Most Liberal Senator

Email Print posted by schmoab 02/01/2008 11:51:30 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Leeeeebruls

Obama was named the most liberal Senator by the National Journal (I think it's a non-partisan rag, but I don't really know for sure.)   Clinton was 16th.  At least that can dispell some rumors among Dems of who is the more centrist candidate. 

The amazing thing about Obama of course is that he's got Republicans saying they want him in office.  How cool is it that we can fool them into voting for a guy who actually wants to help them rather than just pretending to be interested in their problems?

 
Just trying to figure out if this helps or hurts Obama's reputation.  It's probably a wash going into the primaries, but the right wing noise machine will be beating this drum for the next eight months.  Have we taken back the word Liberal?  Does this sort of thing play anymore to people outside of the Bushites? 

< Final nail in the economy's coffin? | Why aren't the Democrats talking about Immigration? >
 Display:
Most Liberal Senator | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden)
It's no different (none / 0)

In terms of GOP talking points. They were already going to call him an unrepentant, tax-and-spend, godless liberal.

Using the NJ, though, to see who's more liberal is a poor indicator. Remember, John Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2004 by the same people's standards as Obama is now, and I don't think John Kerry is nearly as liberal as Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders.

Cynicism is poison to reform and pumps life into the status quo.

by prezalex on 02/01/2008 12:42:16 PM EST

We will never malign Obama! (none / 0)
(Until he wins the nomination.)

by KenTX on 02/01/2008 01:51:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain vs. Obama--whatcha gonna do? (none / 0)
We'll still take you in, Ken.

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 01:57:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its fun to watch (none / 0)
I revel in in the fact the conservatives hate McCain so much. Rush Limbaugh went on and on and on attacking McCain , even saying a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican party. Man Coulter went   on a tirade saying she would vote for Hillary if McCain is the nominee. The conservative blogeshere is cranked up to 10 preaching not to vote for McCain and yet he keeps winning. Will the ditto heads peal away and start supporting McCain? Already happening. I love it.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/01/2008 02:30:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What I really hope for ... (none / 0)
... is for both parties to fracture into multiples (after we put a non-psycho in the White House, sure) and bring about an end to the Duopoly that's strangled our politics for so long.  The days of the Rep/Dem dichotomy have got to end!

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 02:35:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't it be more... (none / 0)
...useful, appropriate, ethical, honest, unhypocritical, productive, constructive, attractive, etc., etc., to attempt to malign Obama's policies rather than stooping to the usual morally bankrupt Republican policies of maligning Obama himself with your more common ad hominem attacks?

by Juarez Traveller on 02/02/2008 06:40:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
simple answer? (none / 0)
Of course, but you don't think thats going to happen do you?

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 10:44:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Naw. Not a chance. (none / 0)

But it doesn't hurt to ask.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/02/2008 11:37:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey that's a good idea! (none / 0)
“Wouldn’t it be more useful, appropriate, ethical, honest, unhypocritical, productive, constructive, attractive, etc., etc., to attempt to malign Obama's policies rather than stooping to the usual morally bankrupt Republican policies of maligning Obama himself with your more common ad hominem attacks?”

Let’s see if we can find some good examples of productive, non-hypocritical arguments that are offered without ad hominem attacks.

I could easily provide another dozen examples, but I think you get the point.

by KenTX on 02/03/2008 12:00:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Excellent! Except that I can back it up: (none / 0)
1-2) Bush has openly declared that he can violate any law he wishes.  He has admitted publicly that he has violated laws and that he intends to violate other laws.  Now please tell me that you believe that someone who breaks the law should not have to answer to it.  Should a person who has committed a federal crime (a lot of people don't know that violating FISA was a crime punishable by imprisonment) not go to prison?

3) Let's consider these definitions:

bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

fascist - a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views

Please don't make me wallow in the filth of Savage by providing the countless quotations that are available.  Hell, all you have to do is turn on your radio.  If you believe that Savage is not both of those things then you have lost touch with reality.

Please provide more examples so we can see just how far into denial you have buried your head.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 12:36:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, and by the way... (none / 0)
None of the arguments I used at the links you gave were ad hominem arguments, which I studiously avoid and are of the form:

1. A person makes a claim.

2. There is something objectionable about that person.

3. Therefore the claim is false.

I have never found falacious arguments either useful or necessary when attacking the character of criminals such as Bush or fascist bigots such as Savage.  However, it is left as an excercise for the student to correctly identify the form of argument that I did actually use.

And, Ken, I invite you to try again.  But I hope you can come up with something that is at least a little challenging next time.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 02:32:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You take yourself seriously, (none / 0)
and you lack a sense of humor. Now that I know your weaknesses, this is going to be fun.

“None of the arguments I used at the links you gave were ad hominem arguments, which I studiously avoid. It is left as an exercise for the student to correctly identify the form of argument that I did actually use.”
In studying the various propaganda techniques you employ, I would rate demonizing the opposition at the top of your list.

But rather than debate definitions, why not debate issues?

“Should a person who has committed a federal crime (a lot of people don't know that violating FISA was a crime punishable by imprisonment) not go to prison?”
The Bush Administration told you they were continuing to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda communications. Bush openly and flagrantly ignored FISA, while conducting warrantless surveillance of phone calls from suspected terrorist origins to points within America. Democrats did absolutely nothing about it. Why?

After Congress hands power to the President by voting for AUMF, the President is given broad-sweeping powers to prosecute the war. After transference of war powers, he doesn’t have to ask for permission to fight the enemy or to protect the American people.

Maybe the Fourth Amendment does not apply to communications with the enemy when America is fighting a war? Did FDR require a warrant to intercept shortwave transmissions between the Japanese military and spies in Hawaii? Did Lincoln require a warrant to intercept telegraph transmissions between American citizens who happened to be wearing grey uniforms at the time? There is a precedent for aggressive prosecution of war by the Commander-In-Chief.

Note that your quaint FISA was passed in 1978 before the advent of cell phones, satellite phones, telecommunications supercomputers and global terrorism.
 
A crime punishable by imprisonment? Really? George Bush told you he did it, and he plans to continue doing it. What are the Democrats doing about it? Either they are a bunch of weaklings, or you are grossly mistaken.

by KenTX on 02/03/2008 12:18:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Barely interesting. (none / 0)
Sorry that you don't like my sense of humor, but I'm not trying to entertain you.

Also, if something I said about Bush or Savage was in anyway untrue, then you might have a case about demonizing.  But since I described their behaviors accurately -- and note that when you called it "demonizing" you show that even you agree that what they did was pretty bad-- you lose that argument.

But I will concede that you have demonstrated much better than I can the argumentative technique of avoiding and distracting from the issue while dishonestly implying that your opponent has positions that he does not have:  No Democrat has ever opposed listening in on the conversations of people who are in foreign countries (although I'll bet some treaties doing so are not far off in the future).  But a warrant clearly is required to eavesdrop on the telecommunications of people in the U.S., whether or not they are citizens.

And in some cases, including the most egregious case when he sought to eavesdrop on ALL of us whether or not we were communicating across our borders, Bush did not consult the FISA court at all as he was required to do under any version of the law.  That's a federal crime, and he should go to prison for it.

It's true that the Democrats in Congress are letting him get away with it.  I'm really pissed about that, too.  But what in the hell does that have to do with the fact that Bush committed a federal crime?

Oh, and about Lincoln: you have to read the whole Constitution.  Even habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion.  But I have no doubt that a FISA court would have granted him the authority to intercept the telegraph communications you mentioned, even if he had applied to do so three days after the interceptions.

Just out of curiosity: for what other federal crimes are you willing to let people walk away absolutely free?  Apparently, your support of Republicans indicates that you are willing to let someone go free after murdering 3000 people.  Well, maybe that's too strong.  I suppose if he jumped into your lap you'd have to do something about it then.

C'mon, Ken.  Surely you can do better than what you've done here.  Wanna try tax cuts?  Globalization?  Global warming?  I've got a million of 'em.

That's the problem, Ken.  Your side insists on maintaining loser positions no matter how much harm they bring to our country.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 03:56:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The game is over. (none / 0)
 Let's see who is flopping on the trotline.

“Also, if something I said about Bush or Savage was in anyway untrue, then you might have a case about demonizing.  But since I described their behaviors accurately -- and note that when you called it "demonizing" you show that even you agree that what they did was pretty bad-- you lose that argument.”
When I label you as a Stalinist, I am demonizing you. I might be correct in my characterization, but it would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to prove the assertion. When you label Bush a criminal, or Savage a fascist, you are demonizing them. If you can’t understand this concept, then you are even less intelligent than I give you credit for.

”Oh, and about Lincoln: you have to read the whole Constitution.  Even habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion.” 
Habeas Corpus can be suspended by the Executive during invasion or rebellion, but the constitutionality is certainly no slam dunk. Lincoln used this option to imprison Peace Democrats. If any of the 19 al Qaeda terrorists had survived, Bush could have tried them in front of a military tribunal, and summarily hanged them.

“And in some cases, including the most egregious case when he sought to eavesdrop on ALL of us whether or not we were communicating across our borders, Bush did not consult the FISA court at all as he was required to do under any version of the law.  That's a federal crime, and he should go to prison for it. It's true that the Democrats in Congress are letting him get away with [warrantless wiretaps].  I'm really pissed about that, too.  But what in the hell does that have to do with the fact that Bush committed a federal crime?”
There are two possibilities:
1. Bush had the constitutional authority to ignore FISA during time of war. (Just like Lincoln ignored Habeas Corpus.)
2. Bush boldly violated the law, and Democrats are afraid to take him on. When they finally cave on immunity for telecomm companies, you moonbats will go crazy. 

”Just out of curiosity: for what other federal crimes are you willing to let people walk away absolutely free?”
You need to address this question to Congressional Democrats.
 
A Democrat controlled House of Representatives can impeach the President with a simple majority vote. The burden is squarely upon your shoulders to explain why Congress has not even initiated impeachment hearings.
Again, you have two choices. Either Bush has done nothing illegal, or Democrats are absolutely incapable of leadership. The choice is yours.

“C'mon, Ken.  Surely you can do better than what you've done here.  Wanna try tax cuts?  Globalization?  Global warming?  I've got a million of 'em.”
In good time, you’ll have an opportunity to discuss all of these issues. Here’s your next topic: Why didn’t Pat Fitzgerald indict anybody for outing the identity of Valerie Plame?

by KenTX on 02/04/2008 01:24:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Juarez Response (none / 0)
Here is the sound of Juarez Traveler as he attempts a response.

by KenTX on 02/05/2008 01:21:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (none / 0)

Please tell me that you don't really think that you convinced anyone who didn't already believe that Bush Jr. is a great President w ith that milqtoast argument.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:56:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two weeks later (none / 0)
and you're still speechless after having your ears boxed.

I like an opponent who is docile and compliant

by KenTX on 02/17/2008 04:53:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting. Odd. (none / 0)
"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories."

Does he have a ranch in Crawford? I know damn well he's staying away from Arizona. He doesn't want to be lynched (oops!) eh, "hounded unmercifully" by his constituents.

I can't quite figure how Obama and Biden would be more Liberal than Feingold. Feinstein, sure, but Russ? Biden?

Thanks for the link. Good info.


Today's Song(s) of the Day - click here

by MedfordTim on 02/01/2008 01:02:21 PM EST

He wont be that welcome in Texas either (none / 0)
Not sure who is to liberal or not but Feingold always seems to be the voice of sanity when the Dems pull some bone head move. Enjoying the music especially liked the Alice Cooper medley. The player didn't launch using firefox but I switched over to Opera and it worked just fine so no biggie.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/03/2008 01:42:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
it's true (none / 0)

It's true...we all saw the Obama response to dealing with illegal immigration last night: driver's licenses, handouts, amnesty, and higher wages for the illegal aliens.

 

He has a Jimmy Carter like record going in the senate so far. 

by acroso on 02/01/2008 03:27:25 PM EST

At what point (none / 0)
did he talk about "handouts?"

by jarett on 02/01/2008 03:53:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you actually thought things through (none / 0)
You'd realize that the main incentive for hiring illegals is you can get away with paying them crap wages and thus make higher profit margins.  If you're forced to pay anybody the same wage, regardless of where they came from, that incentive would dry up and local workers would compete for those jobs on an equal basis.

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 03:55:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0)

...ya we could do that...or we could jsut enforce our laws..

 

Right now we're sending tax rebates to illegal aliens. How come the IRS and S.S. administrations can find these people but law enforcement can't? 

by acroso on 02/01/2008 04:35:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can you prove that? (none / 0)
If they're not paying taxes how do they get on the rolls for a tax rebate?

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 05:01:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
payoll taxes (none / 0)

Everyone pays payroll taxes. The tax rebate is for income taxes...well kinda.

Wesley Snipes....my new hero (besides Paul) 

by acroso on 02/01/2008 05:10:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That made no sense (none / 0)
The tax rebate is for people on the income tax rolls, and who are there at targeted rates, besides.  What do payroll taxes have to do with that?

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 05:54:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spinny - cut,, paste, and save that last header (none / 0)
If you continue to play with acrosa, you're going to be saying that a lot and you should be kind to your fingers.

HTH!

by MedfordTim on 02/01/2008 06:40:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Guess I'm channeling Quixote (none / 0)
I can't let a windmill go unchallenged.  Pity me.

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 10:48:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tax Rebate (none / 0)
The tax rebate is across the board...meaning if you pay any taxes at all payroll or otherwise...you should be getting a $600 tax rebate in the mail.

by acroso on 02/02/2008 05:19:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
its all stuff that has been tried and rejected (none / 0)
Wesley Snipes was acquitted because it wasn't proved that he knew what was going on. His accountants  where using tactics and arguments that have long been rejected by the courts. They are going to jail. .

by Chinese Democracy on 02/03/2008 12:54:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's assume the gov't can find them all (none / 0)
Through some magic they can locate every one of twelve million people here "illegally," and can even guarantee they're not mis-identifying someone who just happens to be Latino.  What next?  How do you propose to move twelve million people en masse without creating a humanitarian nightmare that would make shipping the Jews off to concentrations camps look like an easy task?

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 05:57:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
favor (none / 0)
I favor legal immgration.

by acroso on 02/03/2008 04:26:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That post would be a: (none / 0)
non sequitur

"If you're not pumped up, then get the hell out, 'cause you don't belong here." -- Cenk Uygur

by Spinny on 02/03/2008 10:18:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily... (none / 0)
...but it is a hijack attempt.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 10:53:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No.. (none / 0)

Obama and McCain both favor a special path to citizenship also known as amnesty.

 

That's something I oppose. I think the people waiting in line should get first chance instead of rewarding illegal immigration. 

by acroso on 02/03/2008 12:35:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
how about neither? (none / 0)

Liberals don't back charter schools. Period.

I don't know who these National Journal clowns are, or who they think they're fooling (clearly a lot of people), but these guys also named John Kerry "Liberal Senator 2003," which was as much a joke as naming Obama "Mr. Liberal 2007."

Who knows whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd certainly like Obama more if it were actually true. 

by ynp7 on 02/02/2008 04:35:58 AM EST

the most libarel is... (none / 0)
easy question: Mike Gravel

he's by far the most liberal on any subject, whether it be social, economic or judicial. Mike gives even most Canadians and Europeans a run for their money

but let's be honest, America is far from ready for someone as Mike Gravel, but if you're there, vote for the man, he's a great mind, who deserves much more weight on US policy

by callisto on 02/03/2008 11:24:32 AM EST

He was my first choice. (none / 0)

I always start a season with the hope that I can vote on principle.  But I always end up voting to try to minimize the damage.

Gravel is a good guy who is almost as left-wing as I am without being a crackpot.  Face it: Kucinich was looneytunes.  Gravel is rational.  He knows he doesn't stand a chance, but he wants people to talk about some things.  It will be decades before his ideas (which are tried and true and old in so many other places) get much of a hearing here.  But at least he's started the conversation.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 12:00:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Most Liberal Senator | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: