Re: Tom Knapp releases his frustrations on RLC
- Posted by: "Dave Nalle" dave@...
> The point you seem to miss is that Knapp'sRead his original post. I think he may have
> complaint is about the endorsement not the
> rating system.
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 whichThe Index isn't a "litmus test", nor are the
> we single out as key issues where if someone
> comes down on the wrong side ...
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 aFor consistency, we struggle every year
> couple of social issues.
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,Look back and you'll find they have been
> the flag burning amendment ...
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 endorseYes. But endorsements are necessarily the
> and what they then do while in office, and I don't
> see Talent doing anything I want to be known for.
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.