ACU releases 2007 ratings: McCain gets a B

posted at 10:36 am on May 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The American Conservative Union has released its report on Congress for 2007, and John McCain will welcome the results. Despite missing a number of votes while campaigning for President, McCain voted often enough to win a rating of 80, a significant improvement over the 65 he got in 2006. That approximates his lifetime rating of 82.16 and gives McCain a little more ammunition for his argument to represent conservative values. ACU chair David Keene notes that Congress overall went in the opposite direction:

ACU Chairman David A. Keene said it is not surprising that the 2006 election has resulted in Congress taking a sharp leftward turn.

“Elections have consequences and the election of 2006 was no exception,” Keene said. “The overall average score of the House of Representatives fell from 53.1 percent conservative in 2006 to 42.91 percent in 2007 while in the Senate the average score in 2007 was 42.67 percent conservative compared to 49.5 percent in 2006.”

Keene noted that, under the Democrats, the House became more polarized with 62 members, all Republicans, earning a perfect 100 conservative rating up from only 8 in 2006, while those earning a perfect liberal score of “0” numbered a record 138.

Voting patterns in the Senate were more stable but still showed a move to the left. The number of Senators scoring a liberal rating of 20 percent or less rose from 40 in 2006 to 48 in 2007. Five GOP senators scored a perfect 100 percent conservative rating, the same as 2006, although the number of Senators scoring a perfect rating of “0” rose from 7 in 2006 to 21 in 2007.

The ACU looks at 25 votes in 2007 to generate their ratings. McCain missed all but ten of those votes, agreeing with the ACU on eight of them. One notable disagreement came unsurprisingly on the immigration reform package, while the other came on a stem-cell research bill that mandated the use of federal funds for research on surplus embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics. Bush vetoed the bill, sitting with the so-called snowflake children whose embryos were “adopted” rather than dissected.

McCain supported the ACU position on the following bills:

  • Earmark disclosure
  • Protection for grassroots lobbying organizations
  • Extension of Bush tax cuts
  • Repeal of AMT
  • Repeal of death tax
  • Card-check, which eliminates secret ballots for union organizing
  • Social Security benefits for illegal aliens
  • DC Congressional seat

Otherwise, though, McCain scores at the average for the Republican caucus in the Senate:

The House Republican caucus actually scored somewhat higher, averaging 85.7 points, about five more than their colleagues in the upper chamber. Overall scores for the House and Senate are almost identical at just below 43, and the Democrats score equally poor in both surveys as well, just below 6.

How did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton score with the ACU? Barack Obama actually scored marginally higher than his caucus at a 7, having supported the ACU on earmark disclosure alone. Hillary gets a big, fat zero for 2007, after getting a whopping eight in 2006, as did Obama.

For those who see no difference between McCain and the two Democrats, this serves as a reminder that while McCain drifts to the middle on some issues, a large chasm exists between the nominees that will face off in November.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Garnet92 on May 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM

You failed to account for all the reasons people don’t vote for either choice.

As I said earlier, McCain did not ask for my vote, nor did he earn it. In fact, he made it clear that he does not want it or need it, but rather prefers the La Raza votes. The friend of my enemy is my enemy, even if he’s also the friend of my friend.

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM

For me, I’ll wear my red, white, and blue elephant-shaped clothespin on my nose as I enter the voting booth and cast my two half-votes, half for McCain and half against Obama.

Garnet92 on May 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Fine. Doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t try to push McCain in the direction you want him to go.

JiangxiDad on May 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM

franksalterego, the troll without a life.
fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Yes,

And, I’ll be trolling right on down to the voting booth, and putting my “X” next to “McCain” in November…While you’re at home, cryin’ in your strained apricots.

franksalterego on May 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

this means very little after his speech pandering to GW the other day.

chasdal on May 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Bradky, welcome back. I was thinking yesteday “where are Bradky and Tennman?”

Entelechy on May 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM

this means very little after his speech pandering to GW the other day.
–chasdal on May 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

I take it, you want McCain to run on an Anti-Conservation ticket?

franksalterego on May 14, 2008 at 2:56 PM

I’ll be trolling right on down to the voting booth, and putting my “X” next to “McCain” in November…While you’re at home, cryin’ in your strained apricots.

franksalterego on May 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Your ballot has you put an “X” next to his name? Really?

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM

If you “know” of another study that shows that McCain and the dems are the same liberal bias then bring it out…or do you just “feel” they are the same.

Get it?

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Once again, what?

A “study?” Of what? I simply made a general observation, not directed to any particular individual(s). That some voluntarily chose to self-identify with the phrase “rabid McCain haters” and take highly emotional offense to it merely served to reinforce my original point.

It is weird to see the least-attractive aspects of the Obamatons duplicated by the rabid McCain haters. Is this because the rabid McCain hater population is rife with actual Obamatons, or delusional Ron Paul supporters? Could be. As I stated above, their behavior is frequently indistinguishable.

So, if it’s some kind of “study” you require, this thread will suffice quite nicely!

Gilda on May 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Question…

Could any candidate expect to be elected, running on an Anti-Conservation platform?

franksalterego on May 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM

So, if it’s some kind of “study” you require, this thread will suffice quite nicely!

Gilda on May 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM

This is a discussion board. You say stuff, people react, you defend what you say. If you can’t, people think you’re an ass.

Only journalists and libs throw shit out and expect no backtalk.

JiangxiDad on May 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Your ballot has you put an “X” next to his name? Really?

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM

That’s not uncommon. In my area it’s computerized, where you just click on the box next to the candidate you pick, and it puts an X in the box.

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Why I support McCain:

1. I believe that the young, inexperienced, liberal Obama will implement policies that will weaken our national defense and security for decades rather than for just four years. A resurgence of radical Islam during his tenure will likely result in millions of deaths world wide and further devastating attacks on western democracies like the U.S. To protect my children and grandchildren from the prospects of such an outcome, I will somewhat grudgingly vote for McCain. No hope or prospect of some possible future conservative messiah cold ever negate my obligation to avoid such a scenario. Allowing this scenario to unfold under an Obama Presidency because of stubborn devotion to my conservative principles would make me a partner to the devastation.

2. Because of the advanced age of many of the Supreme Court justices, tacit acceptance of an Obama presidency would likely result in decades of overly liberal decisions by that court which will further degrade the constitutional principles that make us different from other western democracies. Waiting for a conservative messiah to deliver us from the evils of the left, risks further erosion of our constitutional government and I can’t live with that on my conscience. So, I will support the status quo result of a McCain Presidency and preserve the Constitution the best way that I can.

3. An Obama Presidency supported by a Democrat-controlled Congress will result in far-left socialistic programs that will be difficult or impossible to change for decades to come. No conservative messiah will be able to change that fact. I will, therefore, vote for McCain with the hope that his policies will be less liberal and less damaging to the long-term health of our economy.

I’m sure that many of the McCain haters will find fault with my reasoning, but I care more about a secure future for our country and its constitutional principles than I do about holding out for a conservative messiah who will be true to core conservative principles. Perhaps I’m a blasphemer, but for me President Reagan simply wasn’t a conservative messiah that set a standard for some hopeful future messiah. He was a good man who strengthened our country by his adherence to strong defense and family values. If he were alive today, I believe that he would be supporting our current Republican nominee and working very hard to make him and our country more successful and strong for the future.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Speaking of someone who doesn’t have all the facts….

I’m not Gilda.

Also, as I said in my post, neither I nor fossten accused you of using his name. That was the whole point of my post. I’m very disappointed that it was somehow missed.

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Sorry I messed up with the Gilda above.

thus including me in your accusation.

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM

I guess even he thinks I was naming him.

Listen you guys, when someone says the Republican party is against raising taxes…you are saying that every one who is a republican is against raising all taxes. You think they are specifically talking about you, specifically you? When I say that anti-McCain uses tactics like,calling him cranky, linking to sites the denigrate his service, etc., you think I am talking to each of you individually? You think that I feel everyone who is anti-McCain says the same thing, and links the same links? You don’t believe in generalities?
You guys are weird, to defend your position with that kind of argument is, well, is just weird. I don’t know what to say. But taking that hard line always comes back to roost.
No generalization is worth a damn, including this one…Mark Twain

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM

JiangxiDad on May 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

QED. Thanks!

Gilda on May 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Gilda on May 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM

I think I figured it out. R2B was impersonating Kevin Nealon as “Subliminal Guy” from SNL.

I will demonstrate:

If you “know” of another study that shows that McCain and the dems are the same [liberal bias] then bring it out…or do you just “feel” they are the same.

Get it?

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM

So he’s saying that any study that shows McCain and the Dems are the same has liberal bias.

See?

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM

No generalization is worth a damn, including this one…Mark Twain

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM

I wasn’t arguing that you did mean fossten when you were talking about McCain haters.

I thought I made that clear.

All I was saying is that he already admitted that you didn’t use his name, so to ask him where you used his name is pointless.

I’m not saying anything more than just that.

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM

First you should go back and quote my post accuratly (you might want to read the one I am referring to also). That would help you understand it…no on second thought, you won’t understand it.
Who are you impersonating, no one? you are really that stupid?

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Listen you guys, when someone says the Republican party is against raising taxes…you are saying that every one who is a republican is against raising all taxes. You think they are specifically talking about you, specifically you? When I say that anti-McCain uses tactics like,calling him cranky, linking to sites the denigrate his service, etc., you think I am talking to each of you individually? You think that I feel everyone who is anti-McCain says the same thing, and links the same links? You don’t believe in generalities?
You guys are weird, to defend your position with that kind of argument is, well, is just weird. I don’t know what to say. But taking that hard line always comes back to roost.
No generalization is worth a damn, including this one…Mark Twain

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Anti-McCain what? Note that you misrepresented your own post.

You didn’t refer to an entity, you generalized about a group of people. More than one person thought this. Therefore, it is your mistake in failing to communicate properly.

Listen stupid, I will type real slow.
***
Don’t be coy and use the “You did not quantify” whining bitch stuff.
***
Now, where did I use your name in that post?
Link or slink, as you so like to throw out.

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Get ahold of your anger. Really. You look like a petulant child here. And as I said, I do not have to back up a claim that I did not make. I never claimed that you used my name, so your conclusion that I’m stupid has no merit. Or do you just “feel” that I’m stupid? Better watch those feelings, y’know. Better to get some concrete proof. Maybe you should consult the ACU to see if they rate me as stupid.

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM

QED. Thanks!

Gilda on May 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Focus hopscotch. You’re clearly brilliant in your own mind. In other minds, not so much.

JiangxiDad on May 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM

You got that right. All of it.

Sekhmet on May 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM

You really need to get a grip on your anger. You are acting like a petulant child. Gotta watch those “feelings,” y’know.

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM

and I’m off to the rodeo….

Be back soon!

Sekhmet on May 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Well, folks, the horn just blew. I’m off work, cya tomorrow. Maybe R2B can give me directions on getting home since I’m “stupid.”

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 3:30 PM

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM

I don’t have a problem with your reasoning, but I just don’t agree.

1. Obama’s policies certainly won’t help, but McCain also has some horrible ideas on fighting terrorism. If we’re attacked again, even Obama will stand up and take notice.

2. The judges is another reason to vote McCain, but it’s more likely that liberal judges will be stepping down, not conservatives. If that’s the case, replacing them with liberal judges won’t make much of a difference.

3. Well, even you are simply “hoping” that McCain’s will be less liberal.

Vote for McCain if you believe he is the best choice, but I hope his arguments get better before November.

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Go back and read what David Limbaugh wrote about John McCain on February 29, 2000:

The evidence is growing that Sen. McCain is trying to disembowel the Reagan coalition while masquerading as its standard bearer. The major media are his gleeful accomplices. How far will McCain go to win the GOP nomination?
McCain is seeking to forge a new coalition, a “McCain majority,” consisting of renegade Democrats, Perotista malcontents, other Independents and hapless Republicans who have fallen for the ruse that he is still conservative. In the meantime, he’s blazing a trail of scorched earth over the Reagan coalition of the ’80s.

McCain has made no effort to avoid offending Conservatives in his patent appeal to Democrats and Independents in the open primaries to date. He has demonized Bush’s tax cut proposal as disproportionately benefiting the rich even though it is modest in comparison to Ronald Reagan’s cuts.

McCain has now singled out the left’s favorite whipping boy, the religious right. After Bush won South Carolina handily on the strength of Christian Conservatives, the McCain squads used evangelicals as straw men in Michigan.

[more]

Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM:

1. McCain’s “horrible” ideas are light years better than Obama’s when it comes to terrorism. We probably wouldn’t be attacked under Obama’s watch. But, the changes in national defense policies would set the groundwork for a future disaster in the making.

2. I agree, But, McCain would appoint qualified centrist judges that the Democrats would find difficult to reject. That would move the overall direction of the court toward a somewhat more conservative bias. This would be a much better result for the future of the court, so, as a conservative, I am obviously for it.

3. Some hope is far better than a certainty of far-left socialist policies, so I will take hope over absolute despair any day.

McCain is not the best choice. Some of the best choices are already gone. But he is clearly the best choice when choosing between him and Obama. So, I will vote for him and work behind the scenes to get some conservative ideas noticed by his administration and included in his presidential policies.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Funny. The Democrats get an A+ for their man. We get a B-.

I hate the GOP.

spmat on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Funny. The Democrats get an A+ for their man. We get a B-.

I hate the GOP.

spmat on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

QFT.

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM

2. I agree, But, McCain would appoint qualified centrist judges that the Democrats would find difficult to reject. That would move the overall direction of the court toward a somewhat more conservative bias. This would be a much better result for the future of the court, so, as a conservative, I am obviously for it.

You don’t know what McCain is going to do with judges. The court is an iffy option to rely on McCain with; Democrats may end up with 60 votes and will cheerfully stuff any nominee they want. McCain is billed as Mr Compromise…I don’t see him standing up to them. Even Reagan and Bush One had turd judges such as Souter and O’Connor; and they were a lot better on many other issues than McCain. It’s not enough. We had to scream at W. to get Alito on the court…instead of one of his hack lawyer friends, and W. actually likes his party and wanted conservative support. McCain will tell us to go f**k ourselves and the horse we rode in on. Heaven knows what kind of judge he’ll stick on there. Don’t get me wrong, the court is a very important issue, but I don’t trust McCain to get it right; he’s in left field on immigration; on global warming..and I’m supposed to forget that and trust that he’ll get it right on judges? Nope. Even with a conservative President, judges are wild cards…and McCain, whatever his ACLU rating, or whatever that bullsh*t graph was supposed to show, is no conservative.

austinnelly on May 14, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Red Pill on May 14, 2008 at 3:43 PM:

The Reagan coalition is dead and has been for a long while. Conservatism is alive and well but the Reagan coalition is history. McCain is seeking to build a new coalition, but that is what all presidential candidates do if they want to get anything done. The McCain coalition will undoubtedly be different and less acceptable to most conservatives. But, Republicans can’t afford to continue to live in the past. We need to make the best of what we have and work hard to get conservative ideas noticed by current policy-makers. It may be harder with McCain, but it will be far more possible to achieve with him than it would be under a President Obama.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:18 PM

You know, the really sad thing, is we’re reduced to arguing over some arbitrary number. We can’t argue issues, because for the most part, McCain ends up sucking big time. So, we point to ‘studies’ and ‘organizations’ who say, despite what you may hear the candidate say, he’s the most conservative conservative to ever conservate in the conservatory. We represent the Official Conservative Bureau, and after carefully not listening to a word coming out of McCain’s mouth, we’ve decided he’s the most conservative man to ever walk the earth. Here’s our book. Look up conservative: see? there’s John McCain picture. Global warming scientists say that John McCain is so conservative, he actually generates his own negative temporal field, ie he’s travelling back in time. So, forget what the candidate says, don’t pay any attention to those horrible laws he’s going to pass, John McCain IS conservatism. What a crock of sh*t. As Rush so eloquently put it, we’re all Mavericks now. So, think I’ll pass. But don’t worry, cheerleaders. I won’t forget you. I’m working on some new cheers…you’ll love them.

austinnelly on May 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM

austinnelly on May 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Yes.

Anti-McCain position: This man is not a conservative. Look at his voting record on very important issues, and look at how many important votes he skipped out on.

McCainiacs: Well, don’t look at that stuff. Look over here, at this nice little ACU rating, and also at these trivial little votes on resolutions to compliment the Nobel prize winner or something. See? Conservative.

fossten on May 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM

3. Some hope is far better than a certainty of far-left socialist policies, so I will take hope over absolute despair any day.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I can’t argue with that. It would just be so much easier if elections could stop being a pick between the lesser of two evils.

I don’t and didn’t like everything about Bush, but at least when I voted for him, I was just voting against Al Gore (I didn’t vote in 2004, but the same would have been true there as well).

If I do end up voting for McCain, I won’t be proud of it.

And the worst part though, is that Republicans have seen the popularity of McCain and think that’s the direction they should be heading.

He [Rep. Tom Cole] then spoke of the need to “re-brand” the party in the likeness of McCain, which may be a tall order, since many rank-and-file conservatives have reviled McCain for years for his transgressions against party orthodoxy.

So it’s not just a choice of what’s best for the country. By supporting McCain, we could also be changing the GOP.

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Ted Olsen is supporting McCain and, because of his extensive experience with the Supreme Court, I believe that he will be actively involved in advising McCain on judges. That is a good thing, since Olsen is a man that I trust to give high quality recommendations. As you point out, there are no guarantees, but I would rather take my chances with Olsen recommended appointees than what I know Obama will give us. By the way, it doesn’t matter how many votes the Senate has. They don’t get to make the appointments, so they don’t have the ability to stuff in any nominee that they want. As long as McCain proposes high quality centrist judges, the Senate will find it difficult to reject everyone without looking pretty foolish.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 4:26 PM:

I understand the desire to resist change within the Republican Party, but devotion to this idea won’t get us anywhere. Things change within the American electorate and we need to learn how to adapt and work within the current system to find converts to conservative principles. We achieve nothing by standing on the side-lines and hoping for a conservative messiah. All this approach gets us is outsider status and irrelevance.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM

austinnelly on May 14, 2008 at 4:15 PM:

My above “Ted Olsen’ comment was meant to respond to your previous comments on judge appointments by McCain. I simply forgot to address the comment to you. Sorry about that.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:51 PM

“Entelechy on May 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM”

Thanks Entelechy. Nice to see you again.

Bradky on May 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM

I understand the desire to resist change within the Republican Party

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM

I’m hardly resistant to change. I just don’t want the party to change into one that closer resembles McCain.

Esthier on May 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM

As long as McCain proposes high quality centrist judges, the Senate will find it difficult to reject everyone without looking pretty foolish.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM

That alone makes McCain worthy of election.

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 5:19 PM

As long as McCain proposes high quality centrist judges, the Senate will find it difficult to reject everyone without looking pretty foolish.

NuclearPhysicist on May 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM

That alone makes McCain worthy of election.

right2bright on May 14, 2008 at 5:19 PM

I’m overjoyed that we’ve stopped claiming that McCain is going to appoint Strict Constitutionalist’s to the bench.

Snake307 on May 14, 2008 at 5:30 PM

And Obama would, by contrast appoint….exactly what to the bench?

Sekhmet on May 14, 2008 at 6:03 PM

I’m overjoyed that we’ve stopped claiming that McCain is going to appoint Strict Constitutionalist’s to the bench.

Ill keep proclaiming it.

Squid Shark on May 14, 2008 at 6:42 PM

austinnelly on May 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM

What is McCain’s position on paragraph breaks?

Hollowpoint on May 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Hollowpoint

austinnelly is a little distracted to notice things like that. He’s busy wallowing in self-pity over the facts that keep piling up against him.

jgapinoy on May 14, 2008 at 9:52 PM

Fine. Doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t try to push McCain in the direction you want him to go.

JiangxiDad on May 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Any good cliffs nearby?

Misha I on May 14, 2008 at 11:34 PM

Fine. Doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t try to push McCain in the direction you want him to go.

JiangxiDad on May 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Any good cliffs nearby?

Misha I on May 14, 2008 at 11:34 PM

A jab and a parry…nicely done.

right2bright on May 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Gotta love the methodology used in this study though.

Not voting doesn’t count against you…nice.

If it did, counting the non-ACU votes, he’d be a 32% “conservative”…nice.

I aqlso find it a bit funny how those of you who like or support McCain are so virulent. I know there are virulent McCain bashers too, but why the rabid support?

It certainly isn’t because he is a conservative. He simply isn’t. It isn’t because he is strong on several important issues, though he is on some others.

I can understand those who have thrown up their hands and will “hold their nose.” They are simply resigned to the only choice we have. I don’t agree with that logic, but I can at least understand it. But those who aren’t willing to “hold their nose” will not supplant their principles should at least be given the respect of their stance. Isn’t that what seperates us from our opponents?

Libs/Dems are the ones who will vote based on the way the wind is blowing. Conservatives are truer than that. They don’t like or support McCain for real, not perceived, faults. This doesn’t make them any less important whether they vote for McCain or not.

Arguing about judges is irrelevant. Though an argument could be made that McCain would more likely appoint judges supported by liberals simply because he wants to seem the “compromise” candidate. Yes, we don’t know what he will actually do until it happens, but what is the more likely? Based on his past behavior is he more likely to appoint judges conservatives would support or judges liberals would support?

Trying to play it off as him appointing “centrist” judges is ridiculous. We don’t want judges who are “centrists”. We want judges who will interpret the law as set down by the Consitution. Being a centrist supposes there is middle ground or different interpretations of the Constitution – and there simply aren’t.

And here is a fact those who support McCain can take to the bank – no candidate is going to win office without the base of the party. Though we have our problems, conservatives are the base of the Republican party.

Like it or not, that same base (at least a significant part of it) isn’t going to vote for McCain – not with the drivel he’s doing with courting La Raza and advocating for cap and trade schemes.

And without the base McCain won’t even get the chance to appoint a centrist anything.

catmman on May 15, 2008 at 2:56 PM

The votes McCain missed:

3. Iraq War—Cloture
S 574 (Roll Call 51). The Senate refused to move to a vote on a resolution disapproving the “surge” of 20,000 additional troops into Iraq. ACU opposed this resolution. Although the motion achieved a 56-34 majority on February 17, 2007, 60 votes are required to shut off debate, so the resolution was not approved.

8. Small Business Regulation
S 761 (Roll Call 139). The Senate killed an amendment allowing small businesses to opt out of the most burdensome reporting provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulating reporting of publicly-traded companies on the stock exchange. ACU favors this exemption, but the Senate defeated it April 24, 2007, by a vote of 62-35.

10. Coastal Drilling for Natural Gas
HR 6 (Roll Call 212). The Senate rejected an amendment to the Energy Policy Bill that would have allowed Virginia to petition for natural gas exploration and drilling in the state’s coastal waters. ACU favors development of domestic energy sources and supported this amendment, which was defeated June 14, 2007 by a vote of 43-44.

11. Energy Policy
HR 6 (Roll Call 226). The Senate passed legislation imposing massive new regulation on the energy industry, including a rise in automobile mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a ban on the incandescent light bulb, new energy efficiency mandates for appliances, the use of 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2015, and the taxpayer subsidy of new energy technologies. ACU opposes this kind of direct government interference in the economy, but the bill passed June 21, 2007 by a vote of 65-27.

14. New Student Loan Program
S 1642 (Roll Call 273). The Senate killed an effort to establish a new program of government loans to full-time undergraduate and graduate students. ACU opposes the creation of new federal subsidies and opposed this amendment, which failed July 23, 2007 by a vote of 37-54.

15. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations
HR 2764 (Roll Call 317). The Senate killed an amendment designed to stop an increase in the U.S. share of United Nations peacekeeping costs, which is now 25 percent. ACU opposes increased assistance to the U.N. The amendment failed September 6, 2007 by a vote of 30-63.

16. Abortion and Sterilization
HR 2764 (Roll Call 318). The Senate adopted an amendment that would bar the use of taxpayer money for any organization or program that supports or manages a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. ACU favors such a limitation, which was approved September 6, 2007by a vote of 48-45.

17. “Mexico City” Policy
HR 2764 (Roll Call 319). The Senate adopted an amendment repealing the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits the use of taxpayer funds by organizations that promote or perform abortions. ACU supports this limitation and opposed the amendment, which passed September 6, 2007 by a vote of 53-41.

18. Davis-Bacon Requirement
HR 3074 (Roll Call 334). The Senate voted to kill an amendment prohibiting implementation of the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires union rates to be paid on federal construction projects. ACU opposes Davis-Bacon, and supported the amendment, which was defeated September 12, 2007 by a vote of 56-37.

20. Hate Crimes—Cloture
HR 1585 (Roll Call 350). The Senate voted to stop debate and vote on an amendment establishing a special category of crime if it was based on the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. ACU opposes efforts to criminalize thought, but on September 27, 2007 the Senate invoked cloture on the amendment by a vote of 60-39, after which the amendment was adopted by voice vote.

21. Health Insurance Expansion
HR 976 (Roll Call 353). The Senate passed a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program authorizing $60 billion over five years, increasing subsidies and prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services from requiring that poor children be covered before other groups. The costs of the expansion were to be paid from increased tobacco taxes. ACU opposed this massive expansion of welfare programs, but it was adopted September 27, 2007 by a vote of 67-29.

22. Energy Policy—Cloture
HR 6 (Roll Call 425). Although the Senate had earlier voted for new energy regulations (see Vote # 11 above), the House then revised them, and the Senate refused to shut off debate and move to a final vote on the revised bill mandating increased automobile mileage, the production of 36 billion gallons of “biofuels” by 2022, and new energy efficiency standards on appliances, lights, and other consumer goods while increasing taxes on domestic oil and gas companies. ACU opposes expansion of federal authority into the economy and so opposed this bill. On December 13, 2007 by a vote of 59-40, a majority of the Senate voted to pass the bill, but under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to invoke cloture, so the bill failed.

23. Eminent Domain
HR 2419 (Roll Call 429). The Senate defeated an amendment that would have prohibited federal, state and local governments from using eminent domain to take farmland or grazing land and use it for parks, open space or similar purposes. ACU opposes misuse of eminent domain, and so supported the amendment. However, on December 13, 2007, the Senate killed the amendment by a vote of 37-58

24. Energy Policy
HR 6 (Roll Call 430). Voting on a third revision of the Energy Bill (See Vote # 22 above), the Senate this time voted to pass legislation imposing massive new burdens on the energy industry of the United States while rejecting measures to increase domestic supplies of oil and gas. ACU continued to oppose this intervention in the economy, but on December 13, 2007, the Senate adopted it by a vote of 86-8.

25. Alternative Minimum Tax Adjustment
HR 2764 (Roll Call 440). The Senate killed a one-year extension of a provision keeping 21 million middle-income taxpayers from being hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax designed to apply to millionaires. ACU favors complete repeal of the AMT, and so opposed this stop-gap measure. The extension was defeated December 18, 2007 by a vote of 48-46. Although the measure did get a majority of the votes cast, under a unanimous consent agreement, 60 votes were required to pass this bill.

Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Why can’t we come up with a method for our elected representatives to vote without having to be physically in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.?

Digitally signed documents, video teleconference, etc. are ways that the Senator or Congressman could place their vote.

I understand that McCain has been on the road campaigning. I also think that the fact that the ACU rating does not penalize for missed votes provides a very nice “loophole” where a Senator can avoid a controversial vote when s/he wants to and still be considered “conservative”.

Why don’t we try to get John McCain on the record for how he would have voted on the 15 votes he missed?

Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Why can’t we come up with a method for our elected representatives to vote without having to be physically in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.?

Digitally signed documents, video teleconference, etc. are ways that the Senator or Congressman could place their vote.

Red Pill on May 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Because it could be hacked.

fossten on May 16, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Drudge headline: McCain reaches out to liberal websites…

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is trying to tap a new audience of potential voters by taking his campaign message straight to liberal and nonpolitical issues-based blogs, which reach millions of readers but don’t often delve into conservative politics.

Mr. McCain’s campaign said the Web outreach is a logical extension of an attempt to reach voters beyond his base. It also builds on his successful use of conference calls with conservative bloggers during the Republican primary, which blunted many of the harshest criticisms of the senator.

Redhead Infidel on May 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM

If Lindsey Graham, billed The Worst Republican Senator by the American Spectator, can garner a sweet 88% rating from the ACU, I think it’s time to admit that the ACU rating doesn’t what Morrissey thinks it means.

Redhead Infidel on May 16, 2008 at 9:33 AM

*doesn’t mean what Morrissey thinks it means.

Redhead Infidel on May 16, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Sorry, but this analysis lacks a weighting for “degree of importance” (a RINO might call it “degree of difficulty”) on these votes: all votes do not have equal impact.

Either “McAmnesty” (aka “Give Away America”) or “McCain/Feingold” (aka “Shut Up America” act) should earn him a nearly perfect ZERO score when his votes are properly-weighted.

landlines on May 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

landlines on May 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Agreed.

I’d also like to know how McCain would have voted on this vote he missed:

20. Hate Crimes—Cloture
HR 1585 (Roll Call 350). The Senate voted to stop debate and vote on an amendment establishing a special category of crime if it was based on the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability. ACU opposes efforts to criminalize thought, but on September 27, 2007 the Senate invoked cloture on the amendment by a vote of 60-39, after which the amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Red Pill on May 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Ok, lets look at this as “moving the ball”.

Voting for the Conservative point is good, and gets 100 points … I get that.

Voting for the Liberal side is bad, and gets 0 points. I get that.

Not voting doesn’t move the issue. that doesn’t mean it doesn’t get counted, but should count as a 50. The vote was held, but you didn’t shift things.

8 * 100 + 2 * 0 + 15 * 50 = 1550

1550 / 25 votes = 62

62 is what he deserves for his Conservative/Liberal shift applied to these 25 votes over this year (50 being neutral, 100 Conservative, and 0 pure liberal).

62 is much closer to 50 than 100… barely Conservative would be the impact of McCain.

Or do you think nobody could have done better than 8-2 with 15 no-shows? He did not really shine with this showing.

calling it 8/25 isn’t exactly honest I’ll admit, but it wasn’t 8/10 either. A fair appraisal gives a no-vote a neutral score (not a no-score). So McCain deserves a 62 on the scale.

Don’t expect a lot of praise. 12 points off neutral (of 50 possible) isn’t an amazing score, is it?

gekkobear on May 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3