It doesn't take much deviation from a hard left line to get called a moderate by our "mainstream" media. There's an example showing just how easy in this Seattle Times profile of Congressman Adam Smith, which is headlined: "Can a raging moderate make any difference?"
His voting record is mixed. He supports "fair trade" over "free trade" -- aligning him with unions that blame recent trade agreements for sending jobs overseas.
. . .
[Jim] McDermott, Seattle's longtime liberal congressman, says he and Smith actually have a lot in common. For instance, Smith has introduced a bill for three years running to stem global poverty — one of McDermott's key issues."Adam wants to cultivate an image of not being as far in front on some things as me, but we agree on more than you probably realize," McDermott said.
Still, the National Journal rates Smith's votes as 70 percent liberal, compared with McDermott's 94 percent.
Congressman McDermott is not a liberal, but a leftist and a hard leftist, at that. Congressman Smith is not a "moderate", but a leftist, though a moderate leftist. In 2003 for example, Smith received a score of 90 from the leftist Americans for Democratic Action, a 17 from the National Taxpayers Union, and a 17 from the American Conservative Union. Those scores do put him to the right of McDermott (and probably most reporters), but they do not make him a moderate.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Smith made an interesting mistake in a speech quoted in the article; he confused tactical retreats with surrender. Smith noted, correctly, that George Washington often retreated during his military career, but seemed to think that shows us something about the war in Iraq, where the Democrats are advocating, not a tactical retreat, but a surrender to our terrorist enemies. These are not difficult military concepts to separate, but there is nothing in the article to show that the reporter, Alicia Mundy, realizes how badly Smith blundered in his argument.
Nor did she ask him about one of his most interesting votes. In the 208th Congress, Smith voted against vouchers for Washington D.C. schoolchildren. He voted, in other words, to keep mostly poor, black kids trapped in one of the worst school systems in the country. That's not the vote of a "moderate", raging or otherwise; that's the vote of a union lackey.)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 27, 2007 05:03 PM | Email ThisIf Adam Smith is such a "leftist," what does that say about his district, which includes Fort Lewis, and Legislative Districts that Dino Rossi carried in 2004? Adam has wiped out all GOP opposition in a District that once elected Randy Tate.
How "leftist" can he be when he gets 69 percent of the vote in the 9th CD? The answer is, not very, except to the ever-shrinking Sound Politics cult.
Fool yourselves if you want to. You're not fooling anybody else.
Posted by: ivan on May 27, 2007 06:11 PM
Smith's public persona is moderate... but in reality, he's a moderate version of one of your fellow fringe leftists.
I have little doubt that in your world, Comrade Fidel Pelz rates as a moderate as well.
At the ballot box, public perception is the key. That this state's GOP infrastructure is a joke and a major reason why Smith does as well as he does in no way changes the facts.
And while Jim provided statistical proofs of his assertions.... you could only engage in your time-honored, moveon.org vilification.
Posted by: Hinton on May 27, 2007 06:38 PMYou're the one who is clinging to perception in the face of the facts. SIXTY-NINE PERCENT is the fact, not anything Miller said. You can't blame SIXTY-NINE PERCENT on any perceived fault with the "GOP infrastructure."
YOU are the GOP infrastructure. YOU are the joke.
http://netradionetwork.com
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2007 07:07 PMThe problem with the GOP is their pro-war message does not resonate with public. The way things are headed they will finish the job of self destruction by nominating a pro war candidate for president next year.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on May 27, 2007 09:01 PM
That's because they're both pretty liberal. It's just that Adam knows not to SAY crazy things like McDermott does. He pretends moderate while voting liberal/leftist.
Posted by: Michele on May 28, 2007 01:19 AMGo ahead, call me names just like the tolerant diverse leftists who ban me from their blogs.
You can't change the truth.
"the ever-shrinking Sound Politics cult."
If this were true, why do you bother flatulating your opinion here? It must just be a waste of time!
Ivan the 2nd at #12;
The bush stench smells like roses to most of 'em.
I don't consider myself a 'right winger', however, I would never come close to considering myself a left wing wack-job, nutcase, America-hating, immature, amoral, control freak scumbag.
And I don't like Bush!
I wouldn't dislike you so much if you at least had reasonable reasons for hating Bush. You parrot all of the Democrat B.S. designed to make people dislike Republicans and vote Democrat. I have good reason for disliking Bush, and I can see through the self-serving B.S. of the Democrats.
1. The Iraqi's didn't ask us for Democracy. I don't even think they appreciate it.
2. There is too much muslim infighting to ever have a peacful solution there once we got involved. All it will do is make us look bad when we inevitably have to leave. Most people will not sit still for another Vietnam (years of our young men dying with no end in sight).
3. Why in the hell is it America's responsibility to cure AIDS in Africa?
4. After 9/11 was it really necessary to create another government beuracracy? Weren't there agencies already in place, just not doing their job?
5. Bloating the size of government is too risky since the leftist clowns that love to control people may eventually control the whole beuracracy (and more of our freedom).
When you put up the average lib compaints it is easily seen that it comes from the position of stereotype and bias. You have no tangible arguments that will make me see you as anything more than an incomplete thinker.
Posted by: REBEL on May 28, 2007 06:58 AM1. What are the top four issues of the national
dem party?
2. What are the top four issues of the WA dem
party?
3. What is Adam Smith's position on the national
and WA dem issues.
I don't live in Smith's district, the Commisar for life and probably after death too is my rep.
I am beginning my research for the next elections.
Reichert is my Congressman. Thanks for the RINO alert.
Posted by: Manco on May 28, 2007 09:58 AMTO Stefan: this is just a joke.
Posted by: Manco on May 28, 2007 10:25 AMSo since the lunatic LIBTARDS at the Americans for Democratic Action give this dude a 75% for his 2006 voting record that means he's a moderate?!?!
Just what sort of world does Mundy and the Seattle Times live in?
Posted by: juandos on May 28, 2007 11:27 AMYeah, I'm a this, I'm a that. But what are you? The 9th CD elected a right-wing Republican, Randy Tate, only 13 short years ago. Now Adam Smith, a so-called "leftist," has the Republicans running away wetting their pants and screaming in terror rather than challenge him.
What does that tell *you* about the power of *your* ideas and the effectiveness of *your* politics in this particular Congressional District?
I know what it tells *me,* but you have heard that already.
You're next, Reichert.
Posted by: ivan on May 28, 2007 12:41 PMIt tells me that all of the working class people, who don't work for the government that is, are leaving.
Soon you will have your little communist utopia that you want so bad without any challengers, or opposing opinions. I know, you need to be told what to think anyway, opposing opinions or other ideas swack too much of open mindedness, the thing that left is completely missing.
PS, when you have driven out all of the money makers, also known as tax payers, who will pay taxes so that losers like you can buy your dope?
Posted by: REBEL on May 28, 2007 12:51 PMThanks for the laugh. My accountant will be surprised to hear that I did not pay any taxes, that only right-wing whack jobs like you pay taxes, and that only right-wing whack jobs like you work for a living.
Posted by: ivan on May 28, 2007 01:31 PMAlice: You prove my point perfectly; as I wrote: nice editorial on Adam Smith whom YOU consider a "raging moderate."
Alicia Mundy wrote:
Smith is a moderate compared to many in his many and in the state. Thank you for writing.
Alicia Mundy
Washington, D.C. Correspondent
Seattle Times
202-662-7457
amundy@seattletimes.com
------------------------------
From: Todd Herman [mailto:todd@mediagasm.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:51 PM
To: Alicia Mundy
Subject: Nice Editorial On Adam Smith
Dear Alice,
"Raging Moderate", which you have labeled Adam Smith, is editorial grand-standing which, unless you are quoting someone else, belongs in just that: an editorial.
I hadn't looked at your web site or paper in years and your article reminds me why I have made that choice.
--Todd
It is my understanding that you are the chair of the West Seattle dems. What are the issues that are supported by the national dems, the WA dems, and your local group? Can you name three or four issues? Does Smith support this agenda named by you? It will be interesting how you choose to respond or not respond.
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 02:40 PMI followed-up your inquiry. I sent Ms. Mundy this:
Hello Ms. Mundy:
I am following-up an inquiry by Todd Herman which he subsequently posted at Sound Politics. I am an independent voter and I am beginning to research candidates and issues in advance of the 2008 election. Just wondering, how do you define:
1. A moderate
2. The top four issues of the national
dem party?
3. The top four issues of the WA dem
party?
4. What is Adam Smith's position on the national
and WA dem issues?
I appreciate your response.
I think those in the media shouldn't get a pass, if they did not do the research.
I am not the chairman of the "West Seattle Dems."
Posted by: ivan on May 28, 2007 03:15 PMFirst, thanks Katomar. Ok, Ivan let's play which number of the district you are chair of, is it the 39, 40, 41, 42nd dems. Are you not the chair of a dem district organization which is primarily based in West Seattle?
Surely, I am not the only person that wants to know what, if anything, the dems stand for. Who knows, you might win more converts with a rational discussion of issues that by ranting or name calling.
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 03:34 PMhttp://www.34dems.org/
So, what issues did you and will you be discussing at candidate forums and how does Smith support or differ from issues supported by the 34th District dems. Are you chair of that organization?
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 03:40 PMI respectively disagree with both of you. I guess reformed anythings are the worst of all. I use to be a dem, many, many years ago. My observation of the current party and I am waiting for Ivan, Bruce or other purveyors of that ideology to disagree with me is that the once great party stands for nothing. I know that ERNurse went off on Chris Vance and pudge a couple of threads ago, ditto my feelings about the dems. Other than hating Bush and wanting to exit from Iraq, what does the current dem party stand for? Is this the party of Scoop, Roosevelt, and Truman? When one studies JFK's economic theory, it is still very different from the current crowd. Currently, I don't see that the party that once supported the middle class stands for much.
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 04:03 PMIt will be a cold day in hell before I have one scrap of fear of you or anyone else on this blog.
WVH @ 38:
Our membership meetings and candidate forums are open to the public, even to right-wingers and people who falsely claim to be "independents," so you can come and see and hear for yourself what we do.
All the information you need about our meetings is on our Web site. We'll look forward to seeing you there.
Adam Smith is not up for re-election until 2008, of course. Whereas 17 of our 206 precincts are in his Congressional District, chances are that he will be visiting us once the session is over.
Posted by: ivan on May 28, 2007 04:48 PMI am a conservative. I don't know how you define rightwinger. I am from the old Barbara Jordan wing of the dems. You remember Barbara Jordan, don't you? Back in the day, when as Rep. Jordan would have put it, dem's had brain power. Now all those in control can do is rant and shout insults. Brain power, apparently that is something in short supply among the current crop of "leaders." To help your recollection:
"Don't call for black power or green power. Call for brain power."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jordan
Attention ERNurse, Katomar, Huckleberry and others, maybe there should be a conservative party like in NY.
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 06:00 PMI will travel to see the parking lot at the place. It should be empty and the busses should be packed.
We'll take a count shall we?
Who Then Will Speak for the Common Good?
New York, New York, July 12, 1976
One hundred and fourty-four years ago, members of the Democratic Party first net in convention to select a Presidential candidate. Since that time, Democrats have continued to convene once every four years and draft a party platform and nominate a Presidential candidate. And our meeting this week is a continuation of that tradition.
But there is something different about tonight. There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is Special? I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.
A lot of years passed since 1832, and during that time it would have been most unusual for any national political party to ask that a Barbara Jordan deliver a keynote address...but tonight here I am. An I feel that notwithstanding the past that my presence here is one additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be deferred.
Now that I have this grand distinction what in the world am I supposed to say?
I could easily spend this time praising the accomplishments of this party and attacking the Republicans but I don't choose to do that.
I could list the many problems which Americans have. I could list the problems which cause people to feel cynical, angry, frustrated: problems which include lack of integrity in government; the feeling that the individual no longer counts; the reality of material and spiritual poverty; the feeling that the grand American experiment is failing or has failed. I could recite these problems and then I could sit down and offer no solutions. But I don't choose to do that either.
The citizens of America expect more. They deserve and they want more than a recital of problems.
We are a people in a quandary about the present. We are a people in search of our future. We are a people in search of a national community.
We are a people trying not only to solve the problems of the present: unemployment, inflation...but we are attempting on a larger scale to fulfill the promise of America. We are attempting to fulfill our national purpose; to create and sustain a society in which all of us are equal.
Throughout out history, when people have looked for new ways to solve their problems, and to uphold the principles of this nation, many times they have turned to political parties. They have often turned to the Democratic Party.
What is it, what is it about the Democratic Party that makes it the instrument that people use when they search for ways to shape their future? Well I believe the answer to that question lies in our concept of governing. Our concept of governing is derived from our view of people. It is a concept deeply rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the national conscience, of all of us.
Now what are these beliefs?
First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief that each American regardless of background has equal standing in the public forum, all of us. Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.
How far, in my opinion, has strayed from this speech.
http://www.elf.net/bjordan/keynote.html
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 06:09 PMWe have had more than 100 people at each of our last two meetings. That is about our average. Eat your heart out, if you have one. If you don't believe what I say, come and see for yourself. But I know you won't.
WVH @ 45:
You are nothing more than a fraud. If Barbara Jordan was alive and in Congress today, you would be bashing her right and left to gain favor with the cult here, and quoting Sowell no doubt.
Barbara Jordan was a strong voice for the role of government in effecting positive change for people who needed it. She would have had no patience, for example, for your desire to corporatize our public schools.
Well everyone, this is what the LEFT does on OUR day!!!!
So Cato, explain this mess!
Way to win converts. Barbara Jordan was the daughter of a Baptist minister and she was first, foremost and always a pragmatist. I respect people with intellect. Now, like Dr. King, until you have read the full body of her work, you personally, have no idea where her thought life was headed. Since you lack intellect, you disparage others. See, the following:
Interview with Barbara Jordan.
Authors: N/A
Descriptors: Educational Policy; Evaluation Methods; Hearings; Interviews; Policy Formation
Source: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v3 n6 p79-82 Nov-Dec 1981
Peer-Reviewed: N/A
Publisher: N/A
Publication Date: 1981-00-00
Pages: N/A
Pub Types: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Abstract: Barbara Jordan's views are expressed regarding the merits of a clarification hearing (on the topic of minimum competency testing) over which she presided. The benefits of such a hearing as a process for illuminating educational policy issues are discussed. (Author/GK)
I admire both Rep Jordan and Dr. Sowell. To call someone a fraud when you haven't read all the work of Rep. Jordan makes you an idiot. I believe that Rep. Jordan wanted quality public schools and favored whatever insitutional structure that would permit a public education to flourish. Check out the WaPo a couple of weeks back about how poor Black parents feel about how vouchers have liberated their kids from failing DC schools. I can send you the link. I guess secular progressives like you want Blacks, dumb uneducated and dependent. Goodness, Dr. Sowell sure scares mental midgets like you.
Dr. WVH
This is from the WaPo on school choice:
Choices That Are Changing Lives in D.C.
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, May 21, 2007; Page A13
If it were up to the children and their parents, there'd be no question that the District's five-year experiment with school vouchers would be renewed for an additional five years or more.
That's the most emphatic finding of an independent evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program published last week. "The vast majority of families participating in this study are satisfied with the OSP in general, and their choice of new schools in particular," the report found.
In 2005, Ronald Hammond, then 8, napped on the shoulder of his sister Zackia, 11, during an hour-long bus ride to attend Nannie Helen Burroughs School in Northeast under the then-new voucher program.
Here's how one mother expressed it to researchers from Georgetown University and the University of Arkansas: "Before . . . his grades were below average, and for the first time he made the honor roll . . . He came home, he was so proud that he made the honor roll . . . They had the awards ceremony, so I wouldn't tell him I was coming . . . When he came out he saw [my husband and me] sitting in the first row . . . He gave us this big grin; but to see him walk up there and receive that piece of paper, I mean you could see the joy all over him."
The parental reaction shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, most Americans enjoy "school choice" without ever thinking about it in those terms: If they don't like their neighborhood school, they can move to a different neighborhood or school district or send their children to private or parochial schools. Only the poor, who can't afford tuition or to move, say, from the District to Falls Church, are without school choice.
That was the argument that prevailed, barely, when Congress approved the District's five-year program in the fall of 2003, with strong backing from then-Mayor Anthony....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001081.html?referrer=emailarticle
So, why are you and your cronnies so against school choice? Is it that you need dumb and uneducated masses to stay in power?
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 07:35 PMThis is Ms. Munday's reply:
Thank you for writing. I'm certain Mr. Smith's office will want to respond to your questions.
Alicia Mundy
Washington, D.C. Correspondent
Seattle Times
202-662-7457
amundy@seattletimes.com
Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the 9th District of Washington.
Click Here to return to my home page.
This is what I emailed, so since there is no response, we have a perfect loop of nothingness.
Hello Congressman Smith:
I addressed an inquiry to Ms. Munday regarding an article written by her. I received the following reply:
Thank you for writing. I'm certain Mr. Smith's office will want to respond to your questions.
Alicia Mundy
Washington, D.C. Correspondent
Seattle Times
202-662-7457
amundy@seattletimes.com
My original questions were:
Hello Ms. Mundy:
I am following-up an inquiry by Todd Herman which he subsequently posted at Sound Politics. I am an independent voter and I am beginning to research candidates and issues in advance of the 2008 election. Just wondering, how do you define:
1. A moderate
2. The top four issues of the national
dem party?
3. The top four issues of the WA dem
party?
4. What is Adam Smith's position on the national
and WA dem issues?
I appreciate your response.
Posted by: WVH on May 28, 2007 09:17 PMI have never made any comment, positive or negative, about Hugo Chavez on this or any other blog. If I had, your comment might make some sense. Hugo Chavez is not my buddy any more than Radovan Karadzic is yours.
Posted by: ivan on May 28, 2007 10:51 PMLet's get back to Rep. Jordan's quote:
"Don't call for black power or green power. Call for brain power."
Let's see, during this thread I asked you the same questions that I e-mailed to Rep. Smith and during the course of the discussion about the questions and the late Rep. Jordan, I was called a fraud. In the past, you have called me a Sowell wannabe. Is all the current dem party about simply hating Bush and exiting Iraq? Is anyone that wants to know what you stand for disparaged and called names because the truth of the matter, you stand for nothing and there really is nothing you can succinctly state about what your current prinicples are? Seems a great outreach program for people that are not sheep and into the current program of loons like Sheehan. Calling me, Katomar or others names doesn't make you a leader or representative of what was once a great party. It simply makes you an enforcer thug demanding alegiance to your cause by rants, name calling, bullying, and intimidation because you lack the intellectual wattage of a Barbara Jordan who could discuss and persuade. She would have kicked your sorry a$$ets any day of the week because she had the brains to do it. I hope that Rep. Smith's staff shows some class and answers the questions that you and the lamestream media rep. Munday either couldn't or wouldn't.
Posted by: WVH on May 29, 2007 07:12 AMI do not perform for you lot on command, any more so than you do for me, so do not bore me with your phony indignation.
Posted by: ivan on May 29, 2007 07:45 AMI am not indignant when assessing you. It is what it is as they say. Your comment proves my point.
Nuf said. You lack the intellect heft to discuss and certainly not persuade any one not a koolaid addict, so continue name calling. Meanwhile, a lot of us indies, formerly dems, will continue to avoid the current party.
Please stop the sham that you are subject to being "persuaded" of anything, or that you are an "indie."
When I choose to discuss something, I will.
Is you not talking like Rosie not speaking to Elisabeth because she got her itsy bitsy feelings hurt? Until you whack jobs come to your senses, an indie and d*** proud to be one. Now, go mix some more koolaid.
Posted by: WVH on May 29, 2007 01:16 PMdo not perform for you lot on command
I wonder under what conditions you would "perform". As far as I can tell over the years I've been reading this blog, the sum total of your contribution here can be summed up as follows:
"Democrats rule, Republicans drool. Nyah Nyah, Nyah Nyah, Nyah Nyah."
I have not once seen you provide a cogent, coherent argument on any issue of substance. At least some critics on this blog will add to the discussion like Giffy and Cato to name just a couple. You appear simply to desecrate good white space with what amounts to graffiti.
Posted by: Eyago on May 29, 2007 03:54 PMNot exactly a great role model for the party of the lifestyle police, eh Ivan?
I can fix that flabby body of yours, but it will cost you.