The amnesty bill debate should have demonstrated to you that ACU ratings are meaningless and easily manipulated. Many of the architects of the bill actually voted against it.
The bills in the senate are all hammered out by Kennedy, Lott and company. Then they figure out who is going to be the "face" and who is going to be the "heel". Kennedy votes for it and gets kudos from his liberal base and Lott votes against it and it placates his base.
Seriously, it is just like professional wrestling - it's staged, it's theater.
BS. The ACU ratings are not meaningless. They are computed on a basket of critical votes. The votes selected fall into three categories: (1)economic and budget matters; (2) social and cultural issues; and (3)defense and foreign policy. Votes are selected on the basis of whether the vote refelcts a "clear ideological distinction among Membes of Congress." As a member of the ACU, I find your claim without substance. The amnesty bill is just one of 25 votes that are used to compute the rating.
Specter's lifetime ACU rating is 45, Imhofe and Coburn 98. Clinton's is 9, Kennedy's 2, and Obama's 8.
Seriously, it is just like professional wrestling - it's staged, it's theater.
Look, I am not a political neophyte. I understand "I voted for it before I voted against it." That said, voting records are indicative of where people stand on the political spectrum. As Sessions said about John Kyl, someone I admire and have always believed was a true conservative (ACU lifetime rating: 97), "I would have signed the immigration reform bill without even reading it if John Kyl was the only one writing it."
I put a lot of time and effort fighting the Senate bill thru my local grassroots organization on immigration reform. To me, the future of this country was on the line with that bill, which would have finished us a nation, at least as we know it. That said, I would rather have John Kyl as my representative than Janet Napolitano.