« From Miscarriage of Justice To Full-Fledged Travesty | Main | Howard Dean's New Playbook »
Scatterbrained
My recent post about Bill Frist taking the reins on the sea port issue from flimsy national security posturers like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton got me thinking about Senatorial voting records and the quantifiable differences among Senators and their legislative priorities.
To get a visual on these differences, I decided to scattergram Senators' votes along two dimensions: national security and pro-growth economic policy.
To assign each Senator a national security score, I took the average of the two measures mentioned in the previous post - the 2003-04 support ratings (0-100) according to two prominent national security interest groups (the Center for Security Policy and the American Security Council). As a proxy for Senators' commitment to pro-growth economic policy, I counted the number of votes cast during the 109th Congress in keeping with the Club For Growth Congressional Scorecard (0-6).
Not surprisingly, these two dimensions carve up the Senate pretty cleanly along party lines. Senators Frist, Schumer, and Clinton are plotted in green. Others are colored by party (GOP: Red, Dem/Ind: Blue). Some interesting anomalies and endpoints are noted by letter.
Click image to enlarge.
It's easy to forget how demonstrably weak certain legislators are on key issues like keeping us alive and allowing free market capitalism to drive global prosperity, but we can't let empty rhetoric slung around now and then by opportunistic ideologues erase their enduringly atrocious voting records.
Handcrafted by Flip on February 22, 2006 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00d834ad6c6469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Scatterbrained:
Comments
Hey wingnut. Do you actually think that the ratings from these neo con groups have any relation to reality? You fundies are just sad.Posted by: zach | Feb 22, 2006 9:08:20 AM
Anyone else notice that "neocon" has become the most inaccurately used word since "facist"? Look it up. Learn how to use it. And "fundies"? How is it that security and economics tie in with religion? My advice: pick a tantrum and stick with it. Anyway, these interest groups may be called conservative in their leanings, insofar as their focus (national security and pro-growth economic policy) are associated with conservatives. Fair enough. I agree, these are two key principles that conservatives stand for. And these ratings are simply objective, numerical representations of how often a given Senator votes in favor of those principles. In that sense, Chuck and Hillary are simply trying to paint themselves as "conservative", if you deem groups that count pro-security votes to be "conservative", because that's the very lie that these two (and their ilk) are trying to sell us - that they're strongly pro-security.Posted by: Flip | Feb 22, 2006 9:51:48 AM

