Umm Mike I didn’t respond because of the pure logic involved:
1) If you reference the source (the Union) to which you judge and base your argument/findings on THEN
2) It is safe to say that you agree not to be selective of just tidbits of what they publish HENCE
3) When they publish a lifetime average they use that as a relative gauge of the whole (not just a selective tidbit) and use that lifetime average/stand by it ALSO
4) You mention that sometimes he barely broke 70% and last I saw in year alone average it was above 80% so hmmm appears that John is doing just fine in the eyes of the Union
5) Your standalone opinion is fine, but sounds like you bend the evidence to fit your own conclusion.
Lets look at some stats, shall we:
McCain's strongest point, or so I'm told: his “lifetime CU” score of 82%. Frankly, that argument leaves me unimpressed. I only use it since it seems to be every McCainannite's loadstone. As I've said previously, their results are unwieghted so a bill to create the office of "Federal Dogcatcher" has the same weight as the bailout bill.
Here are some of his rating for 2007 = 80%
2006 = 65%
2005 = 80%
2004 = 72%
2003 = 80%
2002 = 78%
2001 = 68%
2000 = 81%
1999 = 77%
1998 = 68%
Of course, Graham's lifetime CU (LCU) is 90.39%, Martinez's LCU is 86.67% (better than McCain!).
And, if a candidate's LCU rating is the last word, lets not forget Sen Craig, with his 93.32% rating.
So, I've exploded the myth of his LCU ranking. Which when broken down is anything but laudable, pretty much the lowest of the "R" with Presidential aspirations.
I guess you get the idea. If you continue with the data through the Clinton years, available at The American Conservative Union and you to graph it, it shows that when his vote could have made a difference - after the Congressional upset during Clinton Admin, he went Left like he had a rocket up his butt!
His voting record had taken up residence across the isle until the prep. phase for the 2000 primaries started, when it started meandering toward Conservatism. The only brake on his actions seemed to be what he thought he could get away with and still run for the Presidency. So what that he voted with the herd when his vote was empty. When you look at individual votes, he often votes conservative when a veto loomed and changed it when an over-ride was attempted. One of a block of "R"s who's vote could stop nothing... and it looked good. Somewhat like HS GPA, where the first 3yrs of classes are the easiest, but will pad your GPA so you can "D" most of the senior classes and your GPA still comes out pretty good.
Incidentally, I wasn't the one who brought up his voting record initially. I was answering your question. I, in fact, don't normally use the CU, but mine the data directly. I have used the CU here as an example because it is a common reference, but if you wanted to simply buy a subscription to the Congressional Record you could tract almost as well.
If you'd like, I'll try to remember the links to the sources where he's recorded with his own words where he thinks "his" party, when it is adhering to Constitutional Principles -- as apposed to Socialist ones, is wrong. It has "gone down the wrong road", but the Dems are a "fine party, and a fine philosophy and I see nothing wrong with it" to use his turn of phrase!
Perhaps, instead of simply appearing occasionally to say "that's a silly notion", you'd like to actually support your opinion with a few facts?
On 2nd thought, I'm not going to do your work for you. These quotes were posted on this blog by lots of different people, along with sourcing. Find them yourself. I will leave it to others to judge which of us know what we're talking about.
And, your attempt to cast my arguments into a syllogism has produced several falacies. I'll give you a hint on one error though. If you'ed actually read what I posted to you previously you'll notice that I tell you not to rely on the CU, as they use a sledgehammer approach. Any 1/2way awake politician can get a good CU rating by gaming the system. So, no, I'm not alright with them. Go look up the CU ratings for some of the Dems. They have good CU ratings because the leadership allows them to vote conservative when they need to for re-election. The major point of my comment to you, as far as the data was concerned, is that to infer motive you have to analyze more than just "yay" or "nay". Timing, veto threats, importance of the bill -- all need to be factored in.
Add to this his attempts to switch parties, his lying about it when called on it. His Lying about Romney's comments, in FL, and insisting that we wasn't lying even when corrected. Add his claim to being a "Right to Life" candidate but the Wisconson incident. Add to that McCain-Fiengold's stab at the 1st Amendment. Add his lying on his 2nd Amendment stance, which you can look up here:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5043 which states, in part:
McCain’s gun show regulations, instead of simply requiring background checks on sales at gun shows, would make it extremely difficult for gun shows even to function. A special license would be required to operate gun shows. Licenses could be denied without the federal government even having to give a reason, and no time limits would be placed on how long the government had to make its decisions.
While gun-control groups have tried for years to register the names of gun owners, McCain’s legislation helps accomplish this by effectively requiring the registration of all people who attend a gun show. Gun show operators would even face criminal penalties and imprisonment if any unregistered attendees were to trade a gun after the show if the gun were discussed in any way during the show. The only option to operators would thus be to register everyone.
McCain acknowledges that these regulations could be abused, but, according to him, the goals are too important to compromise, and McCain assures us that we should trust the regulators. Yet, it was not so long ago that the Clinton administration constantly halted gun sales nationwide as background checks broke down and kept records long after the law explicitly allowed.
Most troubling are McCain’s extreme measures for what is essentially a non-existent problem. The Bureau of Justice Statistics under Clinton conducted a survey of 18,000 state prison inmates in 1997—the largest survey of inmates ever conducted. Less than one percent of inmates (0.7 percent) who had a gun obtained it from a gun show. The vast majority of criminals—40 percent—say they got their guns either from friends or family, and 39 percent got it on the street or from other illegal sources.
Of course, like with many gun-control regulations, this call for more regulations rests on distortions. Despite the “gun show loophole” term used by McCain and others, there are no special exemptions for buying a gun at a gun show. Dealers must perform the same background checks as in a store. What gun-control groups refer to is the non-regulated private transfer of guns. Eighteen states regulate the private transfer of handguns, with some having regulations going back more than several decades. However, not surprisingly, just as with the semi-automatic gun bans, there is not a single academic study showing that these regulations reduce any type of violent crime.
McCain has also done advertisements on behalf of Americans for Gun Safety, a gun-control organization that supports licensing and registering every gun owner in the United States. He has used the ads to greatly exaggerate the risks of children getting access to guns in the home—a claim that is based upon a questionable survey—and asked that people lock up guns. With the threats he claims existed, few would know that in 2002, for example, the number of children under 10 who died from accidental gun shots was 20, and the number of children under 15 was 56. Obviously, one death is too many, but McCain has launched no similar campaign against other much more dangerous items in people’s homes.
No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain’s push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves.