Taco John
02-26-2007, 11:29 PM
This started in another thread, after patteau referenced Obama as a liberal... I thought it deserved its own thread.
Actually, he's more moderate than he's given credit for by the right wing noise machine.
By what measure?
According to Project Vote Smart, Obama has an 8% conservative rating from the American Conservative Union (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004177M) and a 100% liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Action (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004110M) based on his 2005 voting record.
Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein all outscored him on the ACU rating that year, each getting a 12.
Here is a quote from an editorial ("http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061218-093212-5950r.htm') that recites these and other special interest ratings for Obama:
The nonpartisan National Journal gives Mr. Obama an 82.5 liberal rating in the Senate. For comparison, National Journal gives Sen. Hillary Clinton -- the other most-talked about Democratic presidential wannabe -- a 79.8 rating.
For 2005, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave Mr. Obama a 100 percent rating, as did the AFL-CIO. ADA's conservative counterpart, the American Conservative Union, gave him a 8 percent rating.
The anti-tax National Taxpayers Union gave Mr. Obama an F for his 2005 votes, which isn't surprising for a senator who has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.
In 2005, Mr. Obama voted with the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent of the time and 100 percent of the time the way the liberal environmental group League of Conservation Voters liked.
So, I guess you could call him a moderate if what you mean is a moderate between the "extremes" of Ted Kennedy liberalism and Barbara Boxer liberalism.
There's no doubt that Mr. Obama has voted with the left on several occassions. That's part of being in a party. But he's not the looney liberal that the right wing is trying to paint him out to be...
My response to patty:
I'm sure that you're familiar with conservative columnist David Brooks, so I won't bother to go into a background on the guy.
Here is what he says based on his conversations with Obama:
The third reason Obama should run for president is his worldview. At least in the way he conceptualizes the world, he is not an orthodox liberal. In the book, he harks back to a Hamiltonian tradition that calls not for big government, but for limited yet energetic government to enhance social mobility. The contemporary guru he cites most is Warren Buffett.
He has interesting things to say about the way culture and economics intertwine to create urban poverty. He, conceptually, welcomes free trade and thinks the U.S. may have no choice but to improvise and slog it out in Iraq.
Doesn't sound like a Ted Kennedy/Barbara Boxer liberal to me...
How about endorsing Joe Leiberman, when every liberal in America was suddenly a Ned Lamont fan?
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.
Article (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014444.html)
In fact, Obama selected Leiberman as his mentor (http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/) when he first entered the Senate. If he's such a far out lefty, then why is he chumming up with the righty pariah of the Democrat party? I think you see where this is going too... Rumors have Lieberman being courted by McCain right now in hopes that he'll switch parties and join his ticket at Veep. It probably wont happen, because once Hillary is shed from the picture, Leiberman will likely become Obama's running mate, continuing the relationship that they've already established and demolishing any concerns that Obama doesn't have the experience on his team to be president.
If Obama is "such a liberal" then where are all of his calls to pull out of Iraq? Not once has he mentioned completely withdrawing from Iraq. Instead, he's advancing his own proposals TO WIN IT.
If he's "such a liberal" then why is the far left distancing themselves from him (http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1472) for distancing himself from the Murtha/Durbin chorus line?
What about when Obama criticized the Democratic party tactics (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060130-123151-5630r.htm) with regards to the filibuster of Alito, chiding the party with an "over-reliance on procedural maneuvers?"
"We need to recognize -- because Judge Alito will be confirmed -- that if we're going to oppose a nominee, that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," he said yesterday on ABC's "This Week."
"I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," he said. "These last-minute efforts, using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it."
What about the fact that Obama co-sponsored a bill that would ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving (and subsequently deducting) to charity and their church with the Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill (http://obama.senate.gov/press/061206-congress_passes_obama-hatch_tithing_bill/index.html[/url). Oh yeah... Those far left liberals are all so well known for their Tithing bills!
What about Obama's take on Nationalized health insurance? From Time:
[When asked if] health insurance should be mandatory, like auto insurance, for those who can afford it? Obama wouldn't go there. "If there's a way of doing it voluntarily, that's more consonant with the American character," he said. "If you can't solve the problem without the government stepping in, that's when you make it mandatory."
The Fresh Face, Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546362-6,00.html)
Sounds like a knee-jerk liberal, huh?
What about the fact that Obama voted in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act, in favor of business, while the liberals in congress claimed it was a Republican effort to protect corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing?
The legislation aims to discourage class action lawsuits by having federal judges take them away from state courts. It was a victory for conservatives who hoped it would lead to other limits on lawsuit and for businesses that have complained for decades that state judges and juries have been too generous to plaintiffs.
What about the fact that he's already on record as saying that he would would consider missle strikes on Iran? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story)
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."
Oh yeah... What an unreasonable liberal. Somewhere in between Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, I tell ya!
Actually, he's more moderate than he's given credit for by the right wing noise machine.
By what measure?
According to Project Vote Smart, Obama has an 8% conservative rating from the American Conservative Union (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004177M) and a 100% liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Action (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004110M) based on his 2005 voting record.
Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein all outscored him on the ACU rating that year, each getting a 12.
Here is a quote from an editorial ("http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061218-093212-5950r.htm') that recites these and other special interest ratings for Obama:
The nonpartisan National Journal gives Mr. Obama an 82.5 liberal rating in the Senate. For comparison, National Journal gives Sen. Hillary Clinton -- the other most-talked about Democratic presidential wannabe -- a 79.8 rating.
For 2005, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave Mr. Obama a 100 percent rating, as did the AFL-CIO. ADA's conservative counterpart, the American Conservative Union, gave him a 8 percent rating.
The anti-tax National Taxpayers Union gave Mr. Obama an F for his 2005 votes, which isn't surprising for a senator who has voted with his party 97 percent of the time.
In 2005, Mr. Obama voted with the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent of the time and 100 percent of the time the way the liberal environmental group League of Conservation Voters liked.
So, I guess you could call him a moderate if what you mean is a moderate between the "extremes" of Ted Kennedy liberalism and Barbara Boxer liberalism.
There's no doubt that Mr. Obama has voted with the left on several occassions. That's part of being in a party. But he's not the looney liberal that the right wing is trying to paint him out to be...
My response to patty:
I'm sure that you're familiar with conservative columnist David Brooks, so I won't bother to go into a background on the guy.
Here is what he says based on his conversations with Obama:
The third reason Obama should run for president is his worldview. At least in the way he conceptualizes the world, he is not an orthodox liberal. In the book, he harks back to a Hamiltonian tradition that calls not for big government, but for limited yet energetic government to enhance social mobility. The contemporary guru he cites most is Warren Buffett.
He has interesting things to say about the way culture and economics intertwine to create urban poverty. He, conceptually, welcomes free trade and thinks the U.S. may have no choice but to improvise and slog it out in Iraq.
Doesn't sound like a Ted Kennedy/Barbara Boxer liberal to me...
How about endorsing Joe Leiberman, when every liberal in America was suddenly a Ned Lamont fan?
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.
Article (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014444.html)
In fact, Obama selected Leiberman as his mentor (http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/) when he first entered the Senate. If he's such a far out lefty, then why is he chumming up with the righty pariah of the Democrat party? I think you see where this is going too... Rumors have Lieberman being courted by McCain right now in hopes that he'll switch parties and join his ticket at Veep. It probably wont happen, because once Hillary is shed from the picture, Leiberman will likely become Obama's running mate, continuing the relationship that they've already established and demolishing any concerns that Obama doesn't have the experience on his team to be president.
If Obama is "such a liberal" then where are all of his calls to pull out of Iraq? Not once has he mentioned completely withdrawing from Iraq. Instead, he's advancing his own proposals TO WIN IT.
If he's "such a liberal" then why is the far left distancing themselves from him (http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2006/1472) for distancing himself from the Murtha/Durbin chorus line?
What about when Obama criticized the Democratic party tactics (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060130-123151-5630r.htm) with regards to the filibuster of Alito, chiding the party with an "over-reliance on procedural maneuvers?"
"We need to recognize -- because Judge Alito will be confirmed -- that if we're going to oppose a nominee, that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," he said yesterday on ABC's "This Week."
"I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," he said. "These last-minute efforts, using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it."
What about the fact that Obama co-sponsored a bill that would ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving (and subsequently deducting) to charity and their church with the Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill (http://obama.senate.gov/press/061206-congress_passes_obama-hatch_tithing_bill/index.html[/url). Oh yeah... Those far left liberals are all so well known for their Tithing bills!
What about Obama's take on Nationalized health insurance? From Time:
[When asked if] health insurance should be mandatory, like auto insurance, for those who can afford it? Obama wouldn't go there. "If there's a way of doing it voluntarily, that's more consonant with the American character," he said. "If you can't solve the problem without the government stepping in, that's when you make it mandatory."
The Fresh Face, Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546362-6,00.html)
Sounds like a knee-jerk liberal, huh?
What about the fact that Obama voted in favor of the Class Action Fairness Act, in favor of business, while the liberals in congress claimed it was a Republican effort to protect corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing?
The legislation aims to discourage class action lawsuits by having federal judges take them away from state courts. It was a victory for conservatives who hoped it would lead to other limits on lawsuit and for businesses that have complained for decades that state judges and juries have been too generous to plaintiffs.
What about the fact that he's already on record as saying that he would would consider missle strikes on Iran? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story)
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."
Oh yeah... What an unreasonable liberal. Somewhere in between Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, I tell ya!