Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Tom Knapp releases his frustrations on RLC

Expand Messages
  • westmiller@aol.com
    Posted by: Dave Nalle dave@nalle.net ... Read his original post. I think he may have concluded that the LI is the *sole determinant* of our endorsement.
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 17, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Posted by: "Dave Nalle" dave@...
      > The point you seem to miss is that Knapp's
      > complaint is about the endorsement not the
      > rating system.

      Read his original post. I think he may have
      concluded that the LI is the *sole determinant*
      of our endorsement. I've posted again, with a
      specific explanation of our methodology and
      approach to endorsements:


      > There ought to at least be a few issues which
      > we single out as key issues where if someone
      > comes down on the wrong side ...

      The Index isn't a "litmus test", nor are the
      votes selected even official RLC policy (as is
      noted in the disclaimer). What many people
      overlook is that the issues they consider
      important *do not appear* in the most recent
      scores ... because *they were scored* in the
      prior years, when they were voted.

      > ... that list ought to include at least a
      > couple of social issues.

      For consistency, we struggle every year
      to find TWENTY personal liberty issues, not
      just a few. That's what the entire rating is
      based on: the two LiberGraph factors of both
      personal and economic liberty.
      There are several other good ratings on
      economic issues alone, and there are others
      on 'civil liberties', but we are the only rating
      that selects FORTY VOTES every year, with
      twenty for each category. I don't fault the
      other rating services, but they clearly state
      that they are *ONLY* on economics.

      > ... the anti same sex marriage amendment,
      > the flag burning amendment ...

      Look back and you'll find they have been
      included ... when there was such a roll call.
      Obviously, we haven't even started reviewing
      the roll calls for 2006 and won't have any idea
      what issues will be voted by the end of this
      year. I'm sure that some of those you mention
      will appear in the next edition.

      > Like it or not, we are judged by who we endorse
      > and what they then do while in office, and I don't
      > see Talent doing anything I want to be known for.

      Yes. But endorsements are necessarily the
      personal decisions of each Board member. We
      don't interrogate each of them to justify their
      vote. All of them take into account every factor,
      including whether we want to be associated
      with the candidate's public image or issues.
      If you don't see Talent "doing things" that
      are important and valuable, you haven't looked.
      He does tend to work "behind the scenes",
      having a major impact on important issues.
      If you're judging him by his public appearances,
      or his top campaign issues, that's fine. But,
      it's *how he votes* that matters.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.