Is Barack Obama a socialist? Well, let's see. His campaign platform makes no mention of proletarian revolution or nationalization of industry, and he trumpets his belief that "America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world." Not quite Leninesque. On the other hand, Tom DeLay has made a logically rigorous counter-argument sure to convince second-graders everywhere: "I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist." No word on whether DeLay proceeded to put his fingers in his ears and hum loudly.
John McCain, for his part, says only that he cannot guarantee that Obama is not a socialist. McCain told a crowd in Kansas City this month, "All I know is his voting record…[which is] more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont." Really? No Senate-watcher--or senator--could sincerely believe that Obama is further left than Sanders or other liberal stalwarts like Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold. And yet McCain seems to have facts on his side: After all, Obama stands atop the National Journal rankings as the most liberal member of the Senate. But that just means that National Journal's much-ballyhooed rankings are deeply flawed.
How did Obama, like John Kerry four years ago, achieve this awkward distinction? There are a few different things going on here. First, Obama missed a lot of votes--a third of the 99 votes National Journal included in its analysis. A large group of liberal Democratic senators is separated by just a few votes, and by missing so many, Obama deprived himself of chances to rack up more "conservative" votes. He didn't take public stances on all the votes he missed, but it's clear there are some where he would have strayed from the liberal line, knocking himself off the "most liberal" perch. He missed the December 4 vote on the free trade agreement with Peru, for instance, but publicly supported it, which would have counted as a "conservative" vote.
National Journal tries to compensate for missed votes, but the reality is that there's just no real way this ranking scheme can ever be accurately applied to senators who miss as many votes as presidential candidates do. The magazine recognizes this, since it declines to rank senators who miss more than half the votes in any of its three major issue areas--economic, foreign, and social policy. McCain, who missed more votes than Obama did, is excluded from the rankings for this reason. (If only Obama had been shrewd enough to skip a few more votes!) But once a senator crosses the 50 percent attendance threshold, he or she is immediately included in the rankings, even though the concerns about accuracy don't magically disappear at that point.
A more serious problem is that National Journal's system imputes ideological content to votes that they don't necessarily have. Each vote is scored as either "liberal" or "conservative," depending on how the majority of each caucus voted. But these categorizations often obscure more than they reveal. Sanders and Boxer, for instance--as well as Hillary Clinton--received credit for a "conservative" vote by opposing a proposal by Joe Lieberman to establish an independent Office of Public Integrity for the Senate. It's true that 21 of the 27 senators who supported the plan were Democrats, but the divide fell less along ideological lines than between good-government reformist types (including Republicans like McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Grassley) and, well, everybody else. There's nothing inherently liberal about favoring public accountability; one can easily imagine the partisan alignment of senators on this vote being quite different had it been Republicans, rather than Democrats, who had just retaken Congress pledging ethics reforms.
The pattern is the same for other "conservative" votes cast by senators to Obama's left. Sanders's only other "conservative" vote was against cloture on the immigration reform bill in June, which he opposed because he thought business interests were pushing for the bill in order to drive down wages. Two of Russ Feingold's four "conservative" votes were against Democratic bills that would have endorsed a partition of Iraq and limited the mission of U.S. troops there to counterterrorism and training missions. These "conservative" votes, like Sanders's on immigration, came because he was further left than the bulk of the Democratic caucus.
Other votes had less to do with ideology per se than with legislative tactics. Second and third on the list of most liberal senators, respectively, are Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who cast just two "conservative" votes, and Joe Biden, who, like Obama, cast just one. Both Biden and Whitehouse were credited with a conservative vote for their support for a bill that would have funded non-embryonic stem-cell research. There's no substantive, ideologically liberal objection to such funding, but many Democrats opposed the bill since it was designed in large part to give conservatives cover to vote against funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Whitehouse and Biden supported both types of stem-cell funding. Is there anything conservative about that? Not really. You could just as easily say that Obama should have been credited with a conservative vote, for opposing what he considered to be an unmerited expansion in the size and scope of government.
Perhaps the most nonsensical result produced by National Journal's system is this: Chris Dodd is ranked as the 23rd most liberal senator, despite casting only four "conservative" votes. One was against the Office of Public Integrity bill. Another was against an obscure amendment that, in a similar vein, would have tightened conflict-of-interest rules for individuals serving on FDA advisory panels (Kerry and Ted Kennedy took the "conservative" side with Dodd). The other two were Iraq votes on measures setting withdrawal timelines for American troops, which Dodd, who during the presidential campaign criticized Obama and Hillary Clinton from the left on Iraq, opposed because he wanted an even more aggressive timeline. And because Dodd was absent for so many votes, the impact of these "conservative" votes was magnified--so the very liberal Dodd landed right in the middle of the Democratic pack, despite not casting a single genuinely conservative vote.
So where does Obama really fall on the spectrum? No vote-ranking system can capture it perfectly, since ideology is as much about legislative priorities and emphases as it is about votes. But here's a rough idea: In his first two years in the Senate, when he didn't miss many votes, Obama ranked 16th and 10th on National Journal's "most liberal" list. A separate and more elaborate ranking system, developed by highly regarded political scientists Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole, found him to be the 11th most liberal senator in 2007 and 21st most liberal in the previous Congress. Obama clearly belongs to the party's liberal wing rather than its centrist contingent--he's essentially said as much--but he's not close to being the Senate's left-most member. (The same was true of Kerry, by the way: He's been ranked 20th and 12th in the past two National Journal rankings. In fact, the palpable absurdity of Kerry's "most liberal" ranking led the magazine to alter its methodology. Under current rules, Kerry would have been disqualified in 2004 for missing too many votes--a cold comfort now.)
That reality, of course, won't stop conservatives from trumpeting the "most liberal" label throughout the fall campaign. There's one problem, though: The public already believes Obama is a liberal, and he's winning nonetheless. According to a June Rasmussen poll, 67 percent of the public views Obama as liberal (Pew's numbers, from May, were similar). By contrast, in May 2004, only 45 percent viewed Kerry as liberal, and not until October did that figure crack the 50 percent mark. As Nate Silver has put it, the public's reaction to the charge that Obama is liberal appears to be, "Well, no shit! We're voting for him anyway." When the electoral fundamentals are as favorable to the Democrats as they are in 2008, conservatives have a steep hill to climb. And so they're working to convince the public not just that Obama is an ordinary liberal, but that he's the single most liberal senator in America. National Journal gave them a great gift. It would be a pity if facts got in their way.
Josh Patashnik is a reporter–researcher at The New Republic.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (88)
Thanks for reporting on this. Since the American Prospect, Crooked Timber, Washington Monthly and I all had the same story many months ago when NR first had their phony ranking out, I look forward to the rest of mainstream media picking up in by December.
Thanks for reporting on this. Since the American Prospect, Crooked Timber, Washington Monthly and I all had the same story many months ago when NR first had their phony ranking out, I look forward to the rest of mainstream media picking up in by December.
Heehee. If Obama is a marxist then I'm sure I can prove Delay is a fascist.
Most hard right wing Republicans are - only nobody calls them on it.
:-)
Heehee. If Obama is a marxist then I'm sure I can prove Delay is a fascist.
Most hard right wing Republicans are - only nobody calls them on it.
:-)
Yes, well considering that we now know that Obama is for the death penalty, for gov't and corporate protection (a la FISA), for limiting gun control in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I'm not sure that many people were still convinced that he was a classic progressive anyway. He doesn't seem to be by a long shot.
Yes, well considering that we now know that Obama is for the death penalty, for gov't and corporate protection (a la FISA), for limiting gun control in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I'm not sure that many people were still convinced that he was a classic progressive anyway. He doesn't seem to be by a long shot.
A thorough study of Obama's voting record, his conversations about his votes, and his writings reveal a lot about his perspective. I would describe him as center-left, to be sure, but he also appears far less ideological than most members of the Senate. He clearly believes that progress is incremental, and that progress is made in the center, not on the extremes. And he is right. So his FISA vote made perfect sense from this perspective. It wasn't the bill he wanted, but he was pragmatic, and figured the final bill, while flawed, was a step forward. His position on gun control is a centrist perspective. Indeed, on most issues, he would be described as a centrist. On taxes, he favors a more p ... view full comment
A thorough study of Obama's voting record, his conversations about his votes, and his writings reveal a lot about his perspective. I would describe him as center-left, to be sure, but he also appears far less ideological than most members of the Senate. He clearly believes that progress is incremental, and that progress is made in the center, not on the extremes. And he is right. So his FISA vote made perfect sense from this perspective. It wasn't the bill he wanted, but he was pragmatic, and figured the final bill, while flawed, was a step forward. His position on gun control is a centrist perspective. Indeed, on most issues, he would be described as a centrist. On taxes, he favors a more progressive approach, which is decidedly left of center, but not to an extreme. He favors fiscal discipline more than many Republicans, a centered approach.
He favors free trade, but wants a fair playing field, again, a centrist to center-left position. Most impressive is his ability to understand different perspectives and find a middle ground where agreement can be reached. The problem Delay and others have is that the country is moving to the left, and rejects right-wing ideology.
Well, the writer failed to mention twenty years in a black liberation theology church and extremely close and personal ties to its pastor. Perhaps the writer's next article should focus on black liberation theology and enlighten us all.
Well, the writer failed to mention twenty years in a black liberation theology church and extremely close and personal ties to its pastor. Perhaps the writer's next article should focus on black liberation theology and enlighten us all.
Even if one is inclined to dismiss NJ's rankings, Obama is hardly a centrist, a moderate... And I wonder how all of those who pooh-pooh NJ's rankings now would react if the GOP had as it's nominee a Senator ranked most cosnervative by NJ?
Even if one is inclined to dismiss NJ's rankings, Obama is hardly a centrist, a moderate... And I wonder how all of those who pooh-pooh NJ's rankings now would react if the GOP had as it's nominee a Senator ranked most cosnervative by NJ?
A "community activist" trained by Sal Alinsky kooks. What more do you need?Notice no-one talks about that? It's coming after the Dem Riot, I mean Convention.
A "community activist" trained by Sal Alinsky kooks. What more do you need?Notice no-one talks about that? It's coming after the Dem Riot, I mean Convention.
All rankings of congressional ideology are flawed, whether they come from a liberal or conservative media outlet. There are two reasons for this. First, there is no baseline for "liberal" or "conservative" other than the current members of Congress. Is Obama liberal compared to the current ideological configuration in Congress? Maybe. But he would be much more liberal when compared to members in the 103rd Congress? Absolutely. Less liberal than members in the 101st? Definitely. Second, Obama has been in the Senate for less than four years, meaning that he has not had time to moderate as most presidential candidates do in the lead-up to their campaigns. Check McCain's ratings plus/m ... view full comment
All rankings of congressional ideology are flawed, whether they come from a liberal or conservative media outlet. There are two reasons for this. First, there is no baseline for "liberal" or "conservative" other than the current members of Congress. Is Obama liberal compared to the current ideological configuration in Congress? Maybe. But he would be much more liberal when compared to members in the 103rd Congress? Absolutely. Less liberal than members in the 101st? Definitely. Second, Obama has been in the Senate for less than four years, meaning that he has not had time to moderate as most presidential candidates do in the lead-up to their campaigns. Check McCain's ratings plus/minus 4 years on either side of both of his presidential runs -- you could do the same for any other candidate who has ever sought the office straight from Congress. Obama simply voted in a way that most freshman Senators vote -- to build support in his party and consolidate his electoral majority. All politicians do it, so why must we excoriate one of them for it?
While partisans may debate just how liberal Obama may be, it would be ludicrous to ignore the fact that his entire career voting record is highly partisan. It is, in fact, impossible to find occasions where he crossed party lines on any vote which might have remotely cost him any political capital. And it strains the imagination to think that any of his Democrat supporters would think that his position in this regard is not virtuous -- except when a discussion of his ability to bring the parties together is raised.
While partisans may debate just how liberal Obama may be, it would be ludicrous to ignore the fact that his entire career voting record is highly partisan. It is, in fact, impossible to find occasions where he crossed party lines on any vote which might have remotely cost him any political capital. And it strains the imagination to think that any of his Democrat supporters would think that his position in this regard is not virtuous -- except when a discussion of his ability to bring the parties together is raised.
While partisans may debate just how liberal Obama may be, it would be ludicrous to ignore the fact that his entire career voting record is highly partisan. It is, in fact, impossible to find occasions where he crossed party lines on any vote which might have remotely cost him any political capital. And it strains the imagination to think that any of his Democrat supporters would think that his position in this regard is not virtuous -- except when a discussion of his ability to bring the parties together is raised.
While partisans may debate just how liberal Obama may be, it would be ludicrous to ignore the fact that his entire career voting record is highly partisan. It is, in fact, impossible to find occasions where he crossed party lines on any vote which might have remotely cost him any political capital. And it strains the imagination to think that any of his Democrat supporters would think that his position in this regard is not virtuous -- except when a discussion of his ability to bring the parties together is raised.
Marxist? - Liberal? - Socialist? - who cares what he is - he has ZERO experience to be the POTUS.
Marxist? - Liberal? - Socialist? - who cares what he is - he has ZERO experience to be the POTUS.
He is, as our most liberals. His ideas of regulating big oil, installing government run UHC, massive tax hikes and billions in social programs are a frist step to create a ssocialist govt.
He is, as our most liberals. His ideas of regulating big oil, installing government run UHC, massive tax hikes and billions in social programs are a frist step to create a ssocialist govt.
Obama will say anything to get elected. Any politician will. They are "whores of the mob" as Cicero said. The Obama worship makes this observation embarassingly obvious.
The problem is that I have become convinced that he is campaigning from a standard liberal / left position and, if elected, will govern from a very far left / socialist position.
His positions on taxes, guns, war, affirmative action, health care, nationalization of energy and banking and government spying on citizens will instantly change as soon as he is elected.
It is the same thing he did after being coronated "crown prince" by the DNC in June.
People will be very surprised by what he actually does as opposed to what he says, ... view full comment
Obama will say anything to get elected. Any politician will. They are "whores of the mob" as Cicero said. The Obama worship makes this observation embarassingly obvious.
The problem is that I have become convinced that he is campaigning from a standard liberal / left position and, if elected, will govern from a very far left / socialist position.
His positions on taxes, guns, war, affirmative action, health care, nationalization of energy and banking and government spying on citizens will instantly change as soon as he is elected.
It is the same thing he did after being coronated "crown prince" by the DNC in June.
People will be very surprised by what he actually does as opposed to what he says, if he is elected.
You've got to be kidding. A guy who votes 100% with his party is not a centrist. Also Obama is not a believer in "fiscal discpline." He is proposing spending which makes the Republicans look downright cheap. Moreover, his approach to taxes (raising them in the middle of economic difficulties) is just the right tonic to put the Country into a full scale recession or worse.
You've got to be kidding. A guy who votes 100% with his party is not a centrist. Also Obama is not a believer in "fiscal discpline." He is proposing spending which makes the Republicans look downright cheap. Moreover, his approach to taxes (raising them in the middle of economic difficulties) is just the right tonic to put the Country into a full scale recession or worse.
Wow, trying to wedge in a Sean Hannity moment.... how innapropriate. Not sure what BL Theology has to do with this article in any sense.
Just another conservative sheep trying to talk abotu anything but the facts.
This is a good article and effectively points to the lie's often qouted by the right. The theory is to repeat them across all platforms, include all the gas bag pundits like Limbaugh and others, eventually the MSM picks it up and repeats it out of laziness and time to fill and suddenly, something with little to actually back it upis perceived as fact by so many idiots.
Fact is, Obama is a liberal but by know means the latte sipping tree hugger he is portrayed as by the right.
Wow, trying to wedge in a Sean Hannity moment.... how innapropriate. Not sure what BL Theology has to do with this article in any sense.
Just another conservative sheep trying to talk abotu anything but the facts.
This is a good article and effectively points to the lie's often qouted by the right. The theory is to repeat them across all platforms, include all the gas bag pundits like Limbaugh and others, eventually the MSM picks it up and repeats it out of laziness and time to fill and suddenly, something with little to actually back it upis perceived as fact by so many idiots.
Fact is, Obama is a liberal but by know means the latte sipping tree hugger he is portrayed as by the right.
Who really cares about rankings.
Decide on what the candidates have actually done.
therein lies Obama's problem. In three years, he hasn't accomplished much, partly because for half the time he's actually been running for President.
There is a big divide between the two candidates on trade, spending, taxes and judges. Not even including foreign policy.
It's ok to hope. But where's the foundation?
Who really cares about rankings.
Decide on what the candidates have actually done.
therein lies Obama's problem. In three years, he hasn't accomplished much, partly because for half the time he's actually been running for President.
There is a big divide between the two candidates on trade, spending, taxes and judges. Not even including foreign policy.
It's ok to hope. But where's the foundation?
My opinion is that Obama needs to compensate for his missed votes. You have no basis to speculate on what he would have actually voted for any more that NR did no matter what he later professed to opine. He was no better of a Senator then than he is now that he is campaigning - pretty sad.
My opinion is that Obama needs to compensate for his missed votes. You have no basis to speculate on what he would have actually voted for any more that NR did no matter what he later professed to opine. He was no better of a Senator then than he is now that he is campaigning - pretty sad.
I certainly believe there are a few senators that are more liberal than Senator Obama. It is a stretch to say he is the 'most' liberal. But the fact remains, he is right there among the most liberal members of the Senate.
The real issue is the Senator's near total lack of experience, his poor judgement and lack of charater. I know liberals don't see these issue as a problem for any candidate as long as he's/she's a liberal. But for the rest of us, it why supporting Obama gives us great pause.
There is a certain amount of 'on-the-job' training for any new president. But face it, Obama brings close to nothing to the table as far as experience goes.
As for judgement, Obama doesn't offer much t ... view full comment
I certainly believe there are a few senators that are more liberal than Senator Obama. It is a stretch to say he is the 'most' liberal. But the fact remains, he is right there among the most liberal members of the Senate.
The real issue is the Senator's near total lack of experience, his poor judgement and lack of charater. I know liberals don't see these issue as a problem for any candidate as long as he's/she's a liberal. But for the rest of us, it why supporting Obama gives us great pause.
There is a certain amount of 'on-the-job' training for any new president. But face it, Obama brings close to nothing to the table as far as experience goes.
As for judgement, Obama doesn't offer much there either. His decision to associate with a host of characters, from Ayers to Flagar, Resko to Wright, is more negative than positive statement about his judgement.
As for character, Obama has demonstrated very little. Consider that he's willing to throw his grandmother under the bus in defending Jeremiah Wright, and then to throw Rev. Wright under the bus issue of his deciding to workout at a five star hotel in Germany rather than going and visiting with wounded troops is just another glaring example of lacking character. At first, he blames the military saying they told him not to visit the troops. When he's caught in the lie, he concocts an excuse that he might have been attacked becasue he would have visited the wounded troops while using campaign funds to pay for the trip. Get real. To anyone with a working 'crap' detector this is a load.
While you make a decent case in the flaws of the NJ rankings as indicators of liberal ideology, they do appear to be a big indicator of the degree to which a Senator will stick to the party line - how much of a "maverick" he is. With all the rhetoric from Obama on understanding the positions of your opponents, it doesn't seem to make much policy difference to him.
While you make a decent case in the flaws of the NJ rankings as indicators of liberal ideology, they do appear to be a big indicator of the degree to which a Senator will stick to the party line - how much of a "maverick" he is. With all the rhetoric from Obama on understanding the positions of your opponents, it doesn't seem to make much policy difference to him.
Toritto - I think you should look up the definition of "fascism" before making statements like this. If you read the definition carefully, you will see that the Democrats are a bit more fascistic than Republicans.
While not a Marxist per se, Obama has demonstrated overt displays of socialist ideology with statements such as, and I paraphrase, [the walls between countries are wealthy and those who are not]. Just how are those walls going to be knocked down? What are these rumors of a percentage of our tax being sent to Africa?
Fascism is a softer way of using the Nationalist Socialist tag without mentioning the evil one or the party he led.
Please, check out the definition and see if you c ... view full comment
Toritto - I think you should look up the definition of "fascism" before making statements like this. If you read the definition carefully, you will see that the Democrats are a bit more fascistic than Republicans.
While not a Marxist per se, Obama has demonstrated overt displays of socialist ideology with statements such as, and I paraphrase, [the walls between countries are wealthy and those who are not]. Just how are those walls going to be knocked down? What are these rumors of a percentage of our tax being sent to Africa?
Fascism is a softer way of using the Nationalist Socialist tag without mentioning the evil one or the party he led.
Please, check out the definition and see if you can't find a better term for what you want to believe Delay is.
This article is a crock...sure one can argue if Obama is THE most liberal, or the 10th most liberal, but in a quite liberal group of Democratic senators the nuance is unimpressive. And the argument that Obama is winning anyway is weak, USA Today has him down by 4 today, and he seems to have peaked out at around 46% of the vote. The campaign in the fall will surely make Obama's liberal record more known, not less, so its likely he will lose votes as a result, not gain. The main point is that Obama is way to the left of the electorate, an undisputed fact. Whether its acceptable or not we will see, but it won't matter that he is only the 10th most liberal..10th most liberal is enough to lose my ... view full comment
This article is a crock...sure one can argue if Obama is THE most liberal, or the 10th most liberal, but in a quite liberal group of Democratic senators the nuance is unimpressive. And the argument that Obama is winning anyway is weak, USA Today has him down by 4 today, and he seems to have peaked out at around 46% of the vote. The campaign in the fall will surely make Obama's liberal record more known, not less, so its likely he will lose votes as a result, not gain. The main point is that Obama is way to the left of the electorate, an undisputed fact. Whether its acceptable or not we will see, but it won't matter that he is only the 10th most liberal..10th most liberal is enough to lose my vote, and probably those of a lot of other moderates also.
There's an even bigger reason these rankings are b.s.: they have no way to measure intra-party differences. It's why party unity scores work -- most of the votes cleave between parties and those that dont usually have some weird geography or interest-group basis. E.g., the senate didnt take a vote this year on nationalizing the healthcare system. There might have been five votes for that; Obama probably wouldn't have been one of them. Bringing that up for a vote would have been moronic.
Surveys strike me as making more sense...
There's an even bigger reason these rankings are b.s.: they have no way to measure intra-party differences. It's why party unity scores work -- most of the votes cleave between parties and those that dont usually have some weird geography or interest-group basis. E.g., the senate didnt take a vote this year on nationalizing the healthcare system. There might have been five votes for that; Obama probably wouldn't have been one of them. Bringing that up for a vote would have been moronic.
Surveys strike me as making more sense...
I believe missing 99 votes is more embarrassing than being labeled a socialist. I believe it says you are too busy doing other things to be able to do your job. You were voted into office to be present for votes. If you can't be there to do that job, perhaps you need to step aside.
Universal health care is a socialist dream. It has been instituted in many countries and I do not believe you can find a country (besides the heavily mono-cultural countries such as the Scandanavian countries) where it is successful. Why would wee want to adopt a system of medicine that has not worked elsewhere?
I believe missing 99 votes is more embarrassing than being labeled a socialist. I believe it says you are too busy doing other things to be able to do your job. You were voted into office to be present for votes. If you can't be there to do that job, perhaps you need to step aside.
Universal health care is a socialist dream. It has been instituted in many countries and I do not believe you can find a country (besides the heavily mono-cultural countries such as the Scandanavian countries) where it is successful. Why would wee want to adopt a system of medicine that has not worked elsewhere?
Let's face it, Obama was a liberal throughout the primaries. However, he has disowned the liberal platform the last 45 days and suddenly become a moderate - see rhetoric on free trade, FISA, campaign finance, Iraq (coming soon), etc. The problem voters are faced with is are we voting for "Obama the primary candidate" or "Obama the Presidential candidate"? They represent a starkly different choice. How does one know what we are getting in this wildly talented yet enigma of a man?
Let's face it, Obama was a liberal throughout the primaries. However, he has disowned the liberal platform the last 45 days and suddenly become a moderate - see rhetoric on free trade, FISA, campaign finance, Iraq (coming soon), etc. The problem voters are faced with is are we voting for "Obama the primary candidate" or "Obama the Presidential candidate"? They represent a starkly different choice. How does one know what we are getting in this wildly talented yet enigma of a man?
Sorry folks, no matter how you slice it the guy is further to the left then any Democrat in generations. Based on his past actions and comments, I believe you are looking at another William Jennings Bryan. Another incredibly gifted speaker with an clear leftist agenda. Why are you afraid of saying it - this is what you guys want. Why can't you run on the platform that you all so fervantly believe in?
Sorry folks, no matter how you slice it the guy is further to the left then any Democrat in generations. Based on his past actions and comments, I believe you are looking at another William Jennings Bryan. Another incredibly gifted speaker with an clear leftist agenda. Why are you afraid of saying it - this is what you guys want. Why can't you run on the platform that you all so fervantly believe in?
Well done, well done. Of course, anybody whose head would explode from hearing Obama is the most liberal would also have their head explode by reading this sort of analysis. People like that can't even pay attention for a whole sentence, let alone grasp a nuance. Not that there aren't plenty of them on the left either, but they're voting for Obama (or Nader) anyway.
Well done, well done. Of course, anybody whose head would explode from hearing Obama is the most liberal would also have their head explode by reading this sort of analysis. People like that can't even pay attention for a whole sentence, let alone grasp a nuance. Not that there aren't plenty of them on the left either, but they're voting for Obama (or Nader) anyway.
Sensible Centrist either uninformed or misrepresenting Obama's positions. Obama is for doubling the capital gains tax, a bad idea that will hurt every person that owns a house or investments, and which won't increase revenue. He is for expanding the death tax. Nothing "sensible" about this. His positions on guns is not centrist, he has been on record against gun control and thinks people "are driven to them". Free trade is either free or it isn't and the AFL-CIO is not investing tens of millions in Obama's campaign because he favors free trade. Again nothing centrist about his economic views. Fiscal discipline? Excuse me he has no plan to fund the billions of dollars in expanded goodies for ... view full comment
Sensible Centrist either uninformed or misrepresenting Obama's positions. Obama is for doubling the capital gains tax, a bad idea that will hurt every person that owns a house or investments, and which won't increase revenue. He is for expanding the death tax. Nothing "sensible" about this. His positions on guns is not centrist, he has been on record against gun control and thinks people "are driven to them". Free trade is either free or it isn't and the AFL-CIO is not investing tens of millions in Obama's campaign because he favors free trade. Again nothing centrist about his economic views. Fiscal discipline? Excuse me he has no plan to fund the billions of dollars in expanded goodies for all the interest groups supporting him like the NEA. He has a naive view that being nice to Iran will make them like us, and his position of surrender in Iraq would have been terribly damaging if it had been adopted. His record in the Senate shows no evidence "of reaching for middle ground" as Sensible Centrist's wishful thinking indicates. If Obama manages to convince the majority of Americans that his left wing views are best for the country, fine, but let's drop the pretense that Obama is a moderate or a centrist. It might be good political marketing, but it's completely fraudulent.
Mr. Patashnik's major point (apart from the number of votes missed) appears to be that the psychometric model used (implicitly) in the National Journal rankings is a "dominance" model, whereas the model the rankings should be using is an "ideal point" or "unfolding" model. This criticism, though perhaps stated in an...ahem..."inartful" manner by Mr. Patashnik, is probably correct: psychometricians have argued persuasively that dominance models are inappropriate when measuring attitudes, values, ideology, etc.--which is after all what the rankings are trying to assess (i.e., "liberal" vs. "conservative"). To illustrate the point, imagine a situation wherein we asked people whether they agree ... view full comment
Mr. Patashnik's major point (apart from the number of votes missed) appears to be that the psychometric model used (implicitly) in the National Journal rankings is a "dominance" model, whereas the model the rankings should be using is an "ideal point" or "unfolding" model. This criticism, though perhaps stated in an...ahem..."inartful" manner by Mr. Patashnik, is probably correct: psychometricians have argued persuasively that dominance models are inappropriate when measuring attitudes, values, ideology, etc.--which is after all what the rankings are trying to assess (i.e., "liberal" vs. "conservative"). To illustrate the point, imagine a situation wherein we asked people whether they agree or disagree with the statement "Same-sex marriage is OK." The dominance model would assume that the only people who would disagree are those opposed to same-sex marriage, whereas the ideal point or unfolding model would assume, probably more accurately, that not only those opposed to same-sex marriage but also those STRONGLY IN FAVOR of same-sex marriage would disagree.
Let me get this straight... you acknowledge that Obama is from the liberal wing of this country's liberal party but you dispute only that he is the most liberal member of the Senate for a given year?? You base your dispute on the idea that if he had voted more often then he would have been rated higher. I doubt there would be much hand-wringing over Obama's rating if he had scored higher. The problem with Obama is that he claims all sorts of things but it is the votes that pin you down as to what you really are. Maybe you should consider the notion that he returns to vote for things he truly believes in (as he did with the GI Bill vote) and thus he actually truly deserves his ranking! He ... view full comment
Let me get this straight... you acknowledge that Obama is from the liberal wing of this country's liberal party but you dispute only that he is the most liberal member of the Senate for a given year?? You base your dispute on the idea that if he had voted more often then he would have been rated higher. I doubt there would be much hand-wringing over Obama's rating if he had scored higher. The problem with Obama is that he claims all sorts of things but it is the votes that pin you down as to what you really are. Maybe you should consider the notion that he returns to vote for things he truly believes in (as he did with the GI Bill vote) and thus he actually truly deserves his ranking! He claims to support the Free Trade Agreement with Peru but will not actually vote for it??... what does Obama's claiming to support something relating to trade policy really mean?
The writer also fails to finish BHO's sentence, "America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world."......and now it's time to share the wealth...try as you might no one who has not partaken of the kool-aid thinks he is nothing other than a far left liberal......and he is a socialist...he sought them out...he studied them....he listened to it being preached for 20 years....nice try...that dog don't hunt!
The writer also fails to finish BHO's sentence, "America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world."......and now it's time to share the wealth...try as you might no one who has not partaken of the kool-aid thinks he is nothing other than a far left liberal......and he is a socialist...he sought them out...he studied them....he listened to it being preached for 20 years....nice try...that dog don't hunt!
If the left can keep throwing the Nazi/fascist label at Bush and Co with impunity (ahem, toritto), then the right can call Obama a socialist. Something about turn about being fair play, and all's fair in love and war, and all that.
If the left can keep throwing the Nazi/fascist label at Bush and Co with impunity (ahem, toritto), then the right can call Obama a socialist. Something about turn about being fair play, and all's fair in love and war, and all that.
We can't prove he's a socialist because he misses so many votes we can't tell. I'm not sure that is somthing to brag about. Why is it liberals have to pretend they aren't liberals to get elected? Conservatives are proud of their beliefs.
We can't prove he's a socialist because he misses so many votes we can't tell. I'm not sure that is somthing to brag about. Why is it liberals have to pretend they aren't liberals to get elected? Conservatives are proud of their beliefs.
Thanks for reporting this. That means that Obama is a reliably liberal senator without the work ethic of a normal American. How can a *junior* senator feasibly argue for his candidacy when the background of his experience is only marginally above 50% of the possible votes? Is he serious? McCain's been in the senate for years. He doesn't have anything to prove. Obama does, and he's falling down on the job.
Thanks for reporting this. That means that Obama is a reliably liberal senator without the work ethic of a normal American. How can a *junior* senator feasibly argue for his candidacy when the background of his experience is only marginally above 50% of the possible votes? Is he serious? McCain's been in the senate for years. He doesn't have anything to prove. Obama does, and he's falling down on the job.
Rather than take Obama at his word, a dangerous thing with any politician, judge him by his actions. Granted, he has given us few actions by which to judge, but a review of his voting record as a US Senator (180 votes, plus or minus a couple) leads one to the conclusion that he's not a moderate, as he would have you believe, but is well to the left of center somewhere out there in Kerry-Boxer-Kennedy land. Obama a Centrist? Please. Joe Lieberman is a Centrist. Tony Blair is a Centrist. (Sorry, I ran out of Democrats after Lieberman).
Rather than take Obama at his word, a dangerous thing with any politician, judge him by his actions. Granted, he has given us few actions by which to judge, but a review of his voting record as a US Senator (180 votes, plus or minus a couple) leads one to the conclusion that he's not a moderate, as he would have you believe, but is well to the left of center somewhere out there in Kerry-Boxer-Kennedy land. Obama a Centrist? Please. Joe Lieberman is a Centrist. Tony Blair is a Centrist. (Sorry, I ran out of Democrats after Lieberman).
I love the argument that he would've voted a different way if he'd only been there. Wow, you must have a really cool crystal ball because his ACTUAL VOTES are the only evidence we have.
I love the argument that he would've voted a different way if he'd only been there. Wow, you must have a really cool crystal ball because his ACTUAL VOTES are the only evidence we have.
What amaryllis fails to address is how black liberation theology is at all evident in Mr. Obama's Senate votes or political philosophy. Just more right-of-center muckraking.
What amaryllis fails to address is how black liberation theology is at all evident in Mr. Obama's Senate votes or political philosophy. Just more right-of-center muckraking.
Publicly supporting something is different from voting for it. Who is to say that he would have voted more conservative on all those votes that he missed? Perhaps this is precisely why he missed all those votes: to obfuscate his stance on these very issues.
Publicly supporting something is different from voting for it. Who is to say that he would have voted more conservative on all those votes that he missed? Perhaps this is precisely why he missed all those votes: to obfuscate his stance on these very issues.
Anyone who would throw his religion and pastor under the bus for political expediency certainly would have no qualms with switching his political views to a more centrist posture. Obama is as centrist as Delay, only Tom never lie to you about where he stood to get elected.
Anyone who would throw his religion and pastor under the bus for political expediency certainly would have no qualms with switching his political views to a more centrist posture. Obama is as centrist as Delay, only Tom never lie to you about where he stood to get elected.
Hilarious..... The leftist are now eating their own grandmothers ! ! ! !
"But that just means that National Journal's much-ballyhooed rankings are deeply flawed."
You people are... soooo Marxist.... Bend the "truth" (even your own!!!) to support your failed policies!
GOD DAMN THIS IS GOING TO BE FUN! ! ! ! !
Hilarious..... The leftist are now eating their own grandmothers ! ! ! !
"But that just means that National Journal's much-ballyhooed rankings are deeply flawed."
You people are... soooo Marxist.... Bend the "truth" (even your own!!!) to support your failed policies!
GOD DAMN THIS IS GOING TO BE FUN! ! ! ! !
Hilarious..... The leftist are now eating their own grandmothers ! ! ! !
Hilarious..... The leftist are now eating their own grandmothers ! ! ! !
A lot of words to rebut hyperbole. Methinks Josh Patashnik doth protest too much. Barack's not a socialist, but his pretty words are center-left and his voting record is run-of-the-mill lefty (when he bothers to cast a ballot, that is).
:)
A lot of words to rebut hyperbole. Methinks Josh Patashnik doth protest too much. Barack's not a socialist, but his pretty words are center-left and his voting record is run-of-the-mill lefty (when he bothers to cast a ballot, that is).
:)
I would expect a publication like the National Journal to re-configure their methodology every four years - in order to make it such that the likely Democratic nominee would always be the 'most liberal.' But Obama is not the most liberal Senator, not by a long shot. He has always maintained that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a gun. He wants to change affirmative action programs to use economic status, not race, as the criterion. He wants a more progressive tax code, but no moreso than it was under Bill Clinton, giving us the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history. He's certainly not a centrist, but most liberal? Maybe the Rush dittoheads are stupi ... view full comment
I would expect a publication like the National Journal to re-configure their methodology every four years - in order to make it such that the likely Democratic nominee would always be the 'most liberal.' But Obama is not the most liberal Senator, not by a long shot. He has always maintained that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a gun. He wants to change affirmative action programs to use economic status, not race, as the criterion. He wants a more progressive tax code, but no moreso than it was under Bill Clinton, giving us the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history. He's certainly not a centrist, but most liberal? Maybe the Rush dittoheads are stupid enough to believe that, but not anyone with two or more active brain cells.
Seriously, are you that deluded??? HMM what about Obam's Berlin speech where he said "sustained sacrifice" for Americans. What about Obama saying "students who receive public funding should perform 100 hours of community service" (Yeah they have all that time between studying to perform community service) how about Obama saying he wants to put Americans to good use "where they're needed". Thats not Leninesque or Marxist? Your reference to anyone listening to Tom Delay as having the mentality of a second grader only proves that you seem to be the one with (at least) the attention span of a second grader. As usual people like you have a selective memory, and are either incapable of reading be ... view full comment
Seriously, are you that deluded??? HMM what about Obam's Berlin speech where he said "sustained sacrifice" for Americans. What about Obama saying "students who receive public funding should perform 100 hours of community service" (Yeah they have all that time between studying to perform community service) how about Obama saying he wants to put Americans to good use "where they're needed". Thats not Leninesque or Marxist? Your reference to anyone listening to Tom Delay as having the mentality of a second grader only proves that you seem to be the one with (at least) the attention span of a second grader. As usual people like you have a selective memory, and are either incapable of reading between the lines or ya just don't wanna! C'mon Obama IS socialistic in his thinking. He's only moving to the center until (if)he gets elected.After that the veil comes off, the taxes for social programs go up and the "nanny state " you so badly crave becomes reality. Wake up Dead man...
All ideological ratings of congressional votes are deficient, if not skewed, in one way or another. That said, you can count on the GOP apparat to portray any Democratic candidate as the "most liberal" - ginning up their own ratings, if need be - until the tactic proves unsuccessful.
All ideological ratings of congressional votes are deficient, if not skewed, in one way or another. That said, you can count on the GOP apparat to portray any Democratic candidate as the "most liberal" - ginning up their own ratings, if need be - until the tactic proves unsuccessful.
Ahh, yes, Obama the moderate. Give me a break.
Ahh, yes, Obama the moderate. Give me a break.
"John McCain, for his part, says only that he cannot guarantee that Obama is not a socialist."
Right, and Hillary Clinton couldn't guarantee that he was not a Muslim, "as far as she knew."
It doesn't matter one iota what he actually IS, as long as people like DeLay keep on saying that he's a socialist or a Marxist, and people like McCain keep non-denying it. The people who think he's a socialist aren't going to actually examine his record, and even if they did, they probably couldn't interpret what they found. But they are going to listen to, and parrot, what is said by people that they trust. So, as far as they're concerned, it's as clear as daylight that he is a Marxist, a socialist, a Mu ... view full comment
"John McCain, for his part, says only that he cannot guarantee that Obama is not a socialist."
Right, and Hillary Clinton couldn't guarantee that he was not a Muslim, "as far as she knew."
It doesn't matter one iota what he actually IS, as long as people like DeLay keep on saying that he's a socialist or a Marxist, and people like McCain keep non-denying it. The people who think he's a socialist aren't going to actually examine his record, and even if they did, they probably couldn't interpret what they found. But they are going to listen to, and parrot, what is said by people that they trust. So, as far as they're concerned, it's as clear as daylight that he is a Marxist, a socialist, a Muslim, and a hate-America terrorist, and dangerous to America because "we don't know anything about him."
See People magazine interview that the Obama’s don’t give their kids Christmas or birthday presents. (Is this a normal American family who shares our values?)
See People magazine interview that the Obama’s don’t give their kids Christmas or birthday presents. (Is this a normal American family who shares our values?)
"First, Obama missed a lot of votes--a third of the 99 votes"
Thats his real record after 4 years. Too busy doing ??? to bother with actually doing his job.
"First, Obama missed a lot of votes--a third of the 99 votes"
Thats his real record after 4 years. Too busy doing ??? to bother with actually doing his job.
"Yes, well considering that we now know that Obama is for the death penalty, for gov't and corporate protection (a la FISA), for limiting gun control in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I'm not sure that many people were still convinced that he was a classic progressive anyway. He doesn't seem to be by a long shot."
You know for a liberal you're sounding a lot like a right wing partisan here. You completely fail at understanding the complexity of each one of these issues, and rather than engage yourself in some fact-finding before opening your mouth (or pressing buttons with your fingers, as it were), you've chosen to draw broad conclusions and make snap judgments that you're in no position to ... view full comment
"Yes, well considering that we now know that Obama is for the death penalty, for gov't and corporate protection (a la FISA), for limiting gun control in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I'm not sure that many people were still convinced that he was a classic progressive anyway. He doesn't seem to be by a long shot."
You know for a liberal you're sounding a lot like a right wing partisan here. You completely fail at understanding the complexity of each one of these issues, and rather than engage yourself in some fact-finding before opening your mouth (or pressing buttons with your fingers, as it were), you've chosen to draw broad conclusions and make snap judgments that you're in no position to make. And rather than enlightening the discussion, you're coarsening it. Solution: stop having opinions until you actually know what you're talking about.
Nice try to rehabilitate his voting record and philosophy. However his voting record is similar to that of Bernie Snaders the US Senator from Ben and Jerry country, Vermont, an avowed Socialist.
Yes the Europeans liked him a lot, because they saw in Obama the same socialist philosophy that appeals to them. After all the good senator wishes to redistribute income from those that earn money to those who do not pay taxes. He intends to raise the top marginal rate to 43-45%, double the capital gains tax, tax dividends at a person's top marginal rate. That is a huge tax increase. The top 1% earn 22% of the income in America and pay 40 % of all taxes.
Tell me liberals and socialists, "What is a fair ... view full comment
Nice try to rehabilitate his voting record and philosophy. However his voting record is similar to that of Bernie Snaders the US Senator from Ben and Jerry country, Vermont, an avowed Socialist.
Yes the Europeans liked him a lot, because they saw in Obama the same socialist philosophy that appeals to them. After all the good senator wishes to redistribute income from those that earn money to those who do not pay taxes. He intends to raise the top marginal rate to 43-45%, double the capital gains tax, tax dividends at a person's top marginal rate. That is a huge tax increase. The top 1% earn 22% of the income in America and pay 40 % of all taxes.
Tell me liberals and socialists, "What is a fair share?"
Finally on national security no thank you. When headed into combat please allow Senator Obama to remain at post, I would fear he would fail my squad if he needed to shoot the bad guys!