Anyone who has staffed Congress knows the various ratings of the votes of Members of Congress are most often skewed by the organizations that make them. They pluck a dozen votes out of several hundred cast by a member in a year, to claim that special dozen can tell the character, or value, or liberalness or conservativeness of the member.
So when campaign surrogates claim that one of the candidates is “the most” whatever, it need be taken with a few grains of salt.
Presidential campaigns can wreak havoc on a members voting record — heck, reelection campaigns can do the same — because candidate forums and primary election dates almost always conflict with the work of Congress. A candidate for president might be lucky to make even the major votes.
Obama missed several key votes, but got enough in to get rated. According to one rating, by National Journal, Obama is “the most” liberal U.S. senator. In today’s U.S. Senate, that’s not really saying much, since moderate Republicans have gone extinct there, and most of the liberal lions of the Democrats are at least retired, if not dead.
Listening to the Sunday talk shows today, I wondered why McCain’s people, always anxious to brand Obama as “most liberal,” don’t point to McCain’s own ranking. Why not show the differences between the two on the issues, where it counts, in the votes?
So I checked. John McCain missed more than half the votes in most areas rated by National Journal, and so could not be ranked. It looks worse when you look at the company McCain keeps in the “unranked” category.
Three senators do not have scores for 2007 because they missed more than half of the rated votes in an issue area: John McCain, R-Ariz., who was running for president; Tim Johnson, D-S.D., who was recuperating from a brain hemorrhage and returned to work on September 5, 2007; Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., who died on June 4, 2007; and John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who was appointed to succeed Thomas on June 22, 2007.
John McCain: Most absent.