The John Roberts confirmation story on the front page of today's Washington Post (by reporters Charles Babington and Peter Baker) jumps to page A4 with this sentence: "Among those opposing Roberts were presidential aspirants who typically veer to the center, but are now eyeing the liberal activist groups that will play key roles in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early-voting states in 2008. They included Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Joseph Biden (Del.), and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)."
Sigh. Always consult your handy voting guide at acuratings.com for the real story about these allegedly veering centrists: Evan Bayh is the closest to the Post claim, with a lifetime ACU rating of 22 percent conservative. Joe Biden has a lifetime ACU of 14, and a zero for 2004. Hillary Clinton has a lifetime ACU of NINE, and a zero for 2004. Brent Baker always insists we be extra-fair and note the liberal Americans for Democratic Action ratings. Those can be found here. (For 2004, Bayh scored 90 percent liberal, Biden and Hillary were both at 95). So how do scores like these get described as "typical veering" to centrism? It's transparently inaccurate: anybody who votes with the liberals on nine out of ten votes should be described as typically veering to the left. This goes double for Hillary, who is best known for trying to sink the country under a massive socialist health care "reform" plan.
The obvious question for the liberals is would it sound implausible for us to suggest that George Allen (Hillary's opposite at lifetime ACU of 91) or Bill Frist (lifetime ACU 89) "typically veered" to the center? I think it does. So why do they play this game of ideological camouflage for their presidential favorites?