[ConservativeGadfly]

Here's the problem with any ratings system, right or left. They pick certain votes, particularly during an election year for that member, that they really think will either boost or hurt whoever the target is. Given what they pick for incumbents they like at ACU, a 91 is barely minimally passing for a conservative. The issues are no-brainers for conservatives. For her not to make a 100 on this weighted test says volumes.

They do the same thing on the left. This is Washington.

It is about a "Good Housekeeping" seal approach to press/communications -- getting people to quote these artificially created ratings systems are quick tools to communicate something positive or negative.

It is a communications tool. It should not replace good old fashioned legwork to study who truly is a conservative.

[1rudeboy]

Go here and click on "Description of Votes Scored." Find some with which you disagree how the rating was calculated and proceed with your opinion here. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

[YCTHouston]

They've been doing it since 1971, so I doubt it's contrived to help a particular member get reelected - and when was the last time you saw an ACU rating in a campaign commercial? I agree the score card is only one measure (i.e. Mel Martinez getting a 100), but it does show how a member compares to his/her colleagues. See, for instance, John McCain's 72.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

They pick certain votes, particularly during an election year for that member, that they really think will either boost or hurt whoever the target is. Given what they pick for incumbents they like at ACU, a 91 is barely minimally passing for a conservative. The issues are no-brainers for conservatives. For her not to make a 100 on this weighted test says volumes.

What BS! Have you ever read the votes they grade? One year she was way down for defending against base closings in Texas. ANY Senator will resist that in their home state.