A gang of outlaws at the helms

If you look at Obama's voting record, he is often cited as one of the most liberal Senator's of all time. As President, though, he doesn't have as much freedom as he once had. He has to attempt to appeal to Republican-leaning ideologues while proving daily to the Democrat-leaning ideologues that he's still one of them.Now that he is president he really has to play politics.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

If you actually look at his voting record he is not a liberal. They ranked him more liberal than Ted Kennedy and the socialist Bernie Sanders. The National Journal has pulled this crap before. In 2004 they ranked Kerry the "most liberal".Look at their methodology.

quote:

---

A panel of National Journal editors and reporters initially compiled a list of 216 key congressional roll-call votes for 2007 -- 107 votes for the Senate and 109 for the House -- and classified them as relating to economic, social, or foreign policy.

---

Also other analysis of their analysis.

quote:

---

Every year, the National Journal, a Washington weekly magazine, comes out with a ranking of the most liberal and conservative members of Congress. And just about as often, political campaigns use those rankings to score points against their opponents. But looking at the start of this year's list (the Journal released only partial results; the full list will be out in March), we can't help thinking of that other big annual ranking, U.S. News & World Report's college list. And we can't help wondering whether the National Journal's list is just as capricious -- and even, dare we say it, inaccurate -- as that one.

​

That's because the big finding the Journal is trumpeting this time around is that the Senate's most liberal member in 2007 was Sen. Barack Obama. That puts him ahead of, for example, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold. Oh, and it also puts him ahead of an actual socialist, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. And then there's the man at No. 3, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, hardly known as a raging lefty. Biden comes in ahead of both Feingold and Sanders as well. (Sen. John Kerry was ranked as the most liberal in 2003, another distinction that seems dubious and became a campaign issue.)

---

SourceThough the National Journal touts itself as non-partisan it has a distinctly conservative, right wing slant. If you just read the comments at the link you posted you would see for yourself what a bunch of BS that ranking was. Oh by the way I do not think that citing a highly partisan source qualifies as much of anything.To paraphrase a famous quote. I know liberals and Barack Obama is no liberal.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Your own source is clearly biased and therefore nullifies your attempt to allege that the National Journal is biased.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I guess your ideology will not allow you to look at the real facts behind the partisan attack from the National Journal.Amazing what 2 mins on the net can find you.

quote:

---

It is true that the National Journal rated Obama "the most liberal senator" in 2007, based on 99 votes in the Senate that year. But in his previous two years, Obama was rated 10th and 16th most liberal. So his career voting record is far from "most liberal." The McCain ad is misleading about that.

---

Page not found - FactCheck.org

quote:

---

Ratings from Congressional Quarterly don't measure liberal/conservative votes, but they show Obama is not quite as partisan as other senators.

​

In CQ’s calculation of party unity, which measures how often members vote with their party on bills where Republicans and Democrats split, Obama got a 97 percent rating last year. Ten Democrats had higher scores.

​

On votes where President Bush indicated his position, CQ found Obama supported the Republican president 40 percent of the time in 2007, which put Obama in the middle of the pack for Democrats. He supported Bush 49 percent the previous year.

---

PolitiFact | Several ratings rank Obama lower

quote:

---

The Obama campaign is taking serious issue with the National Journal rankings of him as the most liberal Senator in 2007.

​

Spokesman Bill Burton points out that because Sen. Obama was campaigning for much of 2007, he missed 32 out of the 99 votes the NJ used for its rankings.

​

Of the remaining 67, Obama and Clinton (who also missed many votes because she was campaigning, as did John McCain, etc), were both there to vote for 65.

​

They voted the same way on 63 of them.

​

On one where they differed, Obama voted with an amendment from Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind - Conn., to create an Office of Public Integrity and Clinton voted against it.

​

On the other, Obama voted for an amendment from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, allowing "Y" visa holders to stay in the U.S. while renewing their visas, while Clinton -- who has staked out a more conservative position on illegal immigration -- voted against it.

​

And yet somehow he becomes the most liberal Senator, and she the 16th most.

​

Odd.

---

http://blogs.abcnews.com/...unch/2008/01/obama-pushback.htmlHere is a ranking based upon a sound methodology.
http://voteview.com/sen110.htmDid you even read National Journals methodology? Can it be any more subjective?Have you ever really read your signature?"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John AdamsPlease explain how the National Journal methodolgy is not subjective?I, sir, am a liberal. Trust me, Barack Obama is not a liberal. Russ Feingold is a liberal senator.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The source used the national journal as a source. What facts that the Salon brings up, do you dispute?

quote:

---

That's because the big finding the Journal is trumpeting this time around is that the Senate's most liberal member in 2007 was Sen. Barack Obama.

---

National Journal: Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 95.5 (highest scorer)

quote:

---

That puts him ahead of, for example, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

---

By definition true. For confirmation,National Journal: Feingold, Russell, D-Wis. 85.5

quote:

---

Oh, and it also puts him ahead of an actual socialist, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

---

National Journal: Sanders, Bernie, I-Vt. 93.7

quote:

---

And then there's the man at No. 3, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, hardly known as a raging lefty. Biden comes in ahead of both Feingold and Sanders as well.

---

National Journal: Biden, Joseph, D-Del. 94.2

You've managed to make a mountain out of a molehill here as if I have a subscription to the National Journal or am one of their editors. I'm not defending the National Journal. They may or may not be a conservatively slanted publication. What I was doing was very simply pointing out that Salon is a notoriously liberal publication which undermines your whole premise of saying the NJ is biased.In other words, the kettle calling the pot black.That's me saying that if you dismiss the NJ, you in turn would have to also dismiss Salon on the same premise. I'm not here to defend or praise the National Journal. I simply stated that it's fairly common knowledge that Obama's voting record is regularly cited as being one of the most liberal. And honestly, the NJ is known reading material of Congress which is why I cited it.I mean to be perfectly fair, Obama has not voted at all for much of his senatorial tenure which doesn't really make him liberal, conservative, or centrist. It makes him derelict. What in your estimation qualifies someone as a liberal? There are different levels to be sure. There's the:"I usually vote Democrat liberals" and there's the "I just jacked off to the Communist Manifesto" liberals. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typo

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I'm not disputing or defending either Salon or the National Journal. I'm rejecting the premise used, as it is hypocritical.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

You cited the National Journal as a source that Obama was "one of the most liberal Senator's of all time.". When someone pointed out that the National Journal's ranking system is questionable because of the way it has ranked people historically relative to others, you said that "Your own source is clearly biased and therefore nullifies your attempt to allege that the National Journal is biased". But the Salon's source was the National Journal and you have not identified a problem with what Salon reported regarding what the National Journal concluded.So are you admitting that your accusation of bias was a red herring?What premise are you saying is 'hypocritical'?Do you think Obama is one of the most liberal Senator's of all time and do you think this is in contradiction to the assertion that Obama is actually very centrist?

Follow the train of logic here: Somebody initially said that Obama is categorized as a centrist. I said that he's routinely cited as having one of the most liberal voting records, and used the NJ to show that view.Theodoric (I think) countered with an article from Salon showing how the NJ is conservatively biased. I pointed out that using a liberally biased publication nullifies the right of calling something bias when it has a bias.I'm not defending the National Journal or excoriating the Salon. I am, however, questioning Theodric's use of the Salon to point out a perceived bias of the NJ when the Salon identifies as a liberal publication. The neo-conservatives plagued the airways that Obama is uber-liberal to pull true centrist votes away from Obama to give it to McCain. If anything Obama's record shows that he's given to the same kind of election time platitudes, but in different fashion. He still hasn't stopped the Iraq war despite his campaign blustering. That was a huge selling point during the elections because of the unpopularity of that war. So, no, he's not really one of the most liberal senators of all times, he just plays one on t.v.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I understand all that, but I fail to see why you dismissed the criticism so broadly. If this had been a case of "Here is a NJ source", and someone said "But Salon says they are biased". You'd have a point.But that isn't the case."Here is an NJ Source."and the counter is:
"Look at the data, and some of the strange things it seems to be saying: Joe Biden is more liberal/left than a socialist!? Here are some other strange things the NJ's methodology has lead to. Clearly the NJ's 'list' is based on a flawed methodology - and see some of these unusual coincidences with who happens to be favoured by the democratic party and who also happens to be thought of as 'the most liberal ever' etc etc"This isn't ad hominem vs ad hominem. A criticism of your source for your claim has been presented. Do you stand by your claim? If so - what do you say to the criticism? Or are you just doing a weasel and saying that it wasn't your position that Obama the most liberal Senator, just that others thought so. If that is the case - why did you bring it up in respsonse Rahvin's position? Sounds like you disagree with the NJ list which is based off his actual voting record, not on his promises.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Indeed - a gang of outlaws at the helm.I'm glad we voted the worst of them out of office in November 2008, John 10:10.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

as if I have a subscription to the National Journal or am one of their editors

---

And you think anybody else here is? Don't you find it interesting that everybody else managed to find the information that you were incapable of doing? Methinks you simply did a troll of conservative web sites, cut-and-pasted something you didn't understand, and are now disingenuously shocked that you're being taken to task on it.

quote:

---

I'm not defending the National Journal.

---

Bullshit.

quote:

---

They may or may not be a conservatively slanted publication.

---

Do you have any of those "stubborn facts" your own .sig file mentions that contradicts the evidence you have been shown that they are? Is there a reason you've been avoiding actual responses to the facts you've been shown?

quote:

---

What I was doing was very simply pointing out that Salon is a notoriously liberal publication which undermines your whole premise of saying the NJ is biased.

---

Incorrect. Just because Salon publishes content primarily from people to the left of what is considered "conservative" in this country doesn't make them "biased."You still haven't managed to understand your own signature: Facts are stubborn things. And when they support the "liberal" position, that doesn't make them "biased." Having an agenda doesn't mean the information provided is "biased" or any other subtle and snide attempt at declaring it untrue.

quote:

---

In other words, the kettle calling the pot black.

---

In other words, you don't like the facts, so you'll ignore them and call them "biased" and hope to high heaven that nobody notices you haven't provided any reason to justify your claim.

quote:

---

That's me saying that if you dismiss the NJ, you in turn would have to also dismiss Salon on the same premise.

---

Indeed, but you're wrong. We dismiss the NJ because they have crappy methodology. We accept Salon because they showed the crappy methodology used by the NJ.This fake outrage you have of "a pox on both your houses" is just that: Fake.

quote:

---

I'm not here to defend or praise the National Journal.

---

Bullshit. Your entire argument is based upon a defense of the NJ. You're trying to say that if we accept Salon's analysis of the NJ, that must mean there's a bias going on. Since you seem to have the typical conservative attitude that accusing people of "bias" will make liberals cringe in fear, your goal is to have Salon be rejected, leaving the NJ's crappy methodology untouched and therefore considered valid.But that makes no sense. It is irrelevant if Salon is "liberal" or not. The only thing that matters is if their analysis of the NJ's methodology is valid. Do you have any evidence that their analysis is incorrect? "They're liberal!" isn't an argument.

quote:

---

I simply stated that it's fairly common knowledge that Obama's voting record is regularly cited as being one of the most liberal.

---

Surely your presence here on this forum has taught you that just because "people are talking" doesn't mean they have anything to actually say on the subject, yes? There is no debate in science about the validity of evolution no matter how many creationists whine about it.You're pulling a Fox: Say something in an editorial and then pretend that reporting on the editorial comment is really news. The fact that the NJ has said something and a bunch of jackasses repeated it doesn't mean there is any validity in the original comment.Don't you find it interesting that the NJ has always managed to determine that the current Democratic front-runner for a presidential race coming out of the Congress is always "the most liberal" member? It's like the Bush administration's continual claim that they "just got the #2 Al Qaeda operative." Exactly how many #2's are there?And do you have any evidence that Salon's analysis was faulty?

quote:

---

And honestly, the NJ is known reading material of Congress which is why I cited it.

---

Irrelevant. If someone lies to you and you fall for the lie, how is that anybody's fault except the person who lied to you?You're still trying to pull a Fox: Somebody lies and you find it would be "journalistically irresponsible" not to report on the lie. It doesn't matter how many people are parroting a false claim. It's still a false claim.Do you have any evidence that Salon's analysis was faulty? "They're liberal!" is not an argument.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This is getting ridiculous, and Rrhain's insane paranoia for all things he perceives is against his interests simply typifies an unwillingness for partiality.Rahvin stated that Obama is considered a centrist. That simply is not true for many people, as evidenced by the incalculable number of times his voting record was mentioned. Propaganda from Right? Yes, of course. Was the NJ in on it? I have no idea, nor do I care.My furnishing the NJ article was just one way to show that Obama's voting record was routinely suspect, NOT to agree with what they are saying, ONLY acknowledging that people claim he's an uber-liberal president. And as president he now has to juggle between being chummy enough with Republicans so they don't filibuster and chummy enough with Democrats that they don't question his allegiance to their party and interests.Now there is this completely unnecessary and off-topic struggle to make a point on the semantics of Salon and the National Journal. All that I said was using one biased source to refute the validity of another biased source nullifies itself because it is a self-defeating premise. I am NOT trying to use the NJ to prove the validity of their article, only proving that sentiments such as they shared are COMMON.Now Rrhain is going off on one of his usual tirades and anyone that might not bear the allegiances he does must be in bed with FOX news, yet if only he looks 1 or 2 pages earlier in this thread, that I was extremely critical of neo-conservatism.It's amusing. The closer one is to being impartial and seeing both sides of an argument, the less one-sided, one-minded individuals try to claim you are what they actually are -- biased.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

That is the point. Liberal, conservative etc. are relative terms. To a person who holds rightwing values, Obama probably looks like a radical, similarly to a liberal with leftwing values, Bush looked like a reactionary. Neither was as far to the right/left as those would picture. Even the most liberal politician in the US would be viewed by most Europeans as centrist since much of Europe is more leftwinged.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

No he didn't. He said "Obama is actually very centrist". Not "Obama is actually considered very centrist". That people consider him uber liberal wasn't in dispute. The point was that despite the perception that he is very liberal and the fears that stem from that - he is actually a centrist.To give the full quote from Rahvin:

quote:

---

Note also that, to any nation outside of the US, the Democrats are conservative, and the Republicans are downright reactionary.

​

To somewhat tie this back into the topic, I find it interesting that, for all of the rightwing opposition as if he were some paragon of Liberal Might come to topple everything conservative...Obama is actually very centrist, much like Clinton was (though Clinton, I think, may have been a bit farther right - he supported bank deregulation and other policies that are most definitely not liberal or even remotely centrist). Obama's most "liberal" policies are actually very benign - he's not even pushing AT ALL for single-payer universal healthcare, something that only the US can even consider to be a "liberal" idea.

​

Somehow our political compass has been thrown completely out of whack. If the Repubs want to see real liberalism...well, that's another thread.

---

(you even quoted part of this when you replied) Amusing or otherwise - it is clear that you got it wrong. The argument was that despite some people's perceptions, Obama is centrist. You said that "If you look at Obama's voting record..." - not "If you look at this evidence that some people perceive him to be liberal". But if we accept that you were just arguing that people perceive him as the most liberal ever, that doesn't have any impact on the claim that he is actually centrist despite perception. Seems that way. You've tied yourself in a strange knot. Perhaps, if you want to argue against Rahvin's actual point you can get back to it.