If you’re a politics buff, you probably remember the way National Journal‘s ratings were used in the 2004 and 2008 elections to establish that the Democratic candidate was the “most liberal voting record in the Senate”–first John Kerry (Extra! Update, 6/04), then Barack Obama (CounterSpin, 3/28/08). FAIR pointed out the flawed methodology that the magazine was using, but the headline-grabbing findings still had a profound–and profoundly misleading–impact on both races.
Now National Journal has released its rankings for 20098 (2/28/1009), and they reveal that Dennis Kucinich is one of the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus–he’s the 240th most conservative representative out of 416 ranked by the Journal. He’s more conservative, according to the Journal rankings, than Blue Dog Democrats like Mike Arcuri (No. 243), Dennis Cardoza (No. 245) and Robert Marion Berry (No. 248).
Virtually any political observer will tell you that Kucinich is one of the most if not the most progressive member of Congress. Either none of them understand the political spectrum, or the National Journal‘s rankings are useless–take your pick.
Update: As reader Matt points out, the rankings linked to above are for 2008, not 2009. In the rankings for 2009, which are accessible only to National Journal subscribers at this point, Kucinich is a little farther to the left–270th most conservative out of 435 members–but is still grouped with “The Centrists,” part of the “ideological center of the House of Representatives” according to the Journal‘s dubious rating system.
Unfortunately, the post links to the rankings for 2008, not the rankings for 2009, which can be found here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/print_friendly.php?ID=nj_20100227_5816.
What planet does the National Journal publish on? Do they offer a basis for this determination?
Could the National Journal rig its rankings to put its more electorally threatening nemeses into its sights?
I believe the ranking is based on how often the representative voted with the Dem majority – relying on the popular misconception that the Democratic Party is automatically on the left, the Republican Party is the right, and everyone else is in the middle. Which is why Kucinich’s vote against last fall’s health care reform bill would be viewed by the National Journal as being in the camp with the Blue Dogs.
I think you mean to say that in 2009 he is ranked as even more conservative.
The National Journal doesn’t have a category for “principled”, thus they can’t figure out where to place DK.
Isn’t it amazing how distorted reality has become in our New Age??
love it –
TELL IT TO THE TEAPARTIERS
and increase support!
Precisely where do Kucinich’s critics see this conservatism there talking about?
His views concerning defense, our economy, health care, jobs, education, etc., are clearly progressive. Is there an effort here, to discredit him?
Anyone who has read Orwell’s 1984 will remember the term “newspeak”.
It equates to doubletalk but with an official imperatur.
Huh! Well how many of us are political experts? Kucinich was my first choice. I listened to what he said and think he is an honest guy. // Jean Clelland-Morin, your friendly, neighborhood, heathen lefty
In reply to political economist, The most conservative is No. 1. 270 is farther from 1 than 240. Therefore, 270 is less conservative than 240.
Democrats despise him for his liberal views, and conservatives claim him as one of their own. How ignominious. One of the things I admire about Dennis is that he seems impervious to the crap that is thrown at him, and continues to speak for me on the national stage.
my admiration for D.K. is boundless…what we are witnessing in our country is … THE END OF LOGIC! we are sliding down a very slippery slope.
Dennis is one of the very few members of Congress — may I also say, of elected officials — who consistently votes on the basis of principles which are deep and meaningful to him. Therefore, it is difficult to classify him in any traditional way — he is close to being unique — and stands tall and firm for his principles.
If only we had a party of principled people who would run for and hold office — and an electorate who would cast their ballots on the basis of principles and issues, not good looks, not good propaganda, and not lots of ads (money).
like len cohen says “everyone knows the war is over,everyone knows the good guys lost,everyone knows the boat is leaking,everyone knows the captain lied,”—at this point everyone knows,the washington journal’s silly little framing game-everyone is on pins and needles to learn their take in things-beyond that-anyone who has ever participated in the legislative on any level knows that different folks might vote the same way on an issue for different reasons-what a concept.kucinich’s opposition to the house health care bill does not reflect the same reasoning as my congressman,the estimable “blu dawg bin “chandler.
the really sad thing is that even the type of bill kucinich might vote for,the conyers’ single payer proposal which was rejected prior to this whole tawdry debate ,for reasons “everybody knows”,would cause millions of enraged protesters to stream into the streets of canada-which also has a conservative government-canadians,do not feel that an authentic conservatism requires them to support a government which does meet the needs for which governments are imposed—pal,we don’t need to be rating congresspeople,as much as we need to be rating the quality of the “debate” itself.kucinich does that.”everybody” should.this “war”is over.the boat is still leaking.
i should be more careful-i meant to say that canadians might have a conservative government,however authentic conservatism does not require them to support a government which FAILS to meet the needs for which governments are imposed.they don’t forgo granny’s operation,or junior college education,so that some corporate executive can take his squeeze on another moonlight cruise past his baronial estate.in this country we seem to want a government whose DOMINANT purpose is to redistribute wealth from the bottom,and middle to the top.
It is precisely because standing on principle is a complicated proposition that most politicians refuse to take such stands; the complex cannot easily be paraphrased into a three to five phrase soundbite, for one thing, and for another, it is all too easy to create simplistic distortions of complex views that can purport to be consistent with the original view while simultaneously directly contradicting its upshot. Kucinich’s no-vote on the steaming pile currently referred to as ‘health care reform’ being taken as evidence of conservatism is just one of many cases-in-point. We need to find a way to embrace complexity in our national dialogue.
in other words, very sloppy and lazy methodology.
If the National Journal believes Dennis Kucinich is one of the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus they should persuade republicans to support his legislation or publish all the Kucinich bills cosponsored by republicans.
Well, you know the world has turned upside down when Red states are right wing and Blue states, left – er, Dem. so, it should come as no surprise when the most radical, left-wing, highly-principled member of congress is called the most conservative. Are the other rankings similarly backwards?
AFTER RECENTLY DISCUSSING SOME LOCAL/NATIONAL ISSUES WITH NEIGHBORS AND OTHERS I ENCOUNTERED DOING WORK IN MY AREA OR WITH PEOPLE AT A LOCAL CAFE I DISCOVERED A TREND…..THAT MY DEFINITION OF PROGRESSIVE WAS NOT WHAT THEY THOUGHT A “PROGRESSIVE” WAS!!!! I AM OVER 60 AND HAVE NOT CHANGED MY DIRECTION POLITICALLY. I THOUGHT I KNEW “WHAT” I WAS…NOW I FIND THAT THIS WORD HAS BEEN CO-OPTED BY THE RIGHT-WING AND RE-DEFINED IN ORDER TO CREATE ANGER TOWARDS THIS GROUP. SO, I FIRST SUGGEST THAT THE DEFINITION OF THESE TITLES BE INVESTIGATED. I ALSO FIND THAT THOSE I HAVE TALKED TO AGREE WITH MANY OF THE SAME THINGS I DO AND DISAGREE WITH ONLY A FEW SITUATIONS THAT MIGHT RESOLVE WITH MORE DISCUSSION.
I now feel that D.K. should leave the democratic-party & join the GREEN-PARTY…their issues coincide with his. the lesser of two evils won’t cut it anymore.