Edwards "liberal" Senate record a lie....

[NMDemDist2]

While Scarborough accurately cited the correct National Journal composite liberal vote rating percentages for 2003, he inaccurately asserted that this rating made Edwards the "second most liberal" member of the Senate. Edwards's National Journal liberal vote rating of 94.5 percent, which was based on just 40 votes from one session of Congress, ranked him as the fourth most liberal member of the Senate for 2003 only. It is not representative of his more moderate voting record over the past five years in the Senate, during which he has cast more than 1,000 votes. According to National Journal, Edwards's average liberal rating for the five years he has served in the Senate (1999-2003) is 75.7 percent -- almost 20 points lower than the 2003 rating that Republicans are touting.

Scarborough's assertion that Senators Clinton and Kennedy both "ranked less liberal than Kerry and Edwards" was also misleading. While Clinton's and Kennedy's National Journal liberal vote ratings were lower than Edwards's for 2003, National Journal numbers show that his 75.7 percent liberal vote rating for the entirety of his time in the Senate is lower than Clinton's (83.9 percent) and Kennedy's (88.6 percent) overall liberal vote rating. Edwards does not even rank among the liberal top ten when overall averages of current Senators are compared. The tenth spot belongs to Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who has an average of 83.8 percent.

Furthermore, in a January 31, 2003, National Journal profile (NationalJournal.com subscription required) of "The Presidential Wanna-bes," "Among the other presidential contenders, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been in the moderate-to-conservative range of Senate Democrats during his four years in the chamber." And in 2002, Edwards made National Journal's list of "Senate Centrists" (NationalJournal.com subscription required). As Charlotte Observer staff writer Jim Morrill reported in February 2003, "Put another way: He was more conservative than all but 10 of the Senate's 50 Democrats ."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407090002

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080003

[chelsea0011]

1. You don't expect honesty from these right wing nuts. Do you?

Al Franken broke down his record yesterday citing the same stats you have here.. I've actually voted for right leaning Republicans in the past so I guess the repukes think I have a 100% right wing nut voting record. Stats are crap and the media is asleep.

[flpoljunkie]

2. National Journal rankings for years 1999-2003 for Kerry and Edwards

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_07_11_dish_archive.html#108965768304201905


(The 2003 rankings for them both were based solely on votes on economic issues--further skewing the outcome in the way the National Journal intended.)


More from Andrew Sullivan:

The NOMINATE system tracks all roll call votes, and rank orders Senators on a 1-100 scale. Kerry's ranking for the 108th? Tied for 24th--dead center of all Democrats. Edwards'? Tied for 19th. On a purely statistical basis, one has to at least consider a 146-vote sample to be superior to 30-odd votes. Anyhow, what about the 107th? Kerry 27th, Edwards 38th.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/letters.php

________________________

As you can see, these statistics are being reported by Andrew Sullivan on his blog; he is no friend of the Democratic party, and supports Dubya, despite his divisive gay-baiting agenda.

[Warpy]

4. It shows them both moving to the left

Or just staying where they were as the Congress lurched insanely farhter to the right.

That's just where we want them.

[flpoljunkie]

14. National Journal 2003 rankings based solely on their economic votes!

How utterly convenient for their ranking purposes!

[mzmolly]

3. I guess I wonder why "liberal" is such a dirty word?

I appreciate the information you posted. But, I wonder if were playing right into their hands by defending Kerry/Edwards against these statements?

I say the better strategy is to say what Dean did "If being a liberal means X, then call me a liberal."

[AP]

5. In a general election, they let everyone vote. Being thought of as mod-

erate is good.

[mzmolly]

6. I still prefer Dean's approach. We can't let them define liberal as a

dirty word. We wont win by doing that.

Here is how Dean handled it:

"If being a liberal means X, then call me a liberal."

X = balanced budgets
X = investing in our childrens future
X = environmentally responsible ect...

I trust Kerry will find an effective way to deal with this as well.

[AP]

8. This is a discussion of statistics. "Most liberal," "least liberal"

etc. are defined by a number.

Obviously, RW'ers want you to think that liberal is a bad thing, but this is basically a discussion about being honest about the numbers.

[mzmolly]

9. Point taken.

I just dont think we can't win this one on their terms.

[AP]

10. If anything will make people want to look deeper than labels, it's ....

...probably this discussion Mediamatters is encouraging about these rankings.

I bet to the average American voter, Kerry actually sounds a little more conservative than Edwards with his strong national security talk and Edwards always ranting about two americas and poverty and race and class. Yet Edwards looks more conservative than Kerry when you think about where they're from (NC vs NE). And then you throw in these crazy ratings which have Edwards variously at the top and in the middle of the left, and Kerry at the top and then at then in the top 2/5th.

Makes people wonder what's in a label. Maybe a rose isn't just a rose, if "rose" is a word that covers about twenty-five out of 50 kinds of plants.

[no name no slogan]

15. THAT's why we got our asses kicked in 2002. We're afraid of the "L" word

Why is this party so damned afraid of its legacy?

What is wrong with being LIBERAL?

Lincoln was a liberal. So was FDR, and JFK too. So was Jesus, for that matter.

I never thought I'd see the day when Democrats feel they have to come up with excuses for being liberal. Hell, even ol' LBJ is probably turning over in his freaking grave with all the triangulating going on with Democrats these days.

:crazy:

[Darkamber]

7. Liberal is a dirty word to the GOP

It's scaring the base back to Bush even the fiscal conservatives who are swing voters and might have turned to Kerry because of Edwards. They are trying to throw the "liberal" word out there to get those upset swing Republicans back to the base.

I think it's silly as well. Why is Liberal a bad word? Why is lawyer a bad word? Because it has been created as a stereo type.

Use this information though to set any conservative trying to make them look totally liberal right.

[katieforeman]

11. Thanks you for positng this.

It shows the dishonesty of the current administration. We need to go after their credibility every way we can.

[mike_c]

12. it's disgusting to see democrats working so hard...

...to distance themselves from the "liberal" label. Hello! That's what separates us from the conservative republicans. If we don't want to embrace liberalism, why not simply join the GOP?

[NMDemDist2]

13. mike, i see your point, but that's not the point we're making

being liberal is one thing, and both the candidates are liberal. But being painted "the most" liberal will take them out of the "mainstream" where most people fall (including me)

we need to combat the label "most" not the label "liberal" and especially we need to combat the LIE :smoke:

[no name no slogan]

16. "Most Liberal" isn't the problem-- letting the GOP say it's bad IS

Letting the conservatives get away with saying that being the "most liberal" is a bad thing is playing right into their slimy hands.

By trying to fight their "most liberal" tag as a BAD thing, we've just let them dictate the rules of the game, and given them a 100-point lead to boot.

Most Americans aren't as gullible as the GOP would have us believe. They KNOW that liberalism has produced many good things in this country. The problem is that the modern Democrats are too damned busy running away from those things in their efforts to appear more "electable".

[mzmolly]

17. EXACTAMUNDO!

:thumbsup:

I still suggest Dean's approach ;)