It’s always pleasing to read what my colleagues in the profession have to say about matters (why I was not asked about this particular topic probably is due to this), but at the same time on some things somewhat sharper judgment is required, which I’m happy to provide.
In this discussion about Louisiana’s U.S. Senate contest, more than one implied that the ideologies of Republican incumbent Sen. David Vitter and Democrat challenger Rep. Charlie Melancon were not that distinct, one arguing that it’s about “two men with somewhat the same vision of government” and another asserting that "If you look at their records, they're similar …. "Rep. Melancon is a conservative.” The data support neither proposition.
Looking at the American Conservative Union’s voting scorecard for the two politicians, in 2009 Vitter voted as a perfect conservative and has an almost perfectly conservative lifetime rating of 94. On the other side of the mirror, with the scorecard of the Americans for Democratic Action, in 2009 Vitter got a 10. Contrast this with Melancon, who in 2009 got from the ACU a 27 with a lifetime score of 42, while the ADA graded him out at 60. At the very best, one could call Melancon a moderate liberal, but in no way is he a “conservative.” Nor can the gulf in their records mean that “they’re similar” or have “the same vision of government.”
Failing to understand this risks an inability to understand where the race is going and why it will turn out as it does. As previously noted, Vitter is a solid conservative in a conservative majority state, and with the bonus of this election cycle being favorable to such candidates because of the unfavorable policy consequences attached to the hard left governance of Pres. Barack Obama, the only way (how many times must this be written in this space) Vitter will lose is by committing an enormous blunder. The differences in policy preferences and records simply are too great for Melancon to try successfully to obscure.
Not realizing this leads another of my colleagues to stray in stating, “If Vitter didn't have so many problems, this should not be a close race.” Again, the facts speak otherwise: this is not a close race. For well over a year, every independent poll has Vitter with a very large lead, and even Democrat-run ones give Vitter a large lead well outside the margin of error. The race is not close, Vitter is winning going away, and will continue to do so unless he makes some kind of incredible blunder.
3 comments:
It takes an amazing amount of self-delusion to bring yourself to the conclusion that Obama is governing "hard left." He has dramatically slashed taxes, and his top tax rate is basically the equivalent of Reagan's. He hasn't even gone meaningfully after the war crimes of the previous administration. His health care achievements are the rough equivalent of those proposed and endorsed by conservatives for years (until they objected on the mere fact that it was a liberal who would bring home the bacon). His most important judicial nominees - perhaps the most important thing a president can do - were all widely acclaimed by conservatives (again, it is only upon a liberal's support that neocons turn on their former stars). Time and time again it is a centered guide. Even gay folks are upset at how little he's done for that constituency.
But nothing will stop Jeff Sadow from consistently freaking out about trivial comments and normal-course-of-behavior presidential stuff, and imagining apocalyptic death spiral of freedom and liberty. The simple nature of his scary liberal characterizations show just how well he has trained himself to submit to the untouchable truth of republican talking points. In the past, his sort would be relegated to a street corner conspiracy theorist, but in today's neocon environment, he isn't even shunned.
Watch out, Sadow, the budget cuts might require cutting your a$$
Pluto writes: "[Obama] has dramatically slashed taxes"
Total government revenues in 2008:
$2,524 billion
Total projected government revenues in 2016:
$3,737 billion
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/2009BudgetUpdate_Summary.pdf
Pluto writes:
"His most important judicial nominees - perhaps the most important thing a president can do - were all widely acclaimed by conservatives"
Republicans voted against Kagan's nomination to be solicitor general 31 to 7.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00107
But keep lying, it shows people what we're up against.
Post a Comment