About those ADA Ratings for Kerry and Kennedy....
The Washington Post had an article
a few weeks ago about Kerry. Although in general the article fairly laid out Kerry's liberal voting record, it used some fairly loaded words: Kerry had opposed "costly
weapons systems and tax cuts for wealthy
Americans" (italics added). But what caugh my eye was this comment:
"Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, rated Kerry more liberal than Kennedy during the time they served together in the Senate, although by only 1 percentage point."
This appears to be true, but the ADA also rates
Kerry 2 percentage points more liberal than Kennedy lifetime, and even this seems to understate the difference between the two. I don't know what's going on with the ADA's ratings, but they don't add up. Kennedy is show as having a 90 rating, but that actually appears too high. Kennedy's lifetime average rating prior to 1990 was 85; if we multiply that by his 27 years of service from 1963-89 that gives him a total of 2295. Add that to his 1990 onwards total of 1240 gives him a grand total of 3535, divided by 40 equals an average of 88.4, not the 90 shown in the ADA ratings. I thought maybe it was a rounding error, but even if Kennedy had been at 85.9 or so that would not lift his average above 89. I tried going back and adding up the individual years, but some of the years appear to be incomplete on the website.
What's going on? I would not be surprised if the ADA is trying to make Teddy not look so conservative next to Kerry.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The New York Times has issued a correction
to their latest quote from George Meagher:
An article on Sunday about people who supported George Bush in the 2000 election and are considering a vote for the Democratic candidate this year referred incorrectly to George Meagher, who voiced dissatisfaction with the administration. As noted on Feb. 3 in an earlier account of his comments in the same interview, for an article about veterans leaning toward Senator John Kerry, Mr. Meagher is an independent, not a Republican.
However, this correction only raises more questions. Consider what the Times actually said in the Sunday article:
George Meagher, a Republican who founded and now runs the American Military Museum in Charleston, S.C., said he threw his "heart and soul" into the Bush campaign four years ago. He organized veterans to attend campaign events, including the campaign's kickoff speech at the Citadel. He even has photographs of himself and his wife with Mr. Bush.
"Given the outcome and how dissatisfied I am with the administration, it's hard to think about now," he said. "People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq. And what we've done to our country. I mean, we're already $2 trillion in debt again."
Hmmm, an independent who threw his heart and soul into the 2000 Bush campaign, who has photographs of himself and his wife with the President? And the moaning about 500 people killed seems a little bizarre; nobody going into the Iraq War thought the casualties were going to be that LOW. Also, the Times does not correct Meagher's comment about "$2 trillion in debt again", which is simply not true. The national debt is FAR more than $2 trillion; the National Debt Clock
estimates the current debt at a shade over $7 trillion. The deficit
, often confused with the national debt, is far less than $2 trillion; the last estimate I saw was about $540 billion.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Macho Liberals Again
Real Clear Politics
takes on John Kerry's sudden shot of testosterone:
Hence Kerry's decision to stick his chest out and walk around like a lanky, French-looking version of Robert Conrad with an Eveready Battery on his shoulder, daring anyone to come over and knock it off.
Actually I think Kerry is just trying to change the subject. Attacks on his anti-war activities or his Senate voting record are "questioning his patriotism", which gives him the opportunity to remind us that he served in Vietnam.