal attitude toward popular culture? Why does modern liberalism encourage the policies that allow killing of babies in the womb? What is the typical liberal attitude toward religion? Why are the liberals around here so antagonistic toward religion? What does modern liberalism have to say about free speech? What about the second amendment?
You don't have to answer any of the above. They are simply questions that I have regarding how far modern liberalism has moved from classic liberalism. It looks to me like that it embraces socialism and benevolent government fascism above the "classic liberalism" that you are talking about.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr09.html
I do believe that is where you can find the composite rankings. The trick is to take a look at each of these rankings which did not remove the non-votes, which affect the overall score and make Obama's score lower in some instances.
..and let's not forget one of Mr. Churchill's most famous quotes -
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
There is something to that theory, Loonz:
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
If you are not a socialist by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by the time you are 35, you have no head
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Churchill
As with many threads here, I feel like this is redundancy all over again. :-)
A while back when this came up, I found a website, (which escapes me now,) that listed the various liberal organizations that ranked members of the Senate.
Some of the organizations measured how many votes by each Senator matched their particular group's agenda in 2007. When adjusted, (by me,) to take into account only those votes actually voted upon and averaged by those liberal groups, Obama again came up tied for most liberal. (Obama did not show up for all votes as did not Hillary and McCain as all were on the campaign trail.)
Personally I do not see anything wrong with being the most liberal. Out of 100 Senators, someone has to be most liberal. Again if memory serves me, it was consistent with Obama's ranking in 2005 as most liberal. Congratulations Mr. Obama!
Achris,
I don't make up the rankings, I just interpret them. :-)
With regards to Kerry being the most liberal back then... I do believe Obama was not yet a Senator.
Anyway, the argument MMFA seems to be making and many here buying into is that being considered the most liberal Senator is some sort of Conservative misinformation.
Personally I would think the liberals here would be cheering that their candidate achieved that mark of distinction rather than argue it.
"Personally I do not see anything wrong with being the most liberal."
sigh...once again, with feeling...it isn't the "most liberal" label that is the problem. ONCE AGAIN WITH FEELING...it's NOT REPORTING THE SUBJECTIVENESS in how that label was "determined"
I was disappointed when Feingold decided not to run for President.
And Obama isn't even the most liberal Senator from the state of Illinois.
Craig,
If you go take a look at the link I provided earlier you'll see that the following groups ranked the Senators in 2007.
ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union
ADA - Americans for Democratic Action
CDF - Children's Defense Fund
LCV - League of Conservation Voters
NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
SEIU - Service Employees International Union
If you remove the non-votes by Obama from each of these groups bills of interest, you'll find that Obama consistently ranks at or near the very top of each group. When you average them all, Obama comes out tied as the most liberal in 2007.
MMFA is pushing its own agenda to try and hide the obvious. Only when one looks at the original sources will one find out just how liberal is Obama's voting record. The sad part, (IMHO,) is that this deception whether purposeful or not hurts the liberals because they are lead to believe otherwise. They are then unprepared when it finally hits the mainstream and their only rebuttal is to gripe and holler.
Well, let's see if Obama will own up to his interest in socialism. He sought the endorsment of the New Party in 1996. What exactly was in the 'contract' he signed to get the help of this marxist group?
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
Labeling him liberal is a move to the center.
Kernal har-dee-harhar,
How about responding to content of the posting?
Achris,
It's called vetting.
awrinlkedpage,
I'd agree that Obama would be associated with scientology but only if he jumped like a maniac on Oprah's couch, too!
The fact is though, the linkage between Barak and his choice of allies is no passing fancy. Even before seeking Rev. Wright's vitriol, he was mentored by "Frank" as he describes in Dreams of my Father. Frank is Frank Davis, a member of the Communist Party. Politcal Affairs, a marxist/socialist website discussed the linkage between Obama and Davis and what Obama came to believe about his heritage.
In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation –
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/
One also should consider that Bill Ayers of Weatherundergroun fame, hosted a campaign fundraiser to kickoff Barak's state office run. The same run that he sought the endorsement of The New Party, a decidedly socialistic movement. These were not chance associations but one's that he sees as shaping his world life view. Is it not unreasonable that he explain these connections to the American people?
Clinton was more liberal than Obama in many or most of her policies, and that was before he began charging to the right after she suspended her campaign.
She was also ranked more liberal on several of the ranking sites more reputable than the right-leaning National Journal's.