Oops!

From what I understand, democratic presidential candidates always seem to get the most liberal tag during election years because they typically only come back to vote for the bills where the dems need their help, i.e., the more "liberal" bills. Hence Obama's "less liberalness" in 2005 and 2006.

I don't know where they come-up with this. More liberal than Russell Feingold?

It's a sign of how far to the right the country has moved when a moderate consensus-builder like Obama can be considered a leftist.

I fail to understand, even after the passage of time, why the Flip-Flopper label stuck to John Kerry, yet after apparently YEARS of doing exactly that, it has yet to be stamped on McCain's forehead.

Give the man a break, he's got seven houses and thirteen automobiles to maintain. Who's got time to go to work under those circumstances?

This post says that McCain used to vote as a real conservative for eight years.

Then he started voting moderate. And this moderate Senator gets called "the old McCain."

The old McCain is a guy who voted with the far rightwing because that was the tenor of the day, then moved to the middle as an opportunistic ploy. Now it no longer works and he's moved to wherever he needs to be in a given day. Which, if you read his own remarks about how much he's wanted the Presidency, is what he's already done.

The "old McCain" is the guy who does whatever works for him, regardless of what wives or votes are left in his wake.

And Thomas, really, why are we being "fair to McCain" in this blog? Save your fairness for opinion pieces. This is the War Room. WAAAAAARRR Room. How many times do you need to hear it?

I can't believe that Obama's voting record is more liberal than Bernie Sanders. Say it ain't so.

Dear Joe,

I never knew how much I was going to love you. I am so surprised by how much I like and admire you as a candidate since Obama chose you for his ticket!

Here's my advice for your upcoming debate: 1) Allow that Palin will win the debate on the grounds that everyone has low expectations for her intelligence and many happen to like how spunky she is. 2) Make the point explicitly during the debate that even if viewers leave the night feeling connected to Palin--cheering her on somehow--they need ultimately to take very seriously the consideration that she very likely WOULD be the next president if her ticket is elected. If Palin shucks aside her responsibility to be smart enough to engage the questions on an intellectual level (e.g., by pivoting to a talking point), you can, in your own very endearing, self-deprecating way, immediately call her on it by asking the audience directly if they wouldn't rather have someone who deeply cares about the law and the world than someone who doesn't? Do we --the audience-- really want a president who hasn't demonstrated she cares enough about the job to have read extensively and made knowledge about world affairs part of her preparation for the job?

You'll be doing us all a favor if you can win the confidence vote, even if you can't win the personality vote. (Not that you don't have a terrific personality in my book.)

Sorry, My humble " Advice for Joe" was intended for posting in the previous blog!

A more cynical view is that McCain moderated his political stance and became a "maverick" in a deliberate attempt to repair the damage to his reputation from the "Keating Five" affair. McCain was criticized for poor judgment by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for his part in the affair and his reputation was in shambles at that time as a consequence. In November 1994, the Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate (remember Newt Gingrinch), so the Republicans now had the majority of votes in the Senate and they could afford to give up McCain's vote while he played maverick. McCain also started getting "interested" in election reform during those years, another obvious attempt to showcase his new-found role of a "moral" lawmaker trying to root out corruption in the Senate. I don't hate McCain, but I do think that he became a "maverick" in 1995 for political reasons, pure and simple.

Obama should be proud to be a liberal. This country has been at its best when liberals were in charge. I'm not sure he should even get involved in this bail out.

I rather imagine Mccain failed to vote because he didn't want a record of his votes that could be used against him, especially in the primary, but in the gerneral, too. He was toast either way he might have voted on an issue. Too moderate? Forget about winning the primary. Too conservative? Forget about attracting moderate independents in the general. It's a very cynical approach, but does that surprise anyone after palin?

...we could, you know, call the NJ rankings what they are, an arbitrary and overtly partisan exercise to reinforce conservative talking points and attack Democrats.

If you look at McCain on any number of issues - choice, taxes, regulation of businesses, judicial appointments, he's a conservative ideologue. Saying he isn't based on NJ is just silly.

Miss Alaska, Mr Universe, Most Librul Congresscritter

Republican doublespeak double plus ungood.

How is Obama the MOST LIBERAL EVAH! when it was Kerry four years ago? How could either be true when Ted Kennedy is still alive (to name just one)?

The "Most Liberal" accolade is a preliminary shot across the bow to set Overton Window expectations, and everytime that meme is repeated it should be challenged by challenging the idea that "conservative" = good.

As for McSame, he hasn't gotten more moderate, his party has swerved "right" into the ditch.

He needs to use the debates to show his fire, not his coolness. He's shown that over and over again. He showed in the acceptance speech that he has the fire, just show it in the damned debate!

Please Thomas, google this National Joural "study". Then repudiate this post and never reinforce this RNC talking point again.

He's NOT the most liberal senator, and the fact that he was rated such should have set off your bullshit detector instantly. NJ historically picks and chooses votes for their ratings for the sole purpose of making whomever the current Democratic nominee is appear more liberal. In this case they had to do some wild contortions to do so -- focusing on a procedural vote on an ethics matter, which had no clear liberal/conservative slant, while ignoring major bills where there were clear party differences.