With all due respect, you know that ACU lifetime ranking is meaningless in McCain's case because of his longevity. Last year his rating was a 60. And after getting trounced by Dubya in 2000, the petulant, spoiled brat, McCain's 2001 rating was a 63.
One apology would be like a Baseball player. Including Hall of Fame players like Mr Cub Ernie Banks or .... Lou Gehrig.
Gerhrig's "Lifetime" batting average is .340, BUT in his last full year ('38) was .295 (big drop off)And I think you know that those ACU ratings are somewhat misleading even for an individual year as they're based on actual yea, nay votes. And then only on about 20 issues the ACU has a position on. No voice votes, back room deals like the Gang of 14 or backstabbing speeches McCain is infamous for are taken into account.
And Mr Cub's "Lifetime" avg is .274, BUT in his last full year ('69) it was .253 and in '68 a lousy .246But since they played a looooong time their lifetime avg's didn't suffer form the lousy years. ACU ratings are very very similar in that respect.
The ACU rating is just one tool. And just touting McCain's Lifetime rating is IMO a red herring.
The only thing more painful than having to vote for McCain is the constant utterings on this forum of people determined to elect Hillary or Obama.
“And just touting McCain’s Lifetime rating is IMO a red herring?”
So Obama’s & Clinton’s ACU of below 10 is what?
you people be sure and let me know who you’re gonna vote for come 11/4....
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
analogy ... (sorry could not resist)