A Conservative for Obama

[Roland Hamilton]

Yet another one - this time, a former publisher of the "National Review":

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

"But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse."

Well said. Welcome to the reality-based community, Mr Allison.

[Jim Franklin]

So many rating and ranking lists identify Obama as far and away the most liberal to have ever sat in the US Senate then the "Conservative" has lost his moorings.

[Roland Hamilton]

So many rating and ranking lists identify Obama as far and away the most liberal to have ever sat in the US Senate then the "Conservative" has lost his moorings.

Actually, it's the definition of the term "Conservative" that has lost its moorings. :basic02

[Charles W Christian]

So many rating and ranking lists identify Obama as far and away the most liberal to have ever sat in the US Senate then the "Conservative" has lost his moorings.

Those "rankings" actually spawn from the National Review, a VERY conservative magazine. In looking at their actual list of what qualifies as a "conservative vote", I personally disagree with what they're calling "conservative" or "liberal." Some of the things they call "liberal votes" I would call Christian votes (but not all)! Some they call "conservative" votes, I call unChristian votes!

So, consequently, I don't buy their labeling of Obama as "the most liberal," etc. It's just a spin job. It's been a very successful one, though, I have to say.....

Charles

[David Parker]

Those "rankings" actually spawn from the National Review, a VERY conservative magazine. In looking at their actual list of what qualifies as a "conservative vote", I personally disagree with what they're calling "conservative" or "liberal." Some of the things they call "liberal votes" I would call Christian votes (but not all)! Some they call "conservative" votes, I call unChristian votes!

So, consequently, I don't buy their labeling of Obama as "the most liberal," etc. It's just a spin job. It's been a very successful one, though, I have to say.....

Charles

You appear to be confused.

For many years, it has been the National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm) that ranks congress, not National Review. They have no connection what so ever with National Review other than similar first names.

National Journal is a weekly magazine that reports on the current political environment and emerging political and policy trends. National Journal was first published in 1969 and is now part of National Journal Group, a division of Atlantic Media Company. It was purchased by David G. Bradley in 1997.

National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders. It is read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists. Most of the journal's content is available to everyone, but some content can be accessed only by subscribers.

The magazine has received three National Magazine Awards.

They do both the liberal and conservative rankings based on voting record. It simply is not "spin". Here (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm) is how they do the rankings.

[Hans Deventer]

You appear to be confused.

That comes natural to left wingers, David. The only way one can vote Democrat. :laughing

[Brady R. Lane]

That comes natural to left wingers, David. The only way one can vote Democrat. :laughing

Hans, it is so good to see you finally coming around. Maybe there is hope yet!;););)

[Jim Franklin]

Obama has championed the causes and the agendas of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the killer of more babies than any other orgainzation.

[Charles W Christian]

You appear to be confused.

For many years, it has been the National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/cons.htm) that ranks congress, not National Review. They have no connection what so ever with National Review other than similar first names.

National Journal is a weekly magazine that reports on the current political environment and emerging political and policy trends. National Journal was first published in 1969 and is now part of National Journal Group, a division of Atlantic Media Company. It was purchased by David G. Bradley in 1997.

National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders. It is read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists. Most of the journal's content is available to everyone, but some content can be accessed only by subscribers.

The magazine has received three National Magazine Awards.

They do both the liberal and conservative rankings based on voting record. It simply is not "spin". Here (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm) is how they do the rankings.

Actually, I was referring to this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200408260833.asp

Isn't it funny how National Journal ranks whatever Democrat is running for Pres. as "most liberal"??? Hmmm... Sounds fishy to me. That's my point. I have indeed seen the "liberal" ranking questions, and many of them are just plain unfounded. Also, National Review (the conservative mag) always makes a lot of those "rankings" this time of year. And, I'm not the first one to question National Journal's ability to "rank" someone as liberal or conservative.....

By the way, Playboy has won some national awards, too, and I'm not a fan of that one, nor does it bring it some sort of esteem to me....Just a thought....

Charles

[David Parker]

Actually, I was referring to this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200408260833.asp

Did you link the wrong article? That is just a 2004 opinion piece talking about Kerry's avoidance of a "real" interview. Nothing there about liberal rankings.

Isn't it funny how National Journal ranks whatever Democrat is running for Pres. as "most liberal"??? Hmmm... Sounds fishy to me. That's my point. I have indeed seen the "liberal" ranking questions, and many of them are just plain unfounded. Also, National Review (the conservative mag) always makes a lot of those "rankings" this time of year. And, I'm not the first one to question National Journal's ability to "rank" someone as liberal or conservative.....

To the contrary, Hillary is only ranked #16 most liberal and it seems to me she was a Democrat front runner.

National Journal has been doing these rating for many years and they are reputable and non-partisan. Here is their methodology. (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm)

But if you don't like National Journal's ratings for some reason, how about the ACLU, or NAACP, or NARAL? Here are all their ratings:

How Interest Groups Rate the Senators (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senator_ratings-2005.html)

The average score of 8 "liberal" interest groups have Obama tied in first place (most liberal) with two other senators.

But more importantly, what's the big deal? Socialists and liberals should be proud of his ratings. Why fight it if you believe like he believes?

[Tonya Sneed]

So many rating and ranking lists identify Obama as far and away the most liberal to have ever sat in the US Senate then the "Conservative" has lost his moorings.


I only WISH that Obama were liberal. From where I sit, he's very conservative.

[Bruce Carriker]

Obama has championed the causes and the agendas of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the killer of more babies than any other orgainzation.

You combine NARAL and Planned Parenthood into one entity, they say they have killed more babies than any other organization. How many are each responsible for individually? Do you happen to know?

While I am pro-life, I am consistently, across-the-board, pro-life, and refuse to be trapped into being a one-issue voter any longer.

According the National Right to Life Council, there have been approximately 52 million abortions in the US since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. In that same time, according to Bread for the World, nearly 200 million African children under the age of 5 have died from hunger, or diseases related directly to malnutrition.

So while I'm firmly on the pro-life side in the abortion debate, I'm not convinced its the biggest threat facing the children of the world. Rather, I think it's a political tool, pulled out every fourth year by the Republican party, in order to keep the Christian right on board with an otherwise anti-Christian agenda.

[Bruce Carriker]

But more importantly, what's the big deal? Socialists and liberals should be proud of his ratings. Why fight it if you believe like he believes?

Exactly! Which is why you've heard not a peep from me on this issue. I don't care if he's rated #1.

It's the folks on the right who think "liberal" is a dirty word that they can use to frighten everyone into supporting a guy who is so out of touch that a week ago today he still believed the economy was fundamentally sound.