According to the National Journal, she was the Senate’s 31st most liberal Senator last year. By comparison, interim Senator Mo Cowan was 24th. Votes singled out by National Journal for decreasing her score include voting against the medical device tax (not a vote I agree with, but understandable given that a lot of Massachusetts companies lobbied for it), voting to reduce or repeal the estate tax (horrible decision for someone who wants to make the economic system more fair), and voting to strip Guantanamo detainees of legal rights (horrible from a civil liberties perspective.
Better than Scott Brown, so I’m still glad I voted for her. But lesser of two evils wasn’t supposed to be the standard anymore. I am not impressed. We really should have given Alan Khazei, Bob Massie, et al. more of a chance. Let’s hope she does better in the next five years than in the last one.
The National Journal rankings were stupid when John Kerry was running for president, and they are stupid now.
here is an excellent analysis of why this particular set of rankings is not worth the pixels it’s printed on.
Why would we trust anything National Journal says? The rankings are stupid, and I think designed in this case to tarnish Warren’s cred with her base. I’m sorry to see it’s working.
The estate tax amendment in question was non-binding and said that it would NOT be repealed unless revenue-neutral. It was meant as a poison pill to call out GOP hypocrisy in requiring everything to be “paid for.”
The Gitmo amendment: Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden also voted against it. Sanders, in his newsletter, said civil liberties groups opposed it because it allowed for indefinite detention in the U.S. instead of at Gitmo, which is not really progress, and that the amendment’s defeat did not harm legislative efforts to close Gitmo.
National Journal considers voting to strip away the legal rights of Gitmo detainees as a *liberal* thing to do. In what world is that the case?
Warren, Sanders, Wyden, and Leahy all voted against the McCain-Levin amendment to the NDAA. However, if you compare that vote to the vote on the Ayotte amendment, you’ll see something important. Most Republicans–plus Mark Pryor–voted yes on Ayotte and no on McCain-Levin. Their opposition to McCain-Levin was opposition to the *transfer* of detainees to the US. Most Democrats plus McCain and Collins voted no on Ayotte and yes on McCain-Levin. They want to close Gitmo but (consciously or unwittingly) bring indefinite detention to US soil, creating little “constitution-free” zones, so to speak. Warren, Sanders, Leahy, Wyden, and Paul all voted no on Ayotte and no on McCain-Levin. That’s the right way to vote according to a civil libertarian perspective.
And, as you note, the Warner estate tax amendment was vague and ultimately meaningless. It does not spell out a replacement. What if we were to reduce the estate tax and replace it with a 90% on capital gains? Obviously, not many would want that, but the amendment does not rule it out. I would have voted NO, but I just can’t bring myself to care about that vote. On the other hand, I would be irritated by any senator who voted YES on the Thune estate tax amendment, one to permanently repeal the federal estate tax.
My main gripes with Warren were her NO vote on the Sanders GMO labeling amendment and her YES vote on the confirmation of John Brennan. However, National Journal classifies a YES vote on Brennan as liberal. In what world do they live???
the vote that President Obama wants is the “liberal” position.
NJ rated Chuck Schumer as the most liberal and Bernie Sanders as one of the more conservative. Pu-lease.
I’d recommend taking a look at their selection of roll call votes because they were by no means thorough.
A few glaring omissions:
**Kirsten Gillibrand’s amendment to the Farm Bill to restore SNAP funding by cutting crop insurance reimbursements: Warren was part of the minority of the Democratic caucus to vote for it.
*Student loans: Do you remember how student loans interest rates were set to spike over the summer? And how Warren was very active and vocal on this issue? National Journal forgot entirely! It did not score the vote on the Senate Dems’ original plan. It did not score the vote on the Warren-Reed or Sanders amendments to the final deal nor the final deal itself. Warren was a part of the minority of the caucus (only 17 members) who voted against the final deal because it would raise rates on students in the future.
*Sequestration: Do you remember how the Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans each put forth sequestration replacement plans right at the end of February before the cuts would take effect? National Journal doesn’t! They don’t score either vote.
*Nominations: National Journal did not score the confirmation vote on USTR Froman. Warren, Sanders, Manchin, and Levin all voted NO. Boxer voted PRESENT. Warren gave a very strong floor speech opposing Froman’s nomination. National Journal also doesn’t understand that when Bernie Sanders opposes an Obama nomination (Jack Lew, John Brennan), he’s doing it FROM THE LEFT, not FROM THE RIGHT. Their ratings cannot account for that because everything must be a liberal or conservative win.
I’ve been tracking/reporting on roll call votes for almost a year now with an account on the Daily Kos, and I went through the Senate votes from the 113th Congress, 1st session, to identify all of the errors and omissions in the National Journal methodology. You can read that, if you’d like, here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/09/1276055/-What-National-Journal-Doesn-t-Understand-or-Remember-about-the-Senate. It’s a long post, but if you have a wonkish bent, read away!
Great analysis, but you’ve been doing a great job over at DK for some time now.
Thanks!
…that in 2004 and 2008 our nominee for President just happened to be the most liberal Senator according to NJ.
Obamacare Death Panel Orders First Execution
86-Year-Old Diabetic Grandmother to Face Firing Squad
Are we entering silly season in politics? Is BMG using National Review for purity tests? Geesh!
and there is a big difference. National Journal is an allegedly nonpartisan, widely-read publication (National Review is also widely read, but is well known to be a right-wing outfit). A lot of people pay attention to it, especially to catchy gimmicks like its “most liberal” lists. So it’s useful to have someone explain in detail why the lists are stupid. That’s why the post is on the front page.
Appreciate the detailed and well researched posts and comments above from david, fenway49 and jcohn88.
This post is the definition of trolling, for sure.
The more examples like this that pile up the clearer it becomes that Senator Warren scares the daylights out of the right and GOP — and that she’s doing a pretty brilliant job of communicating with the American people. This is just the latest example of trying to take her down. Not gonna work.
If I did, I wouldn’t have front-paged it. I think, rather, that Seamus didn’t appreciate quite how badly put-together the National Journal list really is. That’s why jcohn88’s work is so helpful, and worth calling attention to – because most people will be in a position similar to Seamus’s.
Didn’t mean to imply trolling by Seamus. Meant to imply trolling by National Journal. Should have made that clearer, sorry about that!
the Forced Collectivization of Agriculture and or Shooting Kulaks on Sight, is pretty much all you need to pass as a conservative for these are chaotic even necrotic times on the American Right.
Elias N
and, let me guess, Mike Lee is a big liberal………….