I knew Obama was liberal, but I don't think I would have believed it until I'd seen it with my own eyes.
National Journal says Barak Obama was the #1 most liberal senator in 2007, while Hillary Clinton came in at a modest 16th. Hillary did improve her liberal score from 2006-2007, coming down from 32nd to 16th. I wonder if Obama will dig Hillary about her low score at the Democratic debate tonight?
The article didn't seem to have a link to the actual 2007 ranking itself, but there was a link to report through 2007.
For 2006, of the congressmen running on the GOP side, it lists Duncan Hunter as most conservative (why wasn't the GOP supporting a real conservative?) at a rating of 84.0, followed by Tom Tancredo at 73.3, then Sam Brownback at 70.3, John McCain lagging far behind at 56.7, and Ron Paul taking up the rear at 39.0.
It was his libertarian views that brought Paul down so low. I appreciate Ron Paul's respect for the Constitution, but libertarianism doesn't equal conservatism, especially with his dangerous position on Iraq and the war on terrorism.
If you look at the lifetime conservative rankings up to 2006, current front runner McCain improves to 71.8, but still considerably below the 82.5 lifetime conservative rating of Duncan Hunter.
McCain's conservative score is interesting to watch. It drops from the 80s in the 1980s to dip a little in most of the 90s, but then around 1998-1999-2000 (when he became a media darling), he dips down into the 60s and 50s and keeps dropping.
McCain's a conservative, huh? Go pull my other leg, now.
Technorati tags: liberal, conservative, election, McCain, Clinton, Obama, Ron Paul
Featured Article
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Liberal and Conservative Scores of the Presidential Candidates
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Our position in Iraq is dangerous all right: Dangerous in bankrupting the country. We are adding $600 billion to the national debt every year mostly due to the spreading the "Empire" in countless wars. Who are we kidding? We would be better off to bring all the troops home and secure the borders. At least we would have a fighting chance for America not to be owned completely by the rest of the world.
Do you have any idea what a small percentage of our budget military spending (authorized by the constitution) is, and what a huge percentage of our budget consists of spending that isn't even authorized by the constitution? You should look it up sometime.
Military spending is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-18%, while we spend about 50% on social spending that is in no way, shape, form or fashion authorized by the constitution.
So if you're worried about bankrupting the country, complain about all the socialism we've encumbered ourselves with and insist that Americans get back to doing for themselves instead of having government do things for them.
I think you must mean in neoconservative rankings, Ron Paul rates low. Ron Paul offers a choice no other republican or democrat can offer: EMPIRE and IRS vs. No IRS and noninterventionism. How can you say yes to policing the world when you can say no to the IRS? Finally the press has been derelict in investigating his ideas on sound money. A trip to wikipedia is enough to see that fiat money has destabilized the dollar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USACPI1800.png
The media needs to tell us why, not call Paul a kook for stating what should be the obvious!
As followup, Ron Paul hasnt changed his votes in the 30 years hes been in office. Yet in the 80s his position on the issues made him a sold mid-70 ranking conservative. In the neoconservative 2000s these same positions on the issues make him a moderate, in the 50s. Who changed the bar about what it means to be conservative? it wasnt Ron Paul who changed!
I don't disagree with you, MarkD, on taxes and money.
Where I and many conservatives part ways with libertarian Ron Paul is that we see more of a role for government in regulating public safety. Libertarians aren't anarchists, but they are at the far end of the governmental power structure from liberals, who want to regulate EVERYTHING. Conservatives see a limited role for government to maintain order and public safety where libertarians don't typically agree (drug laws, sometimes abortion laws, etc.).
Paul also sees little need for the U.S. to be involved overseas, and especially in the war on terrorism or in Iraq. Conservatives see these as necessary to maintaining our short term and long term safety and national security. We found out what a handful of terrorists could do on 911. And by the time radical regimes have developed WMDs, it's almost too late to do anything about it without lots of death and destruction involved.
That's why we had to invade Iraq, and it's why we have to ensure we leave Iraq a stable democracy, so it doesn't become another lawless haven for terrorists the way Afghanistan was before we invaded that country.
Post a Comment