Anatomy of a Right Wing Myth: Obama is the most liberal Democratic Senator
By Howie Klein Sunday May 18, 2008 11:00amLately John and I have been gnashing our collective teeth every time we see one of the Republican shills on TV repeating, mantra-like, the #1 GOP Big Lie of the campaign: "Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate."
If only! Actually there are 39 Democrats with more liberal voting records, although Obama does at least beat perennial Bush rubber stamps Holy Joe Lieberman (CT), Ben Nelson (NE) and Mary Landrieu (LA). His voting record-- however you slice it, however you dice it-- points to a solidly mainstream centrist-- and, to be honest, considerably less liberal than... sssshhhhhhh... Hillary.
So how do CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC all allow the paid GOP shills to get away with their Big Lie? Good question. There's one cooked up National Journal "study" that these clowns keep referring to-- yes the same cloddish National Journal that criticized its own ranking of John Kerry as "the most liberal senator" in 2004.
This year, their utterly meaningless ranking system, ready-made for Republican smear attacks, defined "liberal" as members who voted, on January 18, to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. Given the Republican Culture of Corruption that still rules the Beltway, that may be anti-Republican, but what makes it "liberal?" Similarly anyone who agreed in mid-March to the final passage of a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission's Homeland Security recommendations, is suddenly "liberal?" And on May 9, Obama joined many other senators in voting to block individuals from serving on Food and Drug Administration drug advisory panels if they have conflicts of interest.
Let's hope more Americans start defining liberal this way. Because to me this all sounds very mainstream, even if John "W" McCain was on the wrong side of each vote.
Login or Register to post comments.
How can people use this "factoid" without pointing to the methodology?
Frist... hey... never done that before.
Funny, wasn't the GOP saying this about John Kerry four years ago?
Of course. If Hillary had won the nominatation, they'd be calling her the most liberal senator. Shit, if Evan Bayh had won, they'd be calling him the exact same thing.
Maynard G. Krebs @ 3:
Yes they did, and since we live in the United States of Amnesia, most people will sleepwalk through the new round of the same old smear, and not realize it's something they were told just 4 years ago about a completely different person.
Obama's health plan is essentially Hillary's but doesn't go as far.
But then Obama seems more interested in ended the war sooner, and the last I heard Hillary gave a date of around 2012 (which is the last year of a first term.) However, unlike mccain's later claim of 2015 Hillary was planning on being done with the war by her date, and mccain was only planning to start winding down.
Librarian @ 4:
What about Zell Miller?
Librarian @ 4:
If Lieberman won, it would be the exact same thing. They'd probably even go so far as to play on America's inherent antisemitism and drop suggestions that he's a dirty Jew, etc. etc. etc. Who cares that he's Bush's darling? Until he gets that R next to his name, they'll still attack him just like they'll attack anyone with the D next to their name.
“Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate."
Wish it were true!
Because most liberal = best!
Typical media negligence.
How long will it take for them to stop giving Grandpa McBush a break?
Maynard G. Krebs @ 3:
Yup. And, what's the big deal if someone is liberal? Liberal is obviously the correct choice for America. We've had a far right conservative agenda for the last 10+ years and Americans are far worse off for it.
"Outside the mainstream" will be the recylced talkingpoint you can expect to see and hear on television in the near future.
Nevermind that his great "liberal" position is opposition to this horrendous war, with everything else about him being pretty centrist.
"His voting record– however you slice it, however you dice it– points to a solidly mainstream centrist– and, to be honest, considerably less liberal than… sssshhhhhhh… Hillary."
Wow, we've come a long way when even so-called progressive sites are perpetuating the meme that being "liberal" is something to be ashamed of and at least Obama isn't as "liberal" (ie evil) as that witch Hillary. Your starting to sound like Aravosis over at Americablog.
BigTobacco @ 1:
Its not in the conservative/American mindset to wonder where information comes from. Thats what Academia and the Scientific Method are for. The enlightenment. However, religous faith and social traditions do not agree with the "WHERE" but only the "WHAT"
And he is also a secret Muslim and also he is going to work with that old Weather Underground guy to blow up buildings! Run! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
He's not liberal enough. Heck, the only candidate that was a true liberal was Kucinich. I wish we lived in a country where our candidates tried to be more liberal, as opposed to less. But then again, I am the most liberal person I know. :)
We really should have pundits from the left go on TV and say outrageous things like:
"The Republican Party is dominated by members who are embroiled in all sorts of sex scandals. Essentially, there is not a single one who has not been brought up on charges of a sex crime. John McCain is the most egregious offender. etc. etc"
...just to see the reaction
Can you PLEASE email this to Elisabeth Hasslebeck (The View)?? She spreads THIS and every other dumbass GOP lie every damn day on the tube.
There's no point in arguing that the attack doesn't fit the facts, because it's not intended to be a fact-based attack.
It's only intended to activate peoples' buzzword, knee-jerk negative emotional reactions to the word "liberal," as being some kind of lily-livered, limp-wristed, egg-headed, latte-drinking city-slicker who wants to take their money and give it to the "undeserving."
And it only works because Dems have traditionally surrendered the field of emotion-based politics and let the GOP have free-reign to define it this way.
We can't fight back with facts about voting records. We have to fight back by re-defining "liberal" to actually stand for those values that the Dems share in common with the majority of the American public. Make the GOP afraid to invoke the big L word because of all the good associations it should have!
I've realized all along that Obama is more right-ier than Ms. Clinton yet I still support him over her. Why? Well it's not for personal plumbing reasons as Rove would like you to believe - it's because he's *not* a Clinton.
I'm afraid Bill spent way to much time tripping the light fantastic with Poppy Bush (the real ringleader of this whole mess) and Hill's been tarred in the process. Plus, the sooner we get the Clinton goons (Stephanopodopoulis and Skeletor) offa the teevee and out of the national consciousness the better.
It's time for a complete purge. Yeah, I woulda preferred Dennis, or John E but I am perfectly willing to put up with a center right Democrat if will get rid of the current batch of crooks that have been at the trough far too long.
I am sorry, but when did "liberal" become a bad thing?
Liberal
Liberty
The fact that we allow the right wing to frame the debate like this is proof of the weakness of whatever passes for left in this country.
So the right wingers say he is the "most liberal" the left should say "so?"
One of the reasons why I stopped caring about Hillary, was that when she was asked if she was a "liberal" she tried to say "I am not a liberal I am a progressive." And thus allowing right wingers to frame liberal as something to be ashamed of. Maybe Hillary is still in her Goldwater Girl mode, and she is ashamed of being a liberal. But I am sure as fuck I am not ashamed of being a liberal, in fact I am damn proud of it.
When the reich-wing calls someone a "liberal", that are actually calling them mainstream since most mainstream views are considered liberal among the far reich-wing nuts.
ysbaddaden @ 7:
He was voted most likely to yell at kids to stop playing on his lawn.
The "most liberal senator" thing is obvious bullshit to anyone capable of critical thinking. You can't measure "liberalness." The "methodology" was clearly contrived to arrive at the conclusion that Obama is the "most liberal," just like it was contrived in 2004 to reach the same conclusion about Kerry.
Unfortunately, the people who are the target audience of this propaganda are not critical thinkers.
What's sad is that the "progressives" believe he's some great liberal, when in fact he's PRO nuke energy, PRO attack Pakistan/Iran, PRO GW's Energy bill, PRO Iraq funding, PRO Patriot Act, PRO Reagon, PRO Rumsfeld, PRO Lieberman, and worst of all....PRO GOD.
Yuck.
Well, both ironical and annoying is that for months I've been pointing out that Obama is to the right of Clinton on most issues. Is it really any more ridiculous that rightwingers are calling him "liberal" than that most Obama-bots call him "progressive"? At least one can say that the bots from the right are operating with a clear view of their target. They know it's not true, but they believe that saying it will gain their goal. Obama-bots are operating out of ignorance, don't know it's not true, and believe that saying it will gain their goal.
I'm not going to put my money on the lying right; but, I'm not looking forward to the years of excuse-making that are in the offing, once and if the Obama-bots get their man into the White House and then find out that none of their "progressive" fantasies are even on the agenda.
Thanks.
mp
I found this quote from 'The West Wing' on a blog's masthead a couple of years ago (sorry, no link), and it covered pretty well why I am unashamedly (proudly, actually) a liberal.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but can anyone with a claim to being American possibly NOT be a liberal when defined this way, just as the issues you point out in your post makes 'liberal' the mainstream of political thought.
I think that the Republican little boy has cried "liberal" once too often.
none of the presidential candidates is 'liberal' by even the wildest stretch of the imagination. Period. Full stop. The End.
Saloum @ 25:
Squawk! Good little parrot. Want a cracker?
The Dude @ 21:
very astute etymological observation, however the term "liberal" when used in the political spectrum usually applies to the amount of government. "conservatives" traditionally wanted less government, that is they want a conservative amount of governmental power. this is why many "conservatives" object so strongly to policies of bush and mccain. the department of homeland security and wars spending are not very conservative ideas. "liberal" government is basically a euphemism for big government, and so in a way the idea of "liberalism" and "liberty" are not very close to each other. this is why smart politicians avoid being branded "liberals" when they can. luckily, it's possible to be progressive without being a "liberal."
--professor nemo
I've just completed a study of the voting records of all Senators over the last 8 years. I looked at each vote and determined if it was a smart vote or a dumb vote. For example, voting to the the AUF is considered a dumb vote. Surprisingly, John McCain came out the #1 dumbest voter in the Senate. Now, if only a magazine with no journalistic standards would publish my results...
im still waiting for the "white baby" smear.... you know, the one where the afro-american stud should send a tremor of fear into all the white women he will be raping.
you gotta give the gop credit.... i run into people TODAY who say "i'm afraid of having a black man in office....."
yeah, obama is about as "liberal" as bush is "conservative"...
the 'liberal' scare tactic is less of a 'scare' and not as good 'tactic' as it was before the hypocrisy, failures, crimes and corruption of conservatives/neocons/neolibs was exposed for all to see.
we have seen/felt/lived the reagan-revolution failure. we have seen what supply-sider economics has wrought us. we have suffered enough of market-fundamentalism, military imperialism and policies that favor the rich and hurt the poor. And look at was befallen the country. Some will still be fooled, but I think the country has woken up to the reality that our fiscal and foreign relations policies (from Reagan, to bush, to Clinton, to bush) have brought the country to its knees.
if it were true that obama was a true liberal than i would say that makes him a better candidate.
I'm glad you are pointing this out. I looked up their voting records a long time ago and Hillary did vote more liberal than Obama.
Ever drop a lit firecracker inside an ant hill and watch in amusement as the ants scatter aimlessly in the aftermath ?
Me neither, but if it did happen, it would mirror the behavior we are witnessing in the Republican Party as they aimlessly scatter around trying to find some kind of footing from which to desperately try and salvage their party.
Frankly, I find it amusing.
What gives me the LULZ is that right-wingers somehow mistake the Democrats for the second coming of the Communist Party, USSR. The level of LULZ in what they call "liberalism" (actually on the right in most countries of the world, and even our Dems are moderate right by European and Japanese standards) being mistaken for Lenin and Stalin's methods of ruling Russia is beyond words.
There is nothing wrong in my book as being the most liberal senator in America. It's time for dems to get back to being proud to be called a "Liberal" as John F. Kennedy so eloquently spoke of in one of his great speeches. Though, I had never thought of Obama as the "most"
liberal, I actually felt proud to hear the wingnuts of the GOP label him as such. As far as I'm concerned, the more liberal, the more change this candidate will bring to our country which is now being dominated by the far-right "lunatic" fringe (as Arianna has so accurately defined them). This is the farthest right this country has been in our nation's history! Let's take all the "liberal" influence we can get people! (to at least get back to basic moderation).
miss_kitty @ 29:
Well said.
Liberal= generous
Conservative= selfish
Ask for a conservative helping next time you await your favorite meal.
Who is the most liberal member- perhaps I can vote for him/her?
Librarian @ 4:
They have been calling John McSame a 'liberal' ever since he won the, ahem.. GOP nomination.
I dont think they fully understand what the word 'liberal' means.
And this is good news???
We wanted the most progressive (Kuchinich/Edwards) but alas the corporate elite chose "triangulating" stooges to be the "finalists".
Pathetic.
2 words: Sanders, Fiengold.
BennyP @ 40:
Conservative = Constipated ideology
Say Whaaaaaa????
Oh, this will go over well with the Obama folks.
(bubble bursting)
naschkatze Hussein @ 28:
Exactly. All thinking voters (<60%) now question the motive of any pundit that uses the "L" word indiscriminately.
The sad thing is that in this country, liberalism (which in most countries is the centrist right, not the left) has become conflated with socialism, communism, and anarchism. I wish there was a significant American left in the above three senses, but after two Red Scares and the Cold War, we got the shaft.
I just wish that the First International had gone better for the Left, I really do.
Sen Byrd just endorsed Senator Obama
eriday @ 43:
Feingold??? Pissed off that Edwards was "faking it" and had "stole" his policy positions, he came out for the "others".
One word: Punk.
Of course they would have applied the dreaded "most liberal" label to whichever candidate won.
And of course the MSM would repeat it ad nauseum.
And of course most of the sheeple will believe it.
We are so screwed.
pissed off patricia @ 48:
Don't you just love these 11th hour endorsements? Typical politicians..
Gore directs Hillary to the door:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/al-gore-hosts-dnc-fundrai_n_102...
John Boehner told George Stephanopoulos several times yesterday "Elections aren't about the past - they're about the future."
Repubs want everyone to forget their miserable pasts, so, really, they don't have a leg to stand on going after Obama for his so-called most liberal record. Boehner's words should be shoved down their collective throats every time they try to bring it up.
Samson- @ 34:
Bush IS conservative! Wingers are trying to run away from his record, but the truth is that Bush is THE quintessential conservative. Every one of his policies has been pushed by conservatives in the past. His entire base is conservative. His entire appeal is to conservatives. Conservatives love him and vice versa.
The same goes for the term "christian". Bush is as christian as they come, and he does everything christians asked him to do, just as he has done everything conservatives wanted.
Bush is the direct and inevitable (not to mention predictable) result of Reaganism.
Considering what the reichwingers have done, "liberal" cannot possibly be a bad thing anyway.
"Most liberal" sounds like a good thing to me.
Now I'm confused. Obama fans over at the dailyobama and the Obamapost and some here were attacking the murderous,lesbian, racist,whore,bitch who was mean to Obama because she was a republican calling herself a democrat.
Now your telling me truth be told she's more liberal than Obama. But she is politics as usual and he is this great change. If your looking for someone to embrace liberal policy's and the democratic agenda why would you go for the centrist unless you want more of the same? So help me out who is closer to the republican?
Intelligent Americans aren't buying the same old Reslug crap that liberalism is bad.
me @ 50:
agreed.
in reality, ALL the candidates are varying levels of corporatists. in today's poltical climate, people use these terms like they actually mean something. in our one party system, which is corporate controlled, discussions over who is more "liberal" and who is more "conservative" seem fairly ridiculous. just a way to 'frame' people, appeal to the base, and use it as some sort of defining quality--which is all hooey.
me @ 54:
Wot 'e said.
Limp-Dick Blimpaugh @ 58:
But how many "intelligent Americans" are there? I don't believe the "liberal" tag is gonna have quite the same impact it's had before, but will it still have enough?
I hope not.
www.below-the-fold.com
me @ 54:
not so much. don't confuse conservative with republican.
actually the "real" conservatives dislike bush. hence the rise of ron paul. bush is the quintessential REPUBLICAN, not conservative. as they are not the same thing.
Hey, I thought John Kerry was the most liberal senator!... no wait, Al Gore is the most liberal senator!... no wait, Bill Clinton is the most liberal governor!... no wait, Michael Dukakis is the most liberal governor!... ad infinitum... ad nauseum
Samson- @ 62:
Yep. While most true conservatives tend to be racist or xenophobic, they don't like the idea of attacking anyone just for the heck of it. This is why Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Chuck Hagel have always been against the Iraq
warinvasion.The dems figured it out in 2006. Liberal is good. They just need to stick with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9URLUld91k
Michael Powe @ 26:
Michael,
Great post! Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one on here who just keeps repeating the Obama mythology, and then get slammed as some sort of GOP infiltrator. I'm about as left-winged as they come, maybe that's why I can so clearly see how NON-left Mr. Obama actually is. I trust HC a zillion times more. (I couldn't leave well enough alone, now that last comment will lead to 10 personal attacks)
Where do I sign up for your newsletter?!
Oh the NOES! Not librul! dun dun DUN!!!!
LOL!!
Note to reslugs: it's 2008, not 1908.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. You see, the republicans have shot themselves in the foot. By changing the definition of what a liberal is, they have made it more difficult to run against that charge than ever before.
Personally, I'm proud to be a liberal, according to my definition. I think that we should say it long and loud, "I'm liberal and I'm Proud!"
Seatech1 @ 68:
When I hear some pinhead say Liberal in a derogatory way, I say Thank You.
miss_kitty @ 29:
yup.
Saloum @ 66:
You may be right, but the reality is we can't go back to what could have been. It's almost certainly a choice between McCain and Obama. I'll always go with the most liberal candidate, and they are still not liberal enough for me!
that the "most liberal" senator/congressmen/politician is whomever is running against Republicans... Funny how that works, isn't it?
The only voters this is likely to work on are those who wouldn't vote for a Dem anyway.
The only shameful thing about being "liberal" is that the conservatives have been allowed to define the word. Anyone with a real high school education knows that liberals have made many of the greatest achievements in this nation's history.
Mike Malloy brought up a great point..
When and why did 'liberal' become a dirty word?
Even liberals skate a round the word, calling themselves progressives, or some other euphemism.
Liberals should be damn proud to be liberals- liberals are the ones who have fought for our civil rights- the rights of the workers, women's rights, gay rights- and as Conservatives always tried to maintain the staus quo and take rights away, and keep people oppressed.
Liberals were the ones who seek to improve America for all citizens..
Liberals always try and make things better-
Conservatives want to go backwards, and oppresss people, hence their hatred of gays, Latinos, Muslims, athiests and women
And being from Boston, I am proud to say I'm a Massachusetts Liberal. Some think that term is an insult, but not me...
What I want to know is what's so bad about being a "liberal" U.S. Senator. To me, being "liberal" means caring about the environment, human rights, gay rights, the Geneva Conventions, and people who are not Christian, American, or white.
But for a neocon, I guess being a "liberal" means wanting to appease terrorists, rename Christmas and Easter, and to persecute the Christian "minority" who make up 80% of the population of this country.
I asked this on another thread:
A "liberal voting record" is bad because ...?
We need to reclaim that word and trumpet it proudly. Perhaps JFK's famous enunciation of liberal principles needs to be recirculated.
All of the salubrious things in this country have come about because of progressive, "liberal" legislation, not mossbacked, regressive conservatism.
I agree that it's time we stand up for concept of "liberal". But, I also recognize that when the Republican
smear machine latches onto a theme, we need to actually counter it.
So Obama doesn't represent much change then, does he? Funny how that's only coming out now, rather than earlier in the Democratic primary.
The Republicans continue to use the word liberal as though it meant something bad.
The dirty word du jour is, and will remain for sometime time, conservative. The only way to make that epithet worse is to add the prefix neo.
It's time for liberals to take back the English language - Liberal is not a dirty word and the name of the party is the DemocratIC Party.
Each time we hear a dittohead moron snicker the word "liberal," respond with, "You say that as though it's a bad thing to be intelligent." When they persist in saying the Democrat Party. Respond with the Publican Party - in biblical times a publican was a collector of taxes.
Samson- @ 62:
Ron-Paul-bots are a tiny minority of the republican party. Tiny. Yet they claim the mantle of "real" conservatives. Well, they are, in the sense that they want corporations to have complete control over our lives.
Paul wants a balanced budget, but he wants to balance it by not just cutting back on, but ELIMINATING all social spending! No schools! No roads! If you want clean air or clean water, you will have to buy it from some corporation! THAT IS JUST FUCKING INSANE!!!
Add to that the fact that Paul is another religious anti-abortionist, and I really see not enough difference between him and "standard" conservatives to give him any consideration.
FUCK RON PAUL! AND FUCK HIS BOTS!!!!!!!
According to Bush, North Korea is part of what he calls the terrorist Axis of Evil, right? Hasn't anyone noticed that Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and the USA are actually in negotiations with North Korea? What hypocrisy! On top of that, there's a CNN article that says, “The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.” Why isn't that getting more play in the media. I found out about this on a startup blog at www.evilblogg.com. Some well-expressed and insightful opinions, there. Check it out.
Maynard G. Krebs @ 3:
They say that about everybody who is a democrat as if liberal is a dirty word.
Even if Obama was the most liberal senator (which he is not) so what?
Carlos @ 13:
?! Where'd that outburst come from? I think all Howie is saying is that Obama consistently has the support of "more liberal Democrats" in primary exit polls, so it might come as a surprise to these voters that Hillary actually has the more liberal voting record.
This is why I thought the whole "get out and vote" thing was a bad idea. There are way too many people willing to vote based on stupid sound bites and buzzwords, then to base it by actually taking the time to research each candidate and come to their own conclusion.
Obama might be the most liberal Republican senator.
Dana @ 83:
And, as pointed out before by a poster, the Dems need to embrace the "L" word as a POSITIVE. It's not the Scarlet Letter!
Dr. Acula @ 87:
Then they'll think we're all lesbians.
ysbaddaden @ 88:
I was waiting for that, Ysb!
It's something like, "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."
Name the movie.
Great job.
Hahahaha........liberal? Liberal? Hahahaha.....there is not a single liberal in either of these two parties running for Prez. Not one. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Most liberal member of the senate = any Democrat who happens to be running for president that year. The GOP doesn't have to back any of it up with facts when they have press corp insiders who will repeat the mantra for them non-stop. Unfortunately this is partly our own doing. Many on the left ran away from the honorable title of "liberal" years ago and have let the right redefine the word as they saw fit.
Blue Taliban Osama Buddha @ 63:
Yep. One winner in four tries ain't bad.
Jeez.
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion out there as to what Liberalism is.
It may be time to brush up on our history kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberaL#Origins_of_liberal_thought
Spare some change? @ 79:
It "came out" long time ago. However there was some reading involved. Generation Obama just fell back on the "Hope and Change" marketing and settled for image over substance.
Fast food, reality show, short attention span democracy in action.
The mainstream media is worthless. Buy their soap everybody!
Assassin @ 84:
Which of the two is more liberal depends on what standard you use, but it's clear they aren't very far apart from one another. The reality is that there are a set of core policies this country operates under - many of which were put in place during the Reagan years - and neither Hillary nor Obama are going to do anything to alter those policies. With either a Democrat or Republican in the WH, the U.S. government will....
- keep military forces in Iraq
- increase defense spending
- fund the defense budgets of Israel, South Korea, and other foreign countries
- take the side of Israelis over Palestinians
- allow corporations to run the healthcare system
- allow corporations to set the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, and other necessities
- allow corporations to continue their destruction of the American landscape
- allow in an unrestricted number of immigrants (both legal and illegal)
- allow auto manufacturers to continue producing gas guzzling automobiles
Unfortunately, "most liberal" is a buzzword even the stupidest, most corn-brained idiot from Gunsucker YewSA can read and repeat with one grubby digit poking the air. A-yup a-yup a-yup.
Loosely Twisted @ 90:
inconceivable!...
BennyP @ 40:
See, you miss the conservative point here but still have the correct conclusion. They would say you are being generous with THEIR money and they are tired of carrying everybody on their backs. They seem to think they are the only ones that work for a living or something. Liberals are or are in favor of lazy welfare bums. Their victim mentality is their selfishness in thin diguise.
Ron @ 101:
Must get kinda uncomfortable living in that bubble. One of these days it's gonna pop. But don't worry, we'll be here to help you out when you need it the most.
Login or Register to post comments.