A "Centrist" with No One to His Left

[Overpaid Slacker]

The often sensible Washington Post editorial board came up with a howler yesterday when it argued that, notwithstanding Barack Obama's ranking by the objective National Journal as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate in 2007, it is "not clear" whether Obama is "a liberal at heart" or "more of a centrist." The Post's main evidence for this alleged lack of clarity is laughable. It notes that Obama declined to filibuster the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But, as Ed Whelan retorts, no Senator voted to filibuster Roberts; there was no cloture vote in that instance. In the absence of a filibuster, Obama did the next best thing; he voted against the Roberts nomination, even though half of his fellow Democratic Senators (few of whom can be called centrists) voted for confirmation.

Moreover, Obama did join in the unsuccessful filibuster of Samuel Alito's nomination. He thereby once again joined with most left-wing portion of his party's Senators. Thus, in Whelan's words, "no Senator was to Obama's left" when it came to the Roberts-Alito confirmation wars. It's similarly apparent from the National Journal's ratings that no Senator is to Obama's left generally.

Until this election cycle, a Senator's voting record was always considered the best evidence of his position on the political spectrum; nor were rhetorical flourishes ever counted as countervailing evidence. The Post's willingness to make an exception for Obama constitutes deception, the only question being whether the editors are deceiving themselves as well as their readers.

From Powerline (unedited, though I'm not in 100% accord with a characterization or two herein -- JP)

[widebody911]

Was there a point to this, or were you just hard-up to get in any liberal digs today?

[legion]

But he will unite America. He said so himself.

[widebody911]

For the record, I'm leaning towards McCain

[cairns]

Gotta love the Post.

In the wake of the street racing accident they had an editorial advocating more funding for police training to "recognize modifications that make a car go faster". (it must be fast it has the R sticker and the wing.....)

Last year their automotive editor stated the 997 Turbo had a V6. Then he bragged about getting it up to a hundred at Watkins Glen. He was invited to a Porsche DE event and evidently learned nothing.

If they're this biased and inaccurate on things automotive I don't think there's any question about their accuracy and bias on everything else.

BTW I'll vote for McCain too. In spite of the Times and Post smear articles.

[legion]

If you disagree with Obama, clearly you have no interest in national unity.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by widebody911

For the record, I'm leaning towards McCain

Getting your 12 billion a month's worth in Iraq are ya?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Was there a point to this, or were you just hard-up to get in any liberal digs today?

Thom --

Turn down the sensitivity. This is not a liberal "dig". It is intended not to bash Obama, but to highlight the degree to which he is specifically not running on his most notorious (almost "sole") credential: being the most Liberal Senator we've got.

His fellow-travellers don't want him to be judged by his lack of experience or his actual political bent, as reflected in his voting record. Which, to me, amounts to a stipulation that ultra-Liberal policies and politics are not preferred by, or perhaps, acceptable to, most Americans. If the US electorate wants an ultra-Liberal, well... OK; but let's make sure the electorate "knows" that's what it's voting for, and doesn't suffer from this illusion of centrism that Obama and his allies in MSM are trying to spin.

Obama is who he is, and I haven't (yet) taken shots at the policies he's espousing ... in large part because he studiously avoids making policy statements (hmmm.... why would that be)?

The point of posting this was twofold: (1) don't get snookered by the press' complicity in Obamania, or attempts to recharacterize him as anything other than what he is -- an inexperienced, ultra-Liberal politician; and (2) frankly, I post a number of articles on this board so that if I want to find it later for something else I'm writing, I don't have to search the 2 dozen websites I frequent wondering ... where the heck did I see that particular article.

I'll never be wanting for material with which to bash Liberals... it's like they deliver it to me, every day!

JP

[dtw]

Good luck Sammy. I tried to submit his voting record for discussion in another thread. Everyone preferred to howl about the muslim angle. Yawn...