SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Taking Liberalties

POLITICS JULY 28, 2008

Taking Liberalties

BY JOSH PATASHNIK

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.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 88 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

88 comments

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.

- DrSteveB

July 28, 2008 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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. :-)

- toritto

July 28, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- susan k. (NYC)

July 28, 2008 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Sensible Centrist

July 28, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- amaryllis

July 28, 2008 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- Howie

July 28, 2008 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- zeo

July 28, 2008 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- PoliticalScientist

July 28, 2008 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- MRDON

July 28, 2008 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- MRDON

July 28, 2008 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marxist? - Liberal? - Socialist? - who cares what he is - he has ZERO experience to be the POTUS.

- Obama'sResume

July 28, 2008 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- G

July 28, 2008 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Not Fooled

July 28, 2008 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- TJM

July 28, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Nate Is Grreat

July 28, 2008 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- Jay

July 28, 2008 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Chris

July 28, 2008 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- PMG

July 28, 2008 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- JABianchi

July 28, 2008 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Thurston

July 28, 2008 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- George

July 28, 2008 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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...

- paddynoons

July 28, 2008 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- Thurston

July 28, 2008 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- Mark

July 28, 2008 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- Jim O'Brien

July 28, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Libertyman13

July 28, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

-

July 28, 2008 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Psycho Metrician

July 28, 2008 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?

- SpencerG

July 28, 2008 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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!

- John

July 28, 2008 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- ddc

July 28, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- jopiper

July 28, 2008 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Arrian

July 28, 2008 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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).

- John Godbee

July 28, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- chet

July 28, 2008 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- YankeesFan

July 28, 2008 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- brendan

July 28, 2008 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Center-Right

July 28, 2008 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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! ! ! ! !

- Howard Ino

July 28, 2008 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hilarious..... The leftist are now eating their own grandmothers ! ! ! !

- Howard Ino

July 28, 2008 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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). :)

- Chris

July 28, 2008 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- Chredon

July 28, 2008 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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...

- thedevman1

July 28, 2008 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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.

- allbetsareoff

July 28, 2008 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahh, yes, Obama the moderate. Give me a break.

- JohnB

July 28, 2008 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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."

- herzliebster

July 28, 2008 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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?)

- Clem

July 28, 2008 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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.

- KellyJ

July 28, 2008 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"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.

- TheSimulacra

July 28, 2008 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

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!

- Walter

July 28, 2008 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have an idea... if you are in the Senate, then show up and vote, since that is your job. Then you will not have to play the "what if" game. Of course this applys to all Senators, but Obama has one of the worst attendance records also, however I am sure there is an excuse there.

- JD

July 28, 2008 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's obvious toritto doesn't know what a fascist is.

- Rick

July 28, 2008 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So why'd he miss so many votes? Oh, out campaigning full-time once he'd served a 12 months in the US senate. For all intents and purposes, the guy is a state senator from IL. Oh, with 1 year under his belt as a US senator. Love watching the libs dance on his voting record, trying to convince people he's not a liberal. Gee, why wasn't this column written during the Dem primaries? LOL

- Soothsayer

July 28, 2008 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama was for being the most liberal senator before he was against it. www.hellnobama.com

- JakeT

July 28, 2008 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most Republicans appear not to have the faintest idea what Marxism and Communism are, and like to equate both with Liberalism. This is of course nonsensical. Facebook has a nice Left/Right, Authoritarian/Social Libertarian indicator, the Political Compass, an application which classifies all the original presidential hopefuls. On this scale both Obama and Clinton are moderate conservatives, while McCain is a right-wing conservative, all three falling within the Right Authoritarian quadrant. The only candidates within the Left Libertarian quadrant are Nader and Kucinich.

- N.Smith

July 28, 2008 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay. So 'most liberal' is a crock. yet, how often do we hear about a politicians 'score' on environmental votes, union/worker votes, corporate friendly votes, anti-consumer votes, pro-pharma votes? These are often more of a 'crock' than the pro-liberal votes. Subject of your next article?

- brad

July 28, 2008 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, after 25 years of Socialism for the rich, maybe we can get it extended to the rest of us.

- John James Kavanagh

July 28, 2008 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Obama spent 20 years hanging around racists and anti-semites(not 20 seconds-20 years!) It took him that long to do the right thing? Does his conscience work that slowly? 1. Mr. Obama is a first-term senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name. 2. Mr. Obama voted present nearly 130 times,quite a lot for a first term Senator. (Is it anyones's fault they can't tell how liberal he really is? The National Journal's extrapolation is as good as anyone elses.) 3. Mr. Obama lectures on learning a foreign language, can speak none himself. 4. Mr. Obama has never produced a single peice of scholarship,or written anything of note. 5. He earned a law degree from harvard but never practiced law. 6. He did write a book. The subject? Himself. 7. Has he ever admitted he changed his mind or was wrong about anything? 8. on Iraq, Obama has held almost every conceivable position. 9. His Pro-Life (National Right to Life) rating= 2005 0%, 2006 0%, 2007 0% His Pro-Abortion (NARAL) rating= 2005 100%, 2006 100%, 2007 100% What does one innocent human life mean to God( not man, but God)? 10. On Iraq, he has held almost every conceivable opinion If a person can be judged by his associates of twenty years, then Mr. Obama is as liberal as advertised.

-

July 28, 2008 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't care whether Obama is more or less of a socialist or liberal than some other senators. It is enough to know that his voting record demonstrates that he is for unrestricted access to abortion at all stages of pregnancy and beyond, and for the most extreme forms of gun-control.

- redmanrt

July 28, 2008 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

REALLY, really funny listening to the Obama supporters TRYING TO CONVINCE us that THEIR hero (an inexperienced little LEFTIST-PUNK, who has NEVER had a real job), is a CENTRIST !!!!! He'll RAISE TAXES ( Centrist, right ? ) He'll DOUBLE the capital gains tax ( Centrist ? ) He'll HELP efforts to sidestep the 2nd Amendment (?) Killing babies is ok with him ( Centrist, for sure ) SCUM.... you're NOT fooling anyone....

- Impeached_Prick

July 28, 2008 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All the Democrats in the Senate support the murder of unborn babies. Even in this league, Obama goes them one better. He supports the murder of newborns. If you doubt it, look it up. The most liberal? No. He is a monster.

- Dimslie

July 29, 2008 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yankees Fan charges that "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." Well, "Just you wait, "enry 'iggins--Just you wait!" Mr. Obama well knows that one doesn't move into the presidency on such an anti-American philosophy. But 20 years is a LONG time--much longer than his slight voting record in the Senate. And he didn't ditch this association, or this church, or his pastor until he absolutely HAD to. This history tells us very clearly something very important about his philosophy whether we like it or not-- and whether we deny it or not. Presidents appoint many people to very powerful positions. Advisors. Cabinet members. Heads of bureaucracies. Do you really think the nation should gamble --for that is what it would be if we are not in denial -- gambling that you are right? Yankee Fan, you can call it muckraking, and throw against the wall, and throw in language like "right of center" to help make it stick, but I did not make up anything about this association, this pastor or this church-- Obama did.

- Amaryllis

July 29, 2008 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To TheSimulacra who responded to my previous post: It's nuance you want? Complexities? Here's the breakdown. DEATH PENALTY: Obama was against the death penalty for gang member who kill cops, even though he represented one of the deadliest, gang-infested neighborhoods in the nation/world, South Chicago. This is one of the few cases where having the death penalty instituted may have actually made a difference to a terrorized community. He voted it down. But he is FOR the death penalty for crimes outside of murder. Even though he has also stated, in his book, that the death penalty is not a deterrent. But wait, there's another "but"...But he believes in a moratorium on the penalty as long as he is president, so he can have it both ways. I personally am against the death penalty in all cases, but if I was going to be FOR it, I would want to only use it when it would actually make a difference in crime, and I would only want to use it if it was shown to be a deterrent for crime. That's just liberal me. Not into death for death's sake. FISA: Probably wouldn't have hurt the companies that were just doing what their gov't told them to do, does close the door on the entry to prosecuting gov't officials. Please explain how anyone can interpret this as a step in some positive "direction," as his defenders keep saying. GUN CONTROL: Again, the guy represented S. Chicago, where there are sometimes more deaths in a weekend than there are in Iraq, where children get killed on their doorstep by stray bullets...no joke, ask anyone who lives there, and yet he agreed with a Supreme Court decision to overturn a gun law that has been held up as a model for urban crime reduction. And he had previously supported this very law. So let's hear someone try to explain the "nuance" there. AND P.S. Maybe ya might wanta stop insulting other commenters when you make your point so we don't have to smack you back, and try injecting some substance. Thanks!

- susan k. (NYC)

July 29, 2008 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So Herzliebster doesn't agree that Obama is "dangerous to America because we don't know anything about him.'" How about we DO know something about him and if we are willing to look at what we know, we at least recognize that there is a chance that he could be dangerous to America. There is also a chance that he could not be. If you think we should choose a president who represents such a chance, well, that's your right. Go ahead and hope. But consider this: just suppose that his "international experience" growing up as an Indonesian-- developing his identity as an Indonesian, and not as an American-- pledging allegiance to Indonesia and not to the USA during his formative years--and certainly not as a Christian until much later in life (when it may well have become politically expedient to do so--after all, he did "convert" to Christianity, and what did he convert from?)--just suppose that 20 years of attendance in Wright's "God Damn America!" church, and before that, neighborhood organizing--just suppose that all of that had some effect on who Mr. Obama is now. Add to that his wife's throw-away line about not having been proud to be an American "until now" --the kind of thing one says in an unguarded way because one has been saying it and thinking it for so long among one's circle of friends that it just slips out. Add in the association with the Weathermen--anyone who doesn't clearly recall them ought to google search them for a lively reminder of bombs that killed Americans--this is all the radical left. Whether or not it has been repackaged and dressed up to run articulately for the presidency is anyone's guess. What we DO know is that he believes in political expediency. Not that this is a bad thing. Just an observation: he DID dump Wright and his church for political expediency. So he could have done a lot of other things to repackage himself as well. Of course the true radical left knows this and doesn't consider his candidacy a dangerous "chance." But should all voters be guessing when we consider electing someone to this particular high and powerful office? Surely, we can always "HOPE". He's counting on that. But don't say we don't know anything about him.

- Donnatello

July 29, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you people fail to forget that McCain missed MORE votes than Obama during the last year? I get tired of posting comments on articles like these because it's obvious how stupid Americans are today. If you want to know his damn record, look it up yourself! obama.senate.gov Interestingly, McCain's senate page doesn't show his votes. I wonder why. mccain.senate.gov

- Jeremy

July 29, 2008 at 2:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shall we add the Savior's long history of seeking guidance from such proven Communist activists as Franklin Marshall, to whom he wrote the original dedication of his first book to folks like Ayers and Rev. Wright. Everyone who has hand in molding Obama has been as far Left as you can get. But I do believe that America's populace of media fed idiots will sweep him and a 61 seat Democrat Senate into office this year. And Hell will follow. I honestly fear an America where honest Patriots are forced to launch an Iraqi style insurgancy to remove a Socialist regieme and restore the true Constitution.

- BLC

July 29, 2008 at 2:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The notion that Obama is a far left liberal is NONSENSE. He worked across party lines in Illinois and a Republican State legislator endorsed Obama before the Republican was muzzled by Rep. party handlers. And conservatism is so great? Conservatives don't have to courage to be really conservative because they know the public won't stand for what they offer. Conservatives just cut taxes on the wealthy, keep social programs people demand, and create HUGE deficits. How is that admirable? Republicans have screwed things up enough as it is. Time to give Democrats a chance to run things.

- Nick K.

July 29, 2008 at 5:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good try. But the reality is the only way to make Obama moderate is to move the middle to the left, as you and others in the main stream media have done for years. He may not be the most liberal member of the senate, but he ranks right up there with the most liberal. You are trying to move him to the center, but any fool can see that you are moving really the center to him. Next, you'll try to convince us that Rush Limbaugh will be his Cheif of Staff. There's no excuse for thinking this kind of garbage, much less writing it for others to read. Did Howard Dean write this? Gee, go talk to the Beltway Boys, you need help.

-

July 29, 2008 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who knows whether he's a liberal or a moderate? He's changed his positions so often and so quickly one can't keep up. Maybe he's trying to get the chameleon vote.

- WhoIsThisGuy

July 29, 2008 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it just me, or did Fox Noise and the RNC send out e-mails imploring their minions to flood TNR's blog with conservative talking points? Perhaps this is the new McCain/Republican strategy to win the White House. And, yes, Tom DeLay is most definitely a fascist.

- desertson

July 29, 2008 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, if producing an approximate 650 billion budget deficit is the definition of conservative,if spying on the citizenry and regulating their sex lives is conservative, if invading sovereign nations on misleading facts and shoddy evidence is conservative, if your energy policy doesn't include conservation is being conservative, if cutting back on the care and treatment of your wounded soldiers is conservative then maybe we should revise Websters definition of the word and all of the above comments on who is liberal or conservative mean nothing anymore.

- JDL51

July 29, 2008 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Obama is for massively raising taxes partly to redistribute wealth and partly to pay for a gigantic increase in government spending. He wants to weaken our military by reducing spending on weapons programs, he's against school choice, he's against banning partial birth abortion, he flip flopped on gun control but has said in the past that lay people should not be permitted to own guns. He opposed the surge of troops in Iraq. He's opposed to increased oil exploration in the U.S. Obama is an extremely liberal candidate. Is he absolutely the most liberal Senator? I don't know and I don't really care either. Let's just say he's far more liberal than the average American, and as a result, his positions are far out of the mainstream and leave it at that. So criticizing Obama for being very liberal is completely fair and justified.

- EyeDoc

July 29, 2008 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Much has been made of Obama's 'liberal' voting record. But if he's leftwing, it merely shows how rightwing America has become. In addition, I'd like to see an analysis of McCain's extremism. He's far to the right but seen as 'moderate', again thereby showing how truly far right our country has drifted. I'm certainly hoping folks are waking up from the soporific siren call of the far right, and are taking back their destinies.

- bob puharic

July 29, 2008 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We can nitpick with words all day long, but whether you call Obama a socialist, a collectivist, or a communist, the fact is that he supports have the government involved in providing health care, retirement, energy, welfare programs, and other such services. These are all socialist policies. Obama is a socialist regardless of whatever he might say. By the way, McCain is also a socialist, Bush is a socialist, Clinton was a socialist, etc... We began our road to serfdom under FDR in a big way and we've continued those socialist policies, patterned after socialists in Europe, ever since. We've gone so far down the road of socialism no one even knows what it is anymore, or how to distinguish socialism from the free market.

- Pliny

July 29, 2008 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least 4 comments bash obama for missing a third of the votes, but they don't bash McCain for missing over half of the votes. Either they didn't read the whole article or their arguement is disingenuous.

- vic pary

July 29, 2008 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason so many of us right-wingers are commenting here is because this column was linked on RealClearPolitics, and because it pushes a major annoyance button with conservatives today - that being, the quirky tendancy of the media and the left to deny that Barack Obama is very, very far to the left himself (whatever his relative position). Mr. Patashnik's column argues that Obama can't be called the left-most Senator because, really, there's no way to tell. I agree, but so what? Richard Cohen, in a column today, notes that many Democrats can't cite one actual significant accomplishment by Obama (meaning something done, not just an opinion held) and yet are wildly enthusiatic for him. Concludes Cohen: "I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it." So, yeah, we're all guessing, I suppose, but we all know, too. And just like the left-wing in this country, conservatives are going on common-sense, faith and what little we know that Obama is noble, bi-partisan wrapping around a very, very far left guy and, rhetoric aside, would govern as a very, very far left President. To say he isn't a Marxist requires a very narrow, technical definition of Marxism. Just concede that, and let's get on with a real debate. Thank you for letting me visit.

- djackson

July 29, 2008 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Socialism is an economic system where the government determines the allocation of resources rather than the market. Obama can pretend that he believes in the free market, but he wants to intefere with the market's allocation of resources at every turn. So, yeah, Obama is a socialist.

- Mark

July 29, 2008 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re: redmanrt's comment that all that matters is that Obama is for unrestricted abortion: However one feels about the subject of abortion, it is always a very, very important subject. But with our nation facing serious issues with respect to war, terrorism, national security, the economy, whether to drill for oil, the need for a national alternative energy policy -- one could go on -- it is a bit disconcerting to find that there are folks out there who care so little for all the rest and so very much about this one issue. If the country is subjected to a serious terror attack, will this still REALLY be your number one issue--especially when birth control has already been invented (have you heard)?

- A.J. Bierman

July 29, 2008 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nick K is unhappy that Conservatives just cut taxes on the wealthy; maybe he doesn't know that this brings in more tax money from the wealthy than raising taxes on them does. The facts and figures are available. So if Obama thinks that raising taxes on the rich will pay for the additional social programs he proposes, he is simply wrong. But what does it matter? The Left deep down is more interested in soaking the rich than it is in paying for its wished for programs.

- George

July 29, 2008 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeremy claims that "McCain missed MORE votes than Obama during the last year". Perhaps. I haven't checked. But McCain has a voting record that stretches WAY back and real laws bear his name. Obama actually had a committee created and himself placed at its head to give himself some heft; trouble is, the committee has never even met once.

- William K.

July 29, 2008 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Desertson: Re your query: "did Fox Noise and the RNC send out e-mails imploring their minions to flood TNR's blog with conservative talking points?" The answer is NO.

- Oasis

July 29, 2008 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Desertson thinks conservative posts are part of a Republican conspiracy. I think they show that conservatives have been reading TNR and liberal posts; so perhaps liberals should try opening their minds, too. Who knows? There might actually appear an interesting dialogue, as opposed to people merely talking to themselves.

- John B.

July 29, 2008 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Winston Churchill once said “democracy is worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried before”. Russia (former Soviet Union) shifted from Socialism to a raw capitalism which resulted into all-round cultural and social destruction in the initial phase. Why this is not being debated that some aberrations have occurred in the American form of democracy? This is an issue that can not be debated just as election polemics. It is not an issue of socialism or free market economy and can not be discussed only in terms of proletarian revolution or nationalization of industry but any American president who claims to stand for a change will have to address the problems the nations is facing in economy or in foreign policy and fighting unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps in Iran in near future. Is it possible to maintain a war forging policy for ever and if this issue in on the agenda of a nation why to term is “left” or “right”? Subhash Dhuliya New Delhi

- Subhash Dhuliya

July 30, 2008 at 3:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poole and Rosenthol are the NOMINATE guys. And their measure is the standard in political science.

- poliSciGuy

July 30, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dhuliya mentions "fighting unwinnable wars in Iraq ". Maybe he hasn't noticed that many are now claiming it has been won.

- John B.

July 30, 2008 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just because Sean Hannity said that doesn't mean it's true. Just pay attention to what what Josh Patashnik did; RESEARCH. It's not a personal opinion it's fact that NR's list is flawed. Do a little research before you spread your hearsay manure.

- Justin

July 31, 2008 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great piece. The truth is, if you cherry-pick a candidate's votes on any issue and hold them up to the light ANYONE can look ANYWAY you want them to. The soundbite was more effective with Kerry in 04' because he was (to his supporter's chagrin) too distant and ineffectual to be able to effectively counteract the charge that he was distant, ineffectual "ultraliberal" senator. I heard it debunked pretty swifty and clearly many times, but it stuck. Trying it out again on Obama's not going to work. It's old hat, and not something anyone I've seen get behind save, perhaps, Dick Morris.

- mathans

August 3, 2008 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go read how the National Journal comes up with the rankings. Their results might be meaningless, but it is fairly done.

- DG

October 28, 2008 at 1:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close