Most of the Senators that we conservatives consider to be good to mediocre are in the high 90s, and quite a few are rated 100%.

Of the currently sitting Senators there are 38 who have higher lifetime ratings, and 45 who have higher 2006 ratings. McCain’ is only 65% in 2006…. And that was before his Kennedy-Shamnesty and Shamnesty- Lieberman bills hit the table. And that is just in the Senate. If you include the House, there ARE several Democrats with higher ratings.

I wish I could find a link to the ACU rating archives, which are even more illuminating, but here is the link to the current ones:

http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm

McCain would be well below some Senatorial democrats if he hadn’t actually been a pretty strong conservative 15 – 20 years ago. He has gone down hill Leftward pretty badly.

So you guys touting his ACU rating better hope that people are too lazy to actually check to see what that really means. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for the Nation, most people will remain ignorant.

We are not going to put the most liberal Dem douche in the Senate into the Oval Office.

jp on January 31, 2008 at 5:45 PM

You miss my point: I’m not saying that the NJ should have called Paul conservative. I’m saying that different criteria for judging how votes (and absences from votes) translate into how “conservative” or “liberal” a person is are deeply subjective. If McCain votes against what you believe, that’s one thing. But seeing a number on a scorecard proves nothing unless your beliefs line up precisely with those formulating the score (right down to your beliefs on what “absent” means).

You’re criticizing Obama. You must be in the KKK.

And by criticizing, I meant linking to his voting record.

Lehosh

The American Conservative Union says J-Mac has an 82.3% lifetime conservative rating.
acuratings.org

So successful has the Messiah been in focusing attention on his own charisma, oratory, and “narrative” and away from his actual record that even 20% of the readership of a site like this is willing (momentarily) to vote for him over McCain.

Well I think we all realize that the media created the Messiah, and this new “revelation” won’t change anything, because the media wants to save their creation and will bury this. But they’ll sure dig up some photos of a smiling Obama surrounded by a bunch of white college zombies holding “change” signs and it will be so moving, as it always is. Gag! Morons.

I want him to win the nomination, not because I agree with him, but because Hillary! must be stopped at any cost.

why? She’s much more conservative than Obama. Are you just motivated by HDS?

Ron Paul fans would balk that someone who wants to scale back American government to 1890s levels would be seen as “least conservative,” but that’s what he is according to NJ. Your mileage may vary.

calbear on January 31, 2008 at 5:01 PM

paul isn’t conservative, his a paleo-libertarian. His ratings by the ACU are similar to the NJ. As are McCain’s.

Any independent that lets out a girlish squeal when he says “Change!” or “Hope!” needs to realize that in Obama they’re seeing Che Guevara in an expensive suit.

Next to him, McCain looks like William F. Buckley.

Interviewer: Mr. Obama, could you state your position on the economy?

Mr. Obama: Our economy needs change.

Interviewer: And that change would be?

Mr. Obama: The need for change is subject to change. Any formulation of a position at this time could necessarily change.

Interviewer: Mr. Obama, could you state your position on Iraq and on Afghanistan and the presence of American forces?

Mr. Obama: Our foreign policy needs change.

Interviewer: And that change would be?

Mr. Obama: Once again, although a change is needed, the type of change could change. Depending upon the changing variables consistent with foreign policy matters.

Interviewer: Mr. Obama, what about our border with Mexico?

Mr. Obama: Our policy on the border needs change. The border itself might not need to change, although that is subject to change, if change is necessary. What is or isn’t necessary is fluid and, therefore, subject to change.

Interviewer: Thank you, Mr. Obama.

[The American people, swayed by charisma, charm and a smile, and sensing the need for change, vote in Obamalot - and go back to chewing their cud in the fields]

That should have tipped everyone off.

I’m just very surprised he has actually showed up to vote at all.

If I recall correctly, NJ’s methodology is such that those who don’t show up are pushed towards the more liberal numbers. That’s why Kerry was a #1 liberal during the last election, and it’s why Obama is #1 now. Granted, if they weren’t liberal already, they wouldn’t have been within striking range of #1, but it’s the absences that pushed them over the top.

Can we please stop peddling this “McCain’s got an 80% conservative voting record” fable now?

NJ’s methodology is not the Gold Standard of measurements of conservatism. These numbers are not objective test scores but instead subjective combinations of numbers, so different methods get different numbers. Ron Paul fans would balk that someone who wants to scale back American government to 1890s levels would be seen as “least conservative,” but that’s what he is according to NJ. Your mileage may vary.

Who said an old catchphrase from Al D’Amato wouldn’t come in handy again?

Mr. hollowpoint, it did not contain a single swear word and was not all caps.

bloggless on January 31, 2008 at 4:42 PM

My mistake; saw one a bit ago and assumed that was the one.

But if you missed last year’s scorecard, have a look at the 20-year trend. McCain wasn’t always Maverick, but he is now.

His ACU lifetime rating is 82

Its obvious I think, he’s played a political positioning game and used the libs(to some degree) to put him in the popular position he now is in. How conservative he actually is, I think is anyone’s guess. But much more so than obama/hillary, and I’m sick of the “There is no difference between McCain and Hillary” talking points.

Were you the one with the first post in the thread?