Measurable differences

"In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10," the authors write before going on to quote Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist, as saying, "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter." -- National Journal, quoted in Salon.com


Clinton 17%
Obama 16%
McCain 88% -- 2006 NTU ratings

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton talked each other to a stalemate last night in what the Clinton campaign had hoped would offer a decisive breakthrough for her ailing campaign.

On issues ranging from the economy to the war to immigration the two demonstrated the closeness of their positions rather than any grand differences of policy. -- Guardian.co.uk

Recently, The Wizer has spent some time looking for measurements and methods that rank school systems. One of the things I've come to learn is that the folks who have to publish test data do their best to downplay the meaning of it. I guess they don't want the people to develop a low opinion of their own school systems, lest there be "unrest", perhaps. The numbers do tend to tell a story though. If the kids do well, the numbers go up. If they don't, the numbers go down. As a parent, I would want to see the indicators that the kids have a shot at doing well. And will accept a direct measurement method, as flawed as it may be.

Accordingly, the scoring system devised by the National Taxpayer's Union might be a reasonable, acceptable comparison of how elected officials perform in their management of the nation's affairs.

SO, we have a means to compare their voting record against a standard, and it's instructive to look at the differences between Obama and Clinton. Believe me, I'm as perceptive as the next guy, and I can't see a difference between them. Turns out, there isn't much difference in how they would lead, who they would appoint, what kinds of things they would talk about if elected.

I had thought there would be a lot of talking, and therefore a lot of scoring in The Wizer's horserace point system; but there's no scoring going on, and nothing remarkable being said by the democrats. Democrat politics used to be about important, even crucial stuff: Now its about where one gets their material for speeches, and whose spouse can keep their mouth shut best.

So we need another system. One that will start to show the true differences among the candidates. I believe the NTU ratings say enough about how they would lead. They are both in favor of spending your money.

McCain isn't differentiating himself much from either of them on the campaign trail; and maybe he is saving that for the general election. It surprised me that he somehow worked up an 88% NTU rating; all the while making backroom deals with all flavors of the enemy. Maybe the rating belies the possibility ...that McCain will stand up at the crucial moments and be counted among the believers.

Last of the Mohicans

“Because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to stand aside for our party and our country” -- Mitt Romney at CPAC

Toward the end of his speech, after promising to prevent Iran from possessing, “…the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions,” McCain promised to remain the maverick he has always been. He said:

“We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.”

This is vintage McCain. He promises to hear, not to listen. He promises to seek counsel, but not to respect it. -- Jed Babbin

"I don't think it's enough to say you were a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. I think the question is 'what have you been doing for conservatism lately?'" -- Laura Ingraham, delivering a message to John McCain while introducing Romney at CPAC

News item: Washington, D.C. - Following a solid McCain victory in the Super Tuesday primaries, the Libertarian Party has sent Republican headquarters a funeral wreath marking the death of limited-government values within the Republican Party. -- Libertarian Press Release, Feb 6th


I wasn't too sure myself whether Romney was even a conservative; the fact that he looked that way when compared to the others in the race should not be lost on those watching. I'm quite certain he will be back in the race as a Republican in 2012. As for this year, it remains to be see which of the last four (-- maybe we should call two of them them RINOcrats just so the news media can continue to call it an election). The only choice left is for those who make their judgments based on appearances, and not policies.

Wizer One-Liner #16

There is nothing more useless than a big government Republican.

Republicans vs. Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh can do a whole three hours of radio every day just covering the silliness that pervades the Democrats and their liberal constituency. When he has to single out Republicans, it becomes clear that "big-tent Republicanism" has gone too far. Brett Bozell has a piece on it today.

And this news is portrayed as breaks in the ranks of conservatives. Certain news outlets still cling to the notion that McCain represents any form of conservatism. Not only do the McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Kennedy bills lay bare the clear liberal motives of this man, they also sound like plausible running mates for the 2008 election.

I've often said there is nothing more useless than a big government republican. (Now emblazoned in this intrepid blog as Wizer One-Liner #16). If that is where the Republican Party is headed, they go there without a large group of folks, including The Wizer.

I guess they don't need as big of a tent where they are going.