Comments on: Obama Nails McCain Again

By: lojasmo

lojasmo — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:19:34 +0000

Little known fact: McCain has been paid $60K in senate wages since he last bothered to vote or sit in a committee meeting.

By: firedup

firedup — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:48:27 +0000

and number 20 on the lsist of why Obama is qualified - he made a great selection for VP. Picked someone with outstanding credentials that is respected around the globe and won’t be a “yes man” to Obama.

DtM, what I’d like to knwow if McCain gets elected is do we get the 2000 version or the 2008 version that sucks up to the far right.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:24:08 +0000

I personally like the National Journal methodology. They weed through all the noise to arrive at those votes which actually were made using the official’s judgement and political beliefs. When you set aside all of the procedural votes and votes cast simply due to the caucus voting as a bloc, then you are left with the elected official’s true colors.

But, to humor you, if I use the other voteview methodology, Obama is #11. So, he is between the 1st and 11th most liberal Senator. Fair enough – let’s average him out to 5th or 6th. Hardly a guy who crosses party lines. McCain scores 30th most conservative on one and 8th most on the other. Let’s call him 19th most conservative.

As a moderate conservative, I want to know that if Obama gets elected, he will take a reasoned, enlightened approach to policy and not just ram left-wing policies through to make his donors happy (before I hear a chorus of “yeah-buts”, this conversation is about Obama and not Bush). I don’t have confidence he will do that. Going back on the Democratic side, Bill Clinton did, Carter did not, LBJ did. So there is certainly hope, but I’m not seeing it right now. I could live with another Clinton-esque administration, but we would suffer greatly if we get another Carter, with all due respect for his accomplishments post-presidency.

By the way, your voteview source confirms the NJ conclusion that Norm Coleman IS one of the most moderate members of the Senate. Exactly what Minnesota asked him to do for them!!!

By: Zach (the other one)

Zach (the other one) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:34:58 +0000

Yeah, DTM, you would do well to take anything published in the National Journal with a grain of salt. They are consistently light on the facts, and thats putting it nicely. That “most liberal senator” myth was openly debunked in the MSM in May.

By: SeanH

SeanH — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:25:16 +0000

DTM-Obama is NOT the most liberal Senator. THat is a fact. That is based hard data and facts-not the deeply flawed and debunked National Journal “study”. http://www.voteview.com/sen110.htm

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:03:56 +0000

“Whomever you mention is always “the most liberal senator.”
Doesn’t that convenient pretense of yours ever bump up against reality???”

I’ve been saying all along that Obama is THE most liberal Senator in Washington, because he is. That is based on hard data, facts. Data and facts — something Democrats would be well-served to utilize more if they want to secure and maintain power in DC.

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:47:13 +0000

Doesn’t work WORTH one either!!!

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:40:48 +0000

Do you know the “edit” doesn’t work with a crap here?

Doesn’t work WORTH a crap either! Seems a little arbitrary.

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:34:05 +0000

Point 1: “Voting against one’s party?”

Sounds very Maverick-yyy.
And we know that “maverick” is a synonym for what McCain really is: a loose cannon.

Someone who does not always play well with others. An out of control renegade on occasion. As his own party center sees him!!!
You want someone who is - what? Republican???

Normally, a renegade would appeal to me.
But there has to be some sense behind such anti-social behavior. A good reason.
Being anti-social & oppositional is not an excuse in itself.

In 2000, McCain may have embodied a reason to be “maverickey” & defiant.
In 2008, he has become a caricature of his former self. He is his own parody.

Wants to be called a “maverick” while he hugs the anchor on the SS Minnow - and we should too?

He has to run against who he was in 2000, to be palatable to his own party! He has to betray himself.
Or he has to be a sleeper agent. None of those options seem very honorable.

The rest are just BS RW talking points.
You can’t do better than parrot what you got emailed in a form letter? Whomever you mention is always “the most liberal senator.”
Doesn’t that convenient pretense of yours ever bump up against reality???

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:20:54 +0000

19. Has never voted against his party. Is a loyal partisan.
20. Is the most liberal Senator in the entire Senate.
21. Never had to waste time in some silly POW camp
22. Doesn’t have a history of successful bills introduced in Washington that can be used against him
23. Is a close, personal friend of Mayor Daley and the Chicago political machine. (could come in handy)