Why Obama Was 'The Most Liberal'

[ProfJohn]

Since we talk about this so much I thought it wise to share this article with the group.

I think the guy is spot on.
1. Like it or not Obama earned that rating.
2. The rating is not much more than a tool used to compare on Senator to another.
link

One of the habits I've developed in recent years is to go to Google once or twice a day and type in "National Journal." As editor of National Journal, I figure it's part of my job to stay abreast of the mentions the magazine receives in the press and the blogosphere. The exercise can be rewarding (when we break a big story that gets a lot of attention), humbling (when we break a story that gets very little attention), and -- this year, in particular -- exasperating.

That's because of our vote ratings. Every year since 1981, National Journal has ranked members of Congress on a liberal-conservative scale. Earlier this year, NJ ranked Barack Obama's voting record as the most liberal in the Senate in 2007, a characterization that, not surprisingly, has generated much coverage -- and more than a little criticism.

Unfortunately, much of the criticism has been uninformed. There have been exceptions, such as Obama's own response to the rating and the occasional well-researched article that raises legitimate questions. On the whole, however, the commentary has been pretty superficial.

What follows is an effort to respond to some of the objections.

First, a bit of background.

Toward the end of every year, a panel of National Journal editors and reporters sifts through the hundreds of roll-call votes taken that year and selects ones that we think are useful in identifying ideological differences between members of Congress. For 2007, we ended up with 99 votes out of the 442 votes cast in the Senate. We sent the votes to the Brookings Institution, which is under contract to National Journal to compute the vote ratings based on a system designed by William Schneider, a CNN political analyst and a contributing editor to the magazine. After Brookings delivers the ratings, we run them in our magazine and post them on our Web site.

To dispense with the silliest criticisms first: National Journal did not rig the ratings so that Obama would be ranked as the most liberal senator. NJ is not a right-wing publication out to get Obama. And we're not reveling in the attention that the ratings have generated.

To the contrary. We don't have any idea when we send the votes to Brookings how an individual member of Congress will be ranked. We make every effort to be nonpartisan and nonideological in our news coverage. (We do have columnists who take liberal or conservative positions.) And, at least as far as I'm concerned, the attention has been a headache. My first reaction when I learned that Obama had scored the highest liberal rating was to mutter a profanity. I had an inkling of what was in store.

Other criticisms of the rating system deserve more of a response.

? The ratings are flawed because every vote isn't counted.

We don't count every vote, because many have little to do with ideology. What would be the liberal or conservative position, for example, on Senate roll-call vote 236 on a measure to provide for the care and management of wounded warriors? The measure passed 94-0.

? Obama wouldn't have been ranked as the No. 1 liberal if he hadn't missed so many votes.

Perhaps that's correct, but how would anyone know for sure? To qualify for a vote rating, a member of Congress needs to participate in half of the selected votes. Obama cast votes in 66 of the 99 roll calls that formed the basis for the Senate ratings. On those 66 votes, he took what we labeled the liberal position 65 times. Whether Obama would have taken the conservative position on some of the votes he missed is a matter of conjecture.

? Some senators took the liberal position more often than Obama. So he couldn't have been the most liberal senator.

Obama's No. 1 ranking is akin to being declared the major-league batting champion. The honor goes to the player with the highest batting average, regardless of whether he has the most hits. In Obama's case, voting the liberal position 65 out of 66 times earned him the title, as opposed to a senator who might have voted the liberal position 80 times out of 90.

? Anyone who follows the Senate knows that Obama isn't as liberal as, say, Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Barbara Boxer of California, and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin.

It's true that those senators are generally perceived as being more liberal than Obama. But our ratings are based on actual votes, not perceptions; and in 2007, Sanders, Boxer, and Feingold cast a slightly lower percentage of liberal votes than Obama did. Feingold, for instance, was one of only two Democrats who voted to uphold President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. Boxer voted with 37 Republicans and only six other Democrats on a proposal regarding Real ID requirements for driver's licenses. Sanders voted with 37 Republicans and only 15 Democrats against limiting debate on the immigration reform bill. Just because someone is perceived as a liberal doesn't mean he or she votes the liberal position every time.

? Some of the votes selected for the vote ratings don't lend themselves to being classified as liberal or conservative.

This, in my view, is the most cogent criticism of the vote ratings, and it is the argument that Obama himself made when asked about his ranking.

In February, Obama responded to a question from Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris about the vote ratings by saying, "An example of why I was rated the most liberal was because I wanted an Office of Public Integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress. Now, I didn't know that it was a liberal, or Democratic, issue. I thought that was a good-government issue that a lot of Republicans would like to see."

Few analysts would challenge most of the votes selected for the ratings (such as those on abortion rights, the minimum wage, and the estate tax). On a handful of votes, however, reasonable people can disagree about their inclusion. The vote that Obama cited was one of them.

My rationale for selecting the vote was that efforts to reform Congress have long been a hallmark of liberals, from Sen. Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, to the Watergate class of 1974, to Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. The vote on the Office of Public Integrity, in my view, was in that tradition.

It should be noted, however, that just because the National Journal panel thought the vote was worthy of inclusion doesn't mean that it was automatically counted. Under our system, any vote that NJ editors and reporters select can be knocked out when Brookings crunches the numbers.

How so?

Clearly, each chamber has liberal and conservative camps. The most-conservative members vote together most of the time, and the same is true of the most liberal members. Our rating system tags the liberal and conservative camps by identifying the members who most frequently voted with one another. Each vote is then weighted based on how tightly each camp stuck together. If the computer analysis finds that the liberal and conservative camps are indistinguishable on a vote, the vote is kicked out.

In the case of the vote on the Office of Public Integrity, the computer analysis (called a principal-component analysis) found enough correlation to use the vote.

One last observation: In the end, the debate over whether Obama was the most liberal senator last year doesn't strike me as particularly useful. If Obama had voted differently a couple of times, or if we had added or subtracted a couple of other votes in our ratings, he might not have been ranked as the most liberal senator. Perhaps he would have ended up as the fourth-most-liberal senator. Or maybe the sixth-most-liberal senator. (In his first two years in the Senate he was ranked as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal senator.) But by virtually any measure, he still would have had a solidly liberal voting record -- one that would give some people a reason to support him and others a reason to oppose him.

As I said in an editor's note when the 2007 vote ratings were released, they should be viewed as a tool in assessing a member of Congress, but not the only tool. Other vote ratings should also be taken into consideration, as should attributes that no rating system can measure, such as character, judgment, effectiveness, leadership, and experience.

 

[brencat]

As a Republican, I actually think Obama is a decent human being. But just like in all marriages, you have to consider the extended family you're getting into as well. And the fact of the matter is, I just don't trust the extreme lefties of the Democratic party such as Pelosi, Reid, and Kennedy. They will push their agenda and legislation, and Barrack will end up signing off on most of it.

And the fact is, I simply disagree with the vast majority of that agenda.

 

[Lemon law]

Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

 

[DonaldC]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

Is that the best you can come up with.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: DonaldC

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

Is that the best you can come up with.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok semi fair question, no way no how is Obama the most Liberal in the democratic party. I could give you Kucinich, Kennedy, and many others far more liberal. Just because PJ can cheery pick some other idiot making an absurd claim adds no credibility to an absurd argument.

But you miss the point here, responsible posters say why their candidate is better than the other candidate and cite reasons, and trolls seek to spread FUD while hiding the flaws of their own candidate, its intellectual dishonesty pure, plain, and simple. And the second time today PJ was wrong.

Lets call a spade a spade and be done with it. PJ needs to troll under his own bridge.

 

[sportage]

Well, the NEW RULES are...
Liberal = able to see the need for change.
Conservative = unable to accept change.

Liberal thinking brought us medicare, social security, men on the moon,
alternative energy, electric cars, school programs, dreams, and a black man
running for president.
Conservative thinking brought us Richard Nixon and HMO's.
Nuff said?

 

[First]

That wasn't very convincing. Obama still isn't the most liberal, especially not over the last two years and just recently.

 

[Druidx]

? Obama wouldn't have been ranked as the No. 1 liberal if he hadn't missed so many votes.

I found that excuse as to why Obama's ranking as the most liberal senator in Congress as unfair, pretty damn funny.
:laugh:

 

[PokerGuy]

This is absolutely spot-on. They explain the methodology used to figure their "rankings", and based on that measure he is the most liberal. Do I view him as such? No, of course not, there are far more liberal people in the senate. Still, by this fairly objective measure (in use for a looooooong time), he has the highest percentage of liberal votes in the senate. Just because dems don't like that fact does not make it any less true.

 

[umbrella39]

FFS, anyone left of Zell Miller is now a looney liberal. Must be an election year.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
FFS, anyone left of Zell Miller is now a looney liberal. Must be an election year.

Yep it seems when the Republicans have their back up against the wall they trot out the old Liberal attack that worked so well for Reagan. Unfotunately they don't realize that it was more than just the L word that got Reagan elected and McSame just doesn't have the same qualities as the old Republican Icon.


BTW it's not surprising to see ProJo delve into the Republican bag of tricks, how long before he brings up Willie Horton?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

Son, I can't think of a poster with less integrity than you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Liberals acting like 'liberal" is a dirty word...what gives? :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

Son, I can't think of a poster with less integrity than you.

You make that proclamation as if your own integrity isn't in question by some. We are all biased to some extent and all the OP does is attack and post spoon fed talking points as if he's getting his marching orders directly from Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/p...rces/ps_nyliberal.html

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

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."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Liberals acting like 'liberal" is a dirty word...what gives? :roll:

I don't have any problems with liberals acting liberal. Problem is, that's a rarity. it's when they act like leftists (and welcome them into the party) that drives more moderates away. Just like the fundies and racists on the right drive away moderates.

Liberal shouldn't be a dirty word or treated as such.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: umbrella39
FFS, anyone left of Zell Miller is now a looney liberal. Must be an election year.

Yep it seems when the Republicans have their back up against the wall they trot out the old Liberal attack that worked so well for Reagan. Unfotunately they don't realize that it was more than just the L word that got Reagan elected and McSame just doesn't have the same qualities as the old Republican Icon.


BTW it's not surprising to see ProJo delve into the Republican bag of tricks, how long before he brings up Willie Horton?

Indeed, how furlough can they go?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

Son, I can't think of a poster with less integrity than you.

You make that proclamation as if your own integrity isn't in question by some. We are all biased to some extent and all the OP does is attack and post spoon fed talking points as if he's getting his marching orders directly from Rush Limbaugh.

Sure he does, PJ is a partisan hack. Never said otherwise. There's lots of partisan hacks on the forum, you and I have some partisan hackishness.

But I haven't seen PJ going around accusing our brother soldiers, our forum posters, of being war criminals. In fact, I can't recall PJ ever personally attacking anyone, (or if he did it was in the mildest and most indirect way in comparison to most). You are wrong there...

So in that sense, he has more integrity than most posters on this forum. And LL has none.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Mirror Mirror on the wall Obama is not as liberal at as all. Mirror Mirror on the wall, Non professor John is most trollish of all.

May I suggest once again, troll under your own bridge Non Prof John. If you look hard enough, surly you can find some rational reasons to tout the virtues of John McCain. Why is it that you seem to spend 99% of your posts on trying to spread FUD on Obama? Posters with integrity tell us why their candidate is better than the other candidate, cat got your tongue on the non existent virtues of McCain PJ?

Son, I can't think of a poster with less integrity than you.

You make that proclamation as if your own integrity isn't in question by some. We are all biased to some extent and all the OP does is attack and post spoon fed talking points as if he's getting his marching orders directly from Rush Limbaugh.

Sure he does, PJ is a partisan hack. Never said otherwise. There's lots of partisan hacks on the forum, you and I have some partisan hackishness.

But I haven't seen PJ going around accusing our brother soldiers, our forum posters, of being war criminals. In fact, I can't recall PJ ever personally attacking anyone, (or if he did it was in the mildest and most indirect way in comparison to most). You are wrong there...

So in that sense, he has more integrity than most posters on this forum. And LL has none.

ProJo has no more integrity than others, he'll post what ever he needs to try and put down the other side whether it's true or not. Now he might not be as big a douchebag as others but that doesn't mean he has more integrity.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

ProJo has no more integrity than others, he'll post what ever he needs to try and put down the other side whether it's true or not. Now he might not be as big a douchebag as others but that doesn't mean he has more integrity.

Aren't douchebaggery and integrity integrally and inversely linked? I think one cannot be a douchebag while retaining integrity. Now being an asshole, you can have integrity and still be an asshole...

We digress on semantics Sorry to derail the thread, please carry on...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Liberals acting like 'liberal" is a dirty word...what gives? :roll:

Are you pretending you don't know where the taint on that word is coming from?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Liberals acting like 'liberal" is a dirty word...what gives? :roll:

Are you pretending you don't know where the taint on that word is coming from?

Please enlighten me.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Liberals acting like 'liberal" is a dirty word...what gives? :roll:

Are you pretending you don't know where the taint on that word is coming from?

Please enlighten me.

Open your eyes and ears.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Liberals acting like 'liberal" is a dirty word...what gives? :roll:

Are you pretending you don't know where the taint on that word is coming from?

Please enlighten me.

Open your eyes and ears.

Thanks for your wealth of information.

 

[Moonbeam]

All the brain dead need to know is that somebody is a liberal and the billions of dollars that have been spent turning them into bigots against liberals will kick in and they will vote for the other guy. In this way the people who have those billions to spend and whose interests the other guy always serves manage to fuck the brain dead in the ass.