Sen. Obama Rated Most Liberal Senator in 2007
Non-Partisan National Journal Rankings Are Out: Obama #1, Clinton #16
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The non-partisan National Journal ranked John Kerry as "Most Liberal" the year before he lost the race for the Presidency. Now in his 3rd year in the Senate, Obama has taken the title of "More Liberal than Kerry, Kennedy and Hillary." I actually like Obama's soaring rhetoric. But I have never understood why people think he is bipartisan or a unifier. His policies, issues, views, and priorities are standard liberal fare. Unlike Mr. Clinton, he has not broken from party orthodoxy on a major issue like Welfare Reform, Free Trade, or The Era of Big Government Is Over.
Instead, he talks about bringing together Rs, Is, and Ds to do what? Enact the same things that Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy and Kerry want to do. I'll believe the unifier rhetoric when he endorses School Choice and abandons the destructive teachers unions grip on educational opportunity or decides that entitlements need original reforms that include ideas like personal retirement accounts. But as long as his idea of unifying the country is socialized medical care, bloated government, growing entitlements, denial of progress in Iraq, an embrace of partial birth abortion and a disdain for working across partisan lines, he's a poser, not a unifier.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Endorsing John McCain (And why not?) — Comments (80) »
Sen. Obama Rated Most Liberal Senator in 2007 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If Obama was a conservative, I think he would be unbeatable. Although I disagree with him on just about EVERY issue, I will confess that he is the only candidate in either party that I actually want to like.
I know it's weird and I hope my membership in the vast right-wing conspiracy will not be revoked but I am telling you the truth. The man is charismatic, even when you disagree with him.
I think his charisma is pretty obvious. Anybody who denies it is only kidding themselves.
He gets compared to Reagan a lot -- for his sunny optimism and sweeping imagery and rhetoric. While I can understand the comparison, and understand how frustrating it must've been to be a liberal in 1980, I don't buy the comparison.
Reagan was always open about his precise vision for the country. Yes, he did employ a lot of flowery language. But it was never generic or hollow. It was always coupled with a very well-defined and advertised policy agenda.
If you tell an Obama supporter this, they'll immediately point you to his website to say "See...see...Obama's got a policy platform."
But I always ask them how much he talks about it on the campaign trail, beyond the platitudes about "hope", "change", "diplomacy", and ending the war in Iraq whether it's ready to be ended or not.
They usually don't have much of an answer. But it's smart politics on Obama's part. I'm not sure people care as much anymore about what policies you have in mind...I think they care more about how you make them feel.
And that's why Oprah's right there with him.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
or conservative America, there is one America" The NJ's data backs up that statement... ehhh
Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
If Clinton is the nominee, her negatives help turn out the base and drive independents toward us.
If Obama is elected, his extremely liberal record helps us pop his "unity and hope" bubble
I don't know what you want to say about Obama in that he is a "poser" (that's not a pejorative anti-Spanish word, is it?!) but, when you describe
* socialized medical care
* bloated government
* growing entitlements
etc etc, you are giving a general description of what might be called either Social Democracy (Germany), liberal fascism (see Goldberg's book) or, as the Greek philisopher Billus Cattus once said, "pphhhhtttttus". It's all a matter of degrees, one might say....
"Unity" comes - no, no, not from you, silly child - unity comes from "the people" and their friends in the government, get it? So, don't worry, bloggers, you don't have to worry about changing anything at all...you'll (be made to) fit in just fine.... And that, "my friend, is how their system works; and of course, it's your system too, right?!
...in your arguments if you were just a little less pouty while making them.
Grow up, or go home.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"must force [you] to be free"
No personal insults (to dumb down "ad hominem") necessary, I guess Redstate allows THOSE, though.
I was agreeing to a fair degree with Adam C; perhaps that was not understood by you.
I used irony and humor.
I'm in a joyous mood and feel distressed at the mere thought of ever becoming pouty.
I'm quite grown up, sir; learn from observation.
I am and am feeling quite at home.
Accordingly, the next post from you will determine whether you get to stay. You are required:
1) To explain the difference between a personal insult and an ad hominem attack (they are not nearly synonymous concepts, to help you along your way).
2) To use the "Reply to This" button when replying.
Thanks in advance.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
last night in favor of homosexual rights and marriage. I wonder why the major media outlets didn't cover that? I know he would nominate judges on the basis of "hope" and "change", but I wonder if any, or maybe ALL? would also see a fundamental right to homosexual marriage emanating from the penumbra? Surely not???
Both of their great-grandfathers had 5 wives.
Go Dawgs, Sic em' Woof Woof
He actually had a strong history in Illinois of working across the aisle on many issues, from ethics reform to mandatory videotaping of interrogations and confessions. And last July Obama endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers before an audience he knew wouldn't like the idea, the National Education Association. He's liberal on most issues, but he's thoughtful, and he'll surprise you.
For all you need to know about Obama, stop by the bookstore tonight and read every reference to Justice Scalia in Audacity Of Hope.
Agreed he's very charismatic, intelligent & likable, and he doesn't shake with anger to the point of caricature a la Jesse, Al, Conyers, Waters, Mfume, etc, but politically he's way left of Hillary & esp. Willie.
Repubs need to start making this point substantively, not just with "Liberal, liberal, nyeah, nyeah", not that I'm accusing anyone here of that.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
Instead, he talks about bringing together Rs, Is, and Ds to do what? Enact the same things that Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy and Kerry want to do
Let's see if I can offer a bit of perspective without coming off as too much of an advocate.
They are all about the same in terms of ideology:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
The biggest difference is in how they would go about getting things done. I'm pretty sure he's sincere in his desire to give all interested parties a seat at the table. It would just be very much his table. If that's better or worse than Clintonian backroom wheeling and dealing is a subject of no small debate.
...here: you're just being more polite about it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
When President Bush was trying to reform social security with a bipartisan approach, why didn't Obama break with his party and actually sit down at the table?
He didn't want to take the leadership to do it. He listened to Reid who said committee placements would be stripped if you worked with the Republicans.
"he's sincere in his desire to give all interested parties a seat at the table. It would just be very much his table."
This sounds a lot like Bush's approach to major issues. I don't see Bush being called a uniter.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
He talks about being above the bickering between R's and D's and enacting change in the atmosphere of politics, but why hasn't any of the candidates brought up how he originally got onto the Illinois Legislature, by old fashioned politics knocking out Alice Palmer due to the signature petition. Then there's the whole Jack Ryan scandal during the Senate race, but I'm ignorant in Illinois politics (being from MA) so who knows if he had a hand in that.
Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
I'm not aware of any evidence that Obama had anything to do with Jack Ryan's problems in the republican primary for Senate. I don't even recall any hint at the time from the Republican party or it's staffers that the Obama camp had a hand in that.
Ryan screwed up big time by lying to the party, and they dumped him. The irony is that by dumping him and bringing in Keyes, the party gift-wrapped the Senate seat for Obama.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
and without any obvious disabling political liabilities, we will. We did that in 1980 & 1984, and to less success in 1964. (GWBush is at the center or slightly to the right of the center of the GOP).
As I keep saying, ideas don't run for president, people do. Our choices this time around were circumscribed by who the people were. Let's plan next time to get people who are equally good or better, but with better ideas.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Read all of your post. There it is: B A R R Y G O L D W A T E R.
He was reasonably conservative. Although that may have been a little before your time.
However, the National Journal piece is a bit suspect. I read through the votes on which their conclusion was based and I couldn't find any real justification for claiming that Obama is significantly more liberal than Clinton.
Also, take a look at Progressive Punch's ratings (if you dare).
Their ratings make Obama look quite a bit less liberal than the NJ does and a little less liberal than Clinton.
I can't WAIT to see those debates (unless, of course, Hillary beats him).
Just calling him a lib isn't going to help though. Our candidate is going to have to confront him on specific policy issues and (most importantly) his voting record. THIS is his achilles heel.
Because Obama is incredibly powerful in debates. If he survives the Clinton Machine, he will be the most dangerous candidate the Democrats have thrown at the republican party since... Kennedy perhaps? I'm not intentionally trying to make comparisons, but think of the Democrat nominees and it becomes obvious that the democrats tend to nominate stick in the muds who can't explain their way out of paper bags. Obama is not a stick in the mud.
He's incredibly liberal, but so what? people are still clamoring for change and rightly or wrongly the Republican party is still viewed as in power.
Toss in 24 retiring Republican house candidates, and I fear Obama would have some very long coat-tails, and we could end up in an election that reduces the republican party to serious minority status for the next decade at the least.
Clinton gives the Republicans a chance. Obama would be a disaster for the Republican party.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Obama's incredible charisma allows him to pat conservatives on the head and make us feel better about allowing him to ruin the country.
That's about it. The key is to make his record known, both in the Senate and also in the Illinois legislature, where he voted against a law that would have made it illegal to kill babies that survived botched abortions. Yes, that's babies that made it out of the womb alive.
Read the article here.
He'd be harder to beat. I think that's hard to argue against.
I think McCain would be favored in a race against either of them, but he certainly could lose, especially to Obama.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
yo, randomguy, read bolton's book yet? i've only started it, but it's very good...
"...but think of the Democrat nominees and it becomes obvious that the democrats tend to nominate stick in the muds who can't explain their way out of paper bags..."
As a general statement, you're probably correct, but don't overlook that one guy, what was his name? Um. Oh, yeah. Bill Clinton.
Your comment applies to most Dems, but despite his other faults it's a real stretch to say that Clinton couldn't explain his way out of paper bag. Reagan had his own variety of rhetorical effectiveness, but for pure articulateness Clinton was probably the best in many, many decades. Because he doesn't seem prone to the same kind of tiresome prolixity that plagued Clinton, Obama may well surpass him.
Note: Clinton seems to be losing his touch lately. Maybe the idea of being the First Guy is weighing too heavily on him.
Natural eloquence is not a common characteristic among candidates of either party. Johnson? Nixon? Humphrey? McGovern? Ford? Carter? Mondale? GHW Bush? Dukakis? Dole? GW Bush? The likely (though not quite guaranteed) 2008 candidate, McCain, is not particularly articulate either. Going back to Kennedy, he, Reagan, and Clinton were the only presidents or major party candidates who could speak with any real distinction. HRC is articulate, but she has a voice that grates on many ears, which limits her effectiveness. Edwards and Huckabee are also articulate, but they aren't nominees.
Obama does hit Hillary good and hard on the health care plan and the mtg f/c freeze.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Uniter, yes. He will unite all moonbats, which are not many. America is Republican country. If you doubt it, tell me who has won presidential elections lately.
Barack Hussein Osama as president?
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves...
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I mean, I think the founding fathers were pretty open-minded about that sort of thing.
I think we'd have to defeat him on policy.
Hillary on the other hand, we can just leave her to debate with herself.
...is what will bring us together. We vote for Senator Obama and support him, and we will be forgiven for being Republicans. We can even keep our Party affiliation!
As long as we do everything he says, of course.
Moe
PS: He'd be a much more interesting candidate if he just owned up to the truth: he's liberal, and if elected he'd govern as a liberal. It'd be refreshing at least; and if he coupled it with a promise to stick to domestic policy and keep his well-meaning hands off of the war, it might even resonate...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!