Edwards Raises $150,000 for Kerry

[wjsander]

snip------------
-By KEN THOMAS
The Associated Press

Edwards raised $150,000 for Kerry on Saturday in heavily Republican southwest Florida, telling Democrats President Bush is out of touch with America and criticizing him for bragging about an improving economy while most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck.


snip------------

$150,000?! WOW! Not a bad day's work.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040613/NEWS/406130435/1004

[MikeG]

1. Someone tell me why Kerry hasn't picked this guy for VP yet?

[chimpymustgo]

2. I hope Kerry's just waiting for the right moment.

Early July. Let the fireworks begin!

[wjsander]

4. No clue

Since Kerry became the front-runner, Edwards seemed to be the obvious choice. With Edwards drawing in so much support, I can't imagine Kerry going with someone else, spurring people to question his pick every time things don't go well.

[BiggJawn]

5. That would be a strong team.

I've heard some RNC astroturf that Edwards would be a poor choice because Kerry and him would be fighting over policy all the time. Bullcrap, both these guys are smart enough to pull together. Kerry-Edwards would be an incredible team. But then, the only team I'd sweat over would be a Kerry-Lieberman ticket...That'd be a nightmare!

No wonder Karl's trying to lay all the astroturf he can.

[AP]

6. Kerry And Edwards "aren't all that different"

On the night of February 17, after finishing a surprisingly close second to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in the Wisconsin primary, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., made the rounds of television interviews and repeated what has become a familiar theme. Asked on CNN about his campaign strategy, Edwards replied that he planned to emphasize the contrasts between him and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I think it's important for people to know the differences between us," Edwards said. "I like and respect John Kerry very much. And I think he feels the same way about me. But we have differences." Edwards added a few moments later: "There are clear differences between us. Now those differences will become more apparent to Democratic voters."

Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5. But Edwards wasn't far behind: He had a 2003 composite liberal score of 94.5, making him the fourth-most-liberal senator.

http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/02/0227nj1.htm

[struggle4progress]

7. I'll have real trouble believing anybody who says ...

"Kerry is the most liberal Senator" or "Edwards is the fourth most liberal Senator."

I consider them both not-very-liberal moderates.

[AP]

8. The article sets out it's methodology. I have real trouble believing ....

... opinions based on feelings. You have all the tools you need right there in front of you to dispute the findings.

Granted the senate isn't all that liberal. But there you have the most liberals members right there.

[struggle4progress]

9. I can't read the article, since I'm not a member ...

so I'd have to take your word on methodology and on most of the rest of the article. That's clever of you! :)

Other DUers might enjoy doing a google search on

"most liberal senator" kerry

because what pops up among the top hits are drudgereport, washingtontimes, humaneventsonline, crushkerry, talonnews, patriotsforbush, liddyshow, and other right wing sites. That at least tells me who's excited about the idea that kerry is the "most liberal senator," which may itself provide a useful clue about "methodology."

"Ratings" of politicians, based on votes, always depend on which votes are chosen and how the choser actually interprets those votes; in this sense, I would have to strongly disagree with your view that such rankings aren't based on "feelings." The Americans for Democratic Action "Liberal Quotients" for 2003 (obtained in this way) show at least 24 senators more liberal than Kerry.
http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

An algorithmic ordering of the 108th by Keith Poole at the University of Houston, showing party identification, based on roll-call votes largely agrees with my intuitions. Poole claims it divides Senators along the liberal-conservative axis; under this interpretation, it shows Kennedy, Sarbanes, Leahy, Dodd, etc. as being rather more liberal than either Kerry or Edwards.
http://voteview.uh.edu/sen108.htm

So different rankings are available. But it seems clear to me that "Kerry is the most liberal member of the Senate" is a right wing rallying cry.

[AP]

12. I'm not a member and I read the methodology and the votes upon which the

measures are based. They're in the links in the left column.

[struggle4progress]

13. Well, when I click on your link, I get a member sign-in screen.

"NationalJournal.com is a "members only" Web site; access is restricted to National Journal, CongressDaily, Hotline, Technology Daily and American Health Line subscribers."

[AP]

14. It's a public site.

http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/nj/

It doesn't even have a log-in feature on its front page.

[struggle4progress]

16. It's not a public site when I click on your link!

<edit:>

I've tried it six or eight times.

Note the /members/ in in the URL for your first link?

But the same holds for your second link: I get same sign-in pop-up; canceling it gives the same "subscription-only" message.

Perhaps you are a subscriber and this gets handled automatically for you with some cookie?

Anyway, I gave it a fair try.

[AP]

18. click the link in my previous post, and do a search.

I think that's how I got to it.

[struggle4progress]

19. As I explained in #16, whether I click on the link in your #6 or #14 ...

I get the same result: I get a pop-up registration members login box. There's no search option there. If I cancel the login box, I do get a site that simply tells me the site is for members only, again with no search option and in fact without navigation of any kind.

Either you're just bullsh*tting me or you're unaware that you're accessing the site from a computer recognized by the site as a subscriber.

Enough of this!

[AP]

20. I don't know what to say. I don't get that box, and the home page doesn't

even have a login feature.

[struggle4progress]

10. Interesting discussion of the National Journal article

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18544

[AP]

11. Yes, its a credible source, like the article says.

The "most liberal" label comes from a credible source: the National Journal, bible of Beltway wonks. Guided by contributing editor and CNN commentator William Schneider, the National Journal has been using the same complicated, computerized process to rank "conservative" and "liberal" members of Congress since 1981.

[struggle4progress]

15. "Kerry isn't the only one whose record seems distorted ..

in the National Journal. Some of the most conservative members of Congress found themselves rated as moderates .."

also appears in the article.

You're rather selective about what you quote.

You don't by any chance have an axe to grind, do you?

[AP]

17. And the next paragraph starts: "it is undeniable that...Kerry {is} liberal

It is undeniable that over the course of his lifetime, Kerry has racked up a liberal voting record. That record is reflected in his lifetime National Journal ranking of ninety-two out of 100 points – higher than the formerly pro-life Kucinich. But that's largely because Kerry was a liberal – during his first term. The previous time he was among the most liberal Senators, according to the Journal, was in 1990.

It distorts his record because these are anual snap-shots. As the preceding paragraphy notes, some votes which would have lowered Kerry's rating weren't in 2003. It also notes that Kerry didn't have enough votes in some categories to get a ranking, but the National Journal article addresses that. It says that he still voted on the liberal side on the few that he did make, confirming that he was OK. Furthermore, they're not going to penalize him for trading of campaigning to show up for votes where his vote wouldn't make a difference but where he certainly would have voted with the Dems (in an election year!).

What axe do you think I want to grind. Obviously I'm not hear trying to scare moderates into voting against him, and I think liberals who aren't happy with him should know that in 6 years since he joined the senate he was ranked the most liberal senator according to a respected standard.

Alternet might be trying to limit the effectiveness of this argument in the hands of the right wing, but the fact is, the NJ report is a creditable measure.

What axe are you grinding?

[struggle4progress]

22. It looks to me like a rightwing hatchet job: it distorts his record ...

because the National Journal hand-picked votes for which Kerry was absent, then (despite being unable to rate him at all in two out of the three chosen areas) christens him "the most liberal senator," which is certainly a novel place for him in the congressional universe.

As I indicated above, a number of other sources paint a rather different picture of Kerry: he's pretty close to dead-center among Democratic senators.

And in fact, there has apparently been a sea-change in National Journal description of Kerry also, since they ranked him as "the most liberal senator" suddenly this year and not for the last six years (contrary to what you suggest).

How splendid the NJ article is! Just in time for the 2004 election season! The main interest in the NJ characterization, of course, comes from wingnuts, who are using this factoid relentlessly in their own campaigning!

While I personally do wish that Kerry were more liberal, I'm not going to lie about it: I see no reason to perpetuate that particular fraud. Kerry's not at all bad from my point of view, and he's a sight better than Shrub.

[AP]

23. That's absurd. The NJ isn't right wing. They've been doing this for 23...

...years. They have a Most Conservative list, and they base their analaysis on a reasonable sampling of bills.

I'm sorry you can't read the article, but trust me, it's not right wing, and neither am I.

Those other sources you cite don't disagree with the NJ. They just point out -- as the NJ article points out -- that this is a snap shot from a single year, and that some bills he voted for which would make him less liberal came up in 2002 and just missed counting towards 2003.

And I didn't say he was the most liberal senator for the last six years. He's been most liberal 6 times in his career in the senate. And the NJ article points out that he swings out of the top.

"Just in time for 2004"? Right. That's what happens when you have an annual report. It's just in time every year. To bad Kerry didn't run just after it ranked him number one the other five times.

[struggle4progress]

25. Well, let's see: they can't rate Kerry at all on 2/3 of the chosen bills

So if he came out "most liberal" on the remaining third, that still should yield an indeterminate liberal rating somewhere between 33% and 100%. They simply don't have enough data to compare him reliably to any other senator this year. Any claim to the contrary is just balderdash

Personally, I think liberals get to say who's liberal. The ADA rating I cited above doesn't think Kerry deserves anything like the most liberal ratings: it puts Kerry dead-center in the Democratic pack. Of course, this is open to the criticism I raised re NJ, namely, that it's based on picking and choosing votes to count.

Poole's rating isn't open to that particular criticism: he uses ALL roll call votes but reaches the same conclusion as ADA: Kerry's dead-center in the Democratic pack.

These other sources I cite certainly DO disagree with the NJ, since they're rating for the same year: 2003. If NJ calls Kerry the most liberal Senator in 2003, while ADA/Poole identify him as middle-of-the-pack, then NJ clearly disagrees with ADA/Poole.

Whether it's a meaningful disagreement, of course, is open to endless debate, since I think a strong case can be made that most such ratings have a high flimflam content.

So I'm going to drop this and pop open a cold one. :beer:

I suggest you do the same. Here have one on me. :beer:

And, no, Kerry isn't the most ... Aw, the heck with it!

[AP]

26. From the NJ article you haven't read:

Last year, Kerry, Edwards, and other congressional Democrats who were seeking the presidency, including Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, missed many votes. To qualify for a score in National Journal's vote ratings, members must participate in at least half of the votes in an issue category. Of the 62 Senate votes used to compute the 2003 ratings, Kerry was absent for 37 votes and Edwards missed 22. As a result, in the 2003 vote ratings, Kerry received a rating only in the economic policy category, earning a perfect liberal score. Edwards received ratings in the categories of economic and social issues, also putting up perfect liberal scores.

A separate analysis showed that of the votes that Kerry cast in the two categories in which he did not receive scores in 2003 -- social policy and foreign policy -- he consistently took the liberal view within the Senate. Edwards did not receive a score in the foreign-policy category; he sided with the liberals on five votes in that area, and with the conservatives on one vote. On foreign policy, Kerry and Edwards -- both of whom supported the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq -- last year joined most Senate Democrats in voting that half of the U.S. reconstruction aid to Iraq be provided as loans, a provision that ultimately was dropped.

To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops. As shown in the accompanying chart, Kerry had a perfect liberal rating on social issues during 10 of the 18 years in which he received a score, meaning that he did not side with conservatives on a single vote in those years. That included his 1996 vote, with 13 other Senate Democrats, against the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of states' same-sex marriage laws. Along the campaign trail, Republicans likely will remind voters of Kerry's stance on that issue.

[AP]

24. Furthermore, where were you when Dean DU'rs duked it out with Kerry DU'rs

over who was more liberal?

The Kerry DU'ers cited his votes on all the legilsation this report studies, and they pointed to his high rankings from single-issue liberal groups.

I have no idea why you think it's so crazy that in 6 years over the guy's career the Democratic senator from Massachussets wasn't the most liberal Senator. (Especially when your corroboration evidence actually corroborartes that claim.)

[surfermaw]

3. Gettin more news coverage with out a pick

Kerry,can use all of them to get coverage, Clark, Gep., Dennis and Edwards.. I say the more coverage the better.Keeping Clark speaking helps him with foreign affairs. Letting the nation see the V.P., Attorney General or just the next Democratic Presidential Candidate,Edwards is worth the wait..Keep then Guessing,will even yet get us a little more free air time..then we will be able to spend with the Republicans... I understand Edward's has really brought in a good bit of money for KErry.

[goforit]

21. Rally on Edwards!!!........You're doing GOOD!!!

Good things can happen!!

:yourock:

[Carolab]

27. That's nothing

Last month, in ONE DAY, the Howard Dean organization raised over $500,000. Now THAT'S fund-raising power.

[wjsander]

28. One small detail...

I'm not sure if you're talking about Dean's internet campaign or the time he held 1,400 house parties nationwide, but Edwards raised $150,000 from ONE party... in a republican dominated section of Florida. I'm sorry, but that IS something. Anyone who thinks otherwise has an agenda.