2004 "Republican National Committee Ad: "Risky" Announcer: John Kerry . . . The most liberal man in the Senate. The most liberal person to ever run for president. He voted to cut our military . . . . To severely cut our intelligence agencies . . . . He voted for higher taxes 350 times . . . . And now he wants to be our President . . . . We live in a dangerous world that requires strong and steady leadership. John Kerry is a risky choice for America . . . a risk we cannot take. The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising." "_____ is the most liberal ___in the nation." Don't we seem to hear this every for years? I guess next time around the Democrats will run the Jane Fonda/Alan Alda ticket.
It's a function of the nominating process. And yes, Obama is the most left-wing member of the Senate.
BS. Again. There is no such thing as "most liberal",Does anyone really think Obama and Joe Biden are more liberal than Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders? Actually, the ultra liberal "Mother Jones" has a pretty good article on the National Journal ratings, which I find pretty persuasive.http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/7051_obama_1_most_li.html
Been saying the same thing for months: "Most liberal of all" is a charge that gets trotted out like clockwork every 4 years. I disagree that it's a function of the nomination process. I think it's a bread-and-butter talking point.
After 8 years of Regan 4 years of Bush Sr and 8 years of GWB using trickle down economics the right now has proven to people they only care about filling their pockets with money and the country is sick of it. Unless Obama gets caught in some really bad scandle I cant see the right sitting in the oval office for many many years. liberal is the voters want and a liberal is what they are gonna get.
The generation of Reagan Robots are so far to the Right, that they think the middle is the Left. And in the context of him time, Eisenhower was the most liberal candidate ever. Troops to Little Rock. Wanted to dismantle the FBI. In his last Presidential address warned of the "build up of the military industrial complex.
"most liberal ____" is the new "card carrying member of the ACLU." just buzzwords to scare the right.
Goes along with the other typical Republican faux dirty words : liberal press, community organizer, class warfare, tax and spend, whatever else they think the rubes out there will buy to support their agenda. It's all pr bs. Most librul candidate ever, until the next time anyone runs for any office, then they will be the most librul ever.
The average voter that decides national elections is more centrist than far left/right. That's why both candidates run to the center after the primaries and attempt to paint the opponent as an extremist. This is why the McCain campaign ignores the vast amount of evidence that counters the single rating that shows he's the "most liberal" and why such sites like politifact.org and factcheck.org give the claim a rating like barely true. It's a talking point that works though which is why it's trumpeted here over and over.
It is a function of the nominating process. The D Party is dominated by left wing nutjobs and the R party is dominated by right wing nutjobs. You have to get their support first to get the nomination. Then both the D candidate and the R candidate then have to try to appeal to the vast middle ground where most Americans reside. Its no big deal really, its just the way the process works. The reason that I think Obama is going to win is that he has done an effective job of trying to sell himself as a moderate, just as Clinton was able to do. The big difference is that Clinton was in fact relatively conservative for the D party and easily gravitated to the middle. Is that where Obama really wants to be ? Of course not. He is a classic redistribution of wealth, liberal candidate. But he is also smart enough to know that he can't get elected with that agenda. So he has softened his positions to sound moderate in order to get elected. Likewise, McCain is likely to lose because he has not been able to clearly articulate what he would do differently from an unpopular Bush presidency and why it would be dangerous to elect someone who is as inherently as liberal as Obama and Biden. And most importantly, I think McCain should have voted against the $700 billion package to distance himself from Bush and Obama and lashed out at the pork in that plan. He failed to sieze that strategic opportunity. In my opinion Obama will win the election handily. But if he thinks its a mandate for a liberal agenda, he will be totally wrong. We are a moderate to slightly conservative society by and large. And if the people think they are electing a moderate based on the campaign rhetoric but he turns out to be extremely liberal, Obama will be a one term president. If he in fact embraces a more moderate position in his presidential actions, like Clinton, I think he stands an excellent chance to be a two term president. His biggest problems might actually come from his own party. If folks like Pelosi, Frank, and Waxman see this election as a mandate for a liberal agenda and Obama signs off on it, he will be toast. I also think his rhetoric of "change" and "hope" is so idealized that that may come back to bite him as well. At the end of the day politicians can't help themselves and they will screw stuff up by furthering their own political agenda. The Ds have just as many special interests as the Rs, its just a differnent set of special interests If Obama does everything the unions and folks like ACORN want he will be toast. If he effectively helps the economy, small business development, etc. he will be a hero. We'll see. As always, it is a whole lot easier actually having to govern than it is to criticize those that are governing. Just as the Rs have screwed up and given the Ds a fresh new opportunity, I predict the Ds will also screw up and give the Rs a fresh new opportunity in 4 to 8 years. Its just the cycle we live in. Just my opinion. Hook em
