Obama the “most liberal” senator of 2007
January 31st, 2008 by Brendan SteinhauserBen Smith of The Politico writes that Barack Obama was the “most liberal” senator of 2007, according to National Journal.
National Journal rates Obama the single “most liberal” member of the Senate last year, spotlighting some policy differences, as well writing GOP attack ad if he’s the nominee, but perhaps also a helpful note in consolidating support on the left now.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I seem to recall this same publication saying that Kerry was the #1 liberal back in 2004. If you read the methodology, you’ll note that missed votes weren’t counted. Clinton actually voted the so-called “liberal position” 12 times more than Obama, but since she had more votes than Obama, her percentage of “liberal” votes was lower. Clinton voted liberal on 77 of her 82 votes. Obama voted liberal on 65 of his 66 votes. Obama missed a lot of votes in 2007 while campaigning, but made it back for what he thought were the most consequential.
The ranking are exclusively about votes cast in Congress in the past year. In 2005 Obama was no. 16, in 2006 he was no. 10. If the NJ were to look at ALL his votes, they’d probably come to a different conclusion. The NJ suggests that Obama went left to curry favor with the Dems in the primary season, but the alternative explanation that he just missed a lot of votes, hence the high ranking, is equally plausible and probably more likely. The same trend was observed when the NJ named Kerry the “most liberal” Senator after he, too, missed a lot of votes while campaigning.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Good point Sickle.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Liberal is as liberal does. Who cares if BO or Clinton is the most liberal. Socialism is still at the root of the democratic effort. You don’t care about Main Street USA you care about your social programs. Now according to you BO went left to curry favor with the Dems in the Primary Season. BO has always been left!! Did he Go right before he went left? Just another Liberal.
What I want to know with so many of you bleeding heart liberals out there, How come we still have homeless on the streets? Why haven’t you asked them to come live in your homes? Why haven’t you offered to bring them to your house to stay with your family and get them back on their feet?
Oh wait it really isn’t about that it’s about getting more TAX MONEY. Why don’t all you Democrats start an adopt-a-bum program. To help support your efforts, if you send me the names and addresses of democrats I will send you a bum. It is a win win program. America wins by not having homeless on the streets and by saving the cost of another entitlement program and the democrats can feel like they have done something socialist.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Why the attitude, Jim Dandy (if that’s your real name)?? Did you even think about what you wrote?
Who do you think are the people you called “bums”? They are our veterans, our seniors, our run-away teens, and yes, they are “us.”
The CEO of a S&P 500 company made, on average, $14.2 million in 2007. Or, if you do the math, $6,827 per hour. Since these are hard-working, “non-bum” Americans we are talking about here, let’s make them work longer hours. Assuming they worked a 72 hours week, that’s still $3,792 PER HOUR, about 140% more than your average American who makes $55,000 a year.
In In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041 for A YEAR. The “street bums” you talked about would receive less money on average, because they didn’t have families to support. That’s welfare for you. Most people on welfare work, but still can’t get ahead. So on one hand, we have a very hardworking CEO that makes in an hour, what your “street bum” gets in a whole year. Don’t you think our “street bums” would rather not be street bums if they can help it?
30-40% of the “bums” may have mental illness because many were kicked out of long term care mental institutions, which state and federal government cut fundings or closed down and threw these people out on the streets. (No more welfare! Yah!) Statistics have shown a little bit of a social safety net can save a lot more on the overall social costs in the long run; but since we don’t have the social safety net any more, we have more “bums.” You may become one tomorrow, then you may wish for a safety net to catch you when you fall.
What do you think your so-called “social programs” and “entitlement programs” costs in TAX MONEY? I can’t tell you the amount because I don’t know what you’re complaining about, but it’s certainly a lot less than 700 billion dollars that Bush, a Republican president, is asking for.