ACLU Ratings of the Candidates (cool to read no matter who you support)

Gateley posted this originally. I just organized the info for the link-phobic. The thumbnail commentaries are by ACLU writer/activist Tom Head. (Bio: http://civilliberty.about.com/mbiopage.htm ) There is MUCH more candidate analysis at the links. Please keep this kicked, because everyone who supports a candidate will find it interesting reading. The ACLU is pretty positive on all the Dems.

Dennis Kucinich The pundits don't take Kucinich seriously, but there are times when he seems like the only candidate in the race who has any fresh ideas. Those fresh ideas aren't always good, mind you; if your main concern is free speech or Second Amendment rights, he's a terrible candidate. But if you're looking for a candidate who wants to abolish the death penalty, legalize same-sex marriage, grant reparations for slavery, or consistently oppose War on Terror human rights abuses, Kucinich isn't just the best candidate in the race--he's practically the only candidate in the race. I have heard many progressives say that they wish the United States were more like Canada. What they're really saying is that they're Kucinich supporters--they just don't know it yet. If you want radical progressive reform in 2009, this is your candidate. Compared to Kucinich, the rest of the Democratic contenders are all moderates. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/usrepresentatives/p/dennis_kucinich.htm

Joe Biden Biden's outspoken style makes him interesting to listen to, but it would make him a problematic president. Other than Biden's high ACLU rating, his savant-like gift for foreign policy, and his refreshingly down-to-earth attitude about same-sex marriage, there is little to recommend him as a candidate. There is no issue where he is the best in the Democratic field, and at least one (the death penalty) where he is the worst. His civil liberties record, like his candidacy in general, is strictly middle-tier. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/joe_biden.htm

Barack Obama Obama is the only candidate of either party with significant civil rights activism and grassroots organizing experience. His time in civil rights activism exceeds the amount of time he has spent as a national politician. Obama is also the only viable presidential candidate in my memory to have taught constitutional law professionally, for more than a decade, before running for president. Although Obama tends to be a fairly mainstream Democrat on most issues, and his positions on campaign reform and gun rights will be a significant and understandable concern to many, his overall platform is among the strongest of the top-tier candidates in both parties. He is by no means a perfect civil liberties candidate, but he is a much stronger civil liberties candidate than most of his opponents. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/barack_obama.htm

Hillary Clinton Clinton's record on some issues is much stronger than that of her husband, whose record remains her greatest liability from a civil liberties perspective. As a highly visible and politically active First Lady, she was a central part of the Clinton administration and needs to note her disagreements with its policies, where those disagreements exist. Nowhere is this more clearly established up than during the first debate, when she was asked if "don't ask, don't tell" was good policy. What she said, in effect, was that it was good policy when it was enacted in 1993 but should be regarded as an incremental step. That position makes little sense; if "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong now, then it was just as wrong in 1993. And it is that sort of accommodation to her husband's legacy--her unwillingness to distance herself from the civil liberties abuses of the Clinton administration--that makes her, an otherwise promising candidate, so difficult to assess. This profile should not be regarded as a pass grade or a fail grade; it is an incomplete grade. Until we have a better understanding of what the substantive policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are, her civil liberties platform will remain something of a mystery. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/hillary_clinton.htm
The Maverick Frontrunner. What may make Hillary Clinton a better president than her husband could ultimately boil down to a single personality difference: Beyond the point of minimum political necessity, Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to care what other people think of her. She does not seem to share her husband's need to be liked. This allows her to be principled and contrarian in a way that her husband generally was not. Her career as First Lady is in many ways itself testament to this personality trait, and a specific exchange from last night's debate highlights how this up-yours attitude might make her a better civil libertarian. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/qt/good_clinton.htm

Christopher Dodd Dodd is trying to position himself as the conscientious defender of old constitutional standards, and for the most part he lives up to the role. While he made the mistake every U.S. senator except for Russ Feingold made in 2001 by voting for the unmodified USA PATRIOT Act, it is unrealistic to have expected otherwise. Dodd is not considered an exciting candidate, but he's among the best in the Democratic field and deserves a second look. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/p/chris_dodd.htm

John Edwards During the 107th and 108th Congress, Edwards voted in alignment with the ACLU position 29% of the time, voted against the ACLU position 29% of the time, and was absent 42% of the time. This gave him a 50/50 rating from the ACLU, which is not particularly impressive for a Democratic candidate. On the other hand, it's worth bearing context in mind: Edwards served in the U.S. Senate from January 1999 to January 2005, during which most of the Bush administration's problematic counterterrorism bills were supported by the majority of senators of both parties. Edwards' biggest problem is that he simply wasn't present for six of the nine votes in 2004 on which the ACLU took a position. If he had been, his rating would probably be substantially higher. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/john_edwards.htm

Bill Richardson From the perspective of civil liberties, Richardson is the strongest 2008 presidential candidate. No other candidate in either party can boast his commitment to international human rights law, his respect for the Second Amendment, and his strong record on lesbian and gay rights. If he supported abolition of the death penalty and were a little more skeptical about campaign finance reform proposals, he would be a perfect civil liberties candidate. As is, he's merely the best... http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/p/bill_richardson.htm
After careful analysis of the platforms of all 18 major-party presidential candidates, I have come to an inescapable conclusion: From a civil liberties perspective, Bill Richardson should be the next President of the United States. No other candidate in the running, Democratic or Republican, comes close. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257662.htm

Mike Gravel The reason Gravel is not being taken seriously as a candidate is not because his body is too old; Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, was only a year younger than Gravel at the time of his nomination. The reason Gravel is not being taken seriously as a candidate is because his candidacy is too old. Gravel is running a Vietnam-era antiwar campaign, not a post-9/11 antiwar campaign; his 26-year departure from the political scene has made him an enigma and a throwback at the same time. We know how he feels now about same-sex marriage, but how would he have felt about it in 2006 if he were serving in the Senate and running for reelection? Gravel is taking bold, courageous, uncompromising positions--but they cost him absolutely nothing, because he is not, and for the bulk of the last three decades has not been, part of the political system. I'm glad he's in the 2008 presidential race because the voice of his political generation, the last truly subversive and libertarian political generation, needs to be heard--but he is not a viable presidential candidate for 2009. In 1973, 1977, or 1981, he would have been amazing. In 2009, he's comic relief--a sad fate for one of the most honest, intelligent, and deeply courageous senators to have ever served. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/mike_gravel.htm

Lifetime ACLU legislative ratings: Dennis Kucinich 89% / Joe Biden 80% / Barack Obama 79% / Hillary Clinton 72% / Christopher Dodd 69% / John Edwards 50%

the information is quite different than the percentages given. I looked at 2 candidates, and the one with the higher aclu percentage voted more to the right on the issues. something is off. not going to mention who, because it will probably start an argument.
but it is important to go to the links and see how they voted.

On edit I moved the lifetime ranking to the bottm because they were confusing... often not matching the analysis of recent voting. For instance, Clinton and Obama both have lower ratings for this senate session than their lifetime ratings. That is probably typical of anyone running for president.

This reinforces my decision to vote my principles and Kucinich...

"ACLU Rating: Dennis Kucinich has an 89% lifetime rating from the ACLU, and a perfect 100% rating for the 2006-2007 legislative session. His ACLU rating is by far the highest of any 2008 presidential candidate."

Here's his profile:



He also published a article explicitly endorsing Richardson as the best candidate for civil liberties on both side of the aisle.

The only ACLU rating I've found for Richardson was in '96 where he voted 62% of the time with them. He was very pro-death penalty back then and voted for some legislation supporting it that year. However, he scored 100% with the Human Rights Campaign in '96. The ACLU website doesn't list ratings back further than the 107th congress so I'm not sure what his other scores were and I haven't found if the ACLU rates governors.

He's greatly liberalized his position on the death penalty since 11 years ago. There are only two people on death row in New Mexico and they were put there before Richardson became governor. I saw that one is a serial killer. Being anti-death penalty, this one area that I disagree with Richardson. Except for Kucinich and Gravel, every one of our candidates has pretty much the same position on the death penalty as Richardson. Unfortunately, the majority of US citizens support it and it's difficult to get an anti-death penalty candidate elected.

I continue to be amazed at the apparent willful ignorance of Richardson's qualifications. Like people are saying, "No! He's not in the top 3! He's...gasp...pudgy! He's...(god knows what they are thinking?) !"

I don't even know if Richardson would be my top pick in a comprehensive comparison, but I just have to rebel against this herd mentality or whatever it is.

Abortion and Reproductive Rights - Pro-Choice by Conversion: Although Kucinich has earned an 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in recent years and currently votes a consistently pro-choice record, he had an anti-abortion voting record for his first few years in office. In both 1999 and 2002, he supported a bill that would have made it a felony for any person other than a parent to take a minor across state lines to have an abortion--a necessary for some teenagers living in abusive households in states that have parental notification laws. He voted to support a ban on live intact D&X ("partial birth") abortions in 2000, but against it in 2003.

Death Penalty - Abolitionist, Leading Candidate: Kucinich has consistently opposed the death penalty, and has promised to ban it if elected president.

The First Amendment - Serious Concerns: Kucinich's record on free speech issues is in some respects the most problematic aspect of his candidacy, and the only area in which he parts company in any serious way with the ACLU. Kucinich has been a consistent supporter of campaign finance reform, and is the only 2008 Democratic candidate to have voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration.

Immigrants' Rights - Generous, But Supports Limits: Kucinich supports a citizenship path for immigrants, but has expressed concerns about guest worker programs. He has also voted to limit L-1 and HB-1 worker visas, expressing a concern that non-U.S. technology workers are taking positions that U.S. workers could fill.

Lesbian and Gay Rights - Full Equality, Leading Candidate: Kucinich is one of only two major-party 2008 presidential candidates to support same-sex marriage. Like other Democratic candidates, he also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), federal hate crime legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

Race and Equal Opportunity - Extremely Strong Candidate: Kucinich is the only major-party 2008 presidential candidate to support reparations for slavery, and also has strong positions on other civil rights issues such as affirmative action.

The Second Amendment - Worst Candidate: Kucinich holds an F rating from the NRA. He supports all of the gun control initiatives that one would expect a liberal Democratic candidate to support, but he also holds the distinction of being the only major-party 2008 presidential candidate to support a national ban on handguns.

<YIPEE!!!!>

War on Terror - Fiercely Libertarian, Leading Candidate: Kucinich is the only major-party 2008 presidential candidate to have voted against the original USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, and has opposed any and all counterterrorism legislation that threatens American civil liberties.

It still amazes me that more progressive activists don't recognize Obama as one of their own given his background as a left wing Alinsky-style community organizer and civil rights attorney.

They'd rather focus on dissecting the candidate's current rhetoric rather than taking the time to study their histories and records.

Kucinich 89
Obama 82
Biden 82
Clinton 75
Dodd 72
Edwards 50

Do you have a link? (There seem to be several sets of numbers around. I used the one's from the earlier post, but they may not include the 2007 Senate session. (It looks like the changes are all among senators)

They don't have a single page with all the lifetime ratings, so I had to just go through and go to all the candidates' pages to find it. For example, here's Biden's page:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=199&session_num=0&page=legScore

So they are the most up-to-date rankings.

I always thought of him as being one of the most liberal senators but his League of Conservation Voters score is lower than most of the candidates as is his ACLU rating.

Guns, hate-crimes laws,campaign finance... Civil Rights are a mixed bag

"Kucinich, with an astonishing 89% ACLU rating (by far the highest in the 2008 presidential race), this bold and freethinking candidate should be head and shoulders above the competition on civil liberties issues. So why is it that he has one of the worst First Amendment records in Congress--holding the distinction of being the only candidate in the Democratic fold to have followed in John McCain's footsteps by voting for both campaign finance reform and the flag desecration amendment?"

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257662.htm

Did Kucinich really vote for a Flag Desecration Amendment? Weird! Goes to show how many variables there are in this kind of ranking.

helps a tiny, very tiny bit in my eyes of her. this is the first time I have seen anything that makes me breath alittle easier is that she may, a big may not, be like her husband. I concider bill disappointing in throwing democrats under the bus for the republicans and embracing republican ideas. I am very leery of her with progressives but, maybe she may not sell the party out completely to the DLC or republicans like her husband.
but, this is teeny tiny and I still have the same feeling of her 98% negative. but, not 100 because she has some independent ideas and maybe some concern for civil rights.
However, Obama has been a champion of civil rights and progressive ideas his whole adult life. and I find him to be the one candidate that can turn this country around and put us on a new and better path than we've been on for the past generation. He can pull us back from the abyss.
I also feel Edwards should have a much higher and better rating.

That famous pic of him at the chalk board is him teaching alinsky principles. I am also amazed by the fact that many do not see his progressive stands. However, it is largely due to a misinformation campaign by bloggers early in the primary who wanted him to be Howard Dean and to pay homage to the bloggers. when he did not because he did not want to be tied to any group controlling him, they hit back hard.

I'm glad to see that they look at his overall record and not just his voting record in the Senate.

Edwards also would come out better if they had not only looked at his votes. They don't mention that when he was on the Judiciary Committee, he was very good about helping to block bad judges - something that Senators often don't get credit for. In fact, there were a couple of judges that he singlehandedly blocked, using his "blue slip" power, even though he took a lot of heat at home for it.

These kinds of ratings are helpful, but they don't tell the whole story.

:hi:

But I can still kick this.

:kick: