Coleman Does Something Right And Helps Prove The 80:20 Rule Wrong
November 11th, 2007 by 
Kevin
Since I do harp on Senator Coleman an awful lot, and in my opinion for very good reason, I probably should give him credit when he deserves it. And recently he finally did something that sort of deserves some measure of credit.
Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman today introduced legislation condemning states that issue driver’s licenses to aliens residing in the United States illegally. Coleman’s Sense of the Senate resolution would make it the official position of the Senate that states who issue government identification to illegal immigrants are disrespecting and disregarding federal immigration laws.
Well at least the sentiment is right, and for that he deserves some measure of credit. I award him one point, he remains only 32,174 points* in the hole. However, this does highlight a critical issue that bothers many conservatives.
Many conservatives upon gripping about their “Republican” elected officials, will be lectured by the nearest party-hack about the 80:20 rule. Which basically states that if someone votes with us on 80% of the issues, it doesn’t really matter how they vote on the other 20%, they are on our side.
That theory has never sat well with me, and this is a perfect example. Let’s say votes/bills/resolutions like this make up 80% of his record. Great, his heart is in the right place, but the problem is “Sense of the Senate” resolutions and naming post offices are meaningless. Let’s say the the other 20% of his voting record, he’s voting against conservatives principles, but that 20% includes things like amnesty comprehensive immigration and socialized health care SCHIP.
In the case of a politician like that, I would argue that calling them a good “Republican” just because they technically fall within the 80:20 rule is stupid and self-destructive. Sure this is an extreme example, but the fact of the matter is we have a lot of Republicans who will vote with us on the small meaningless things, but when our backs are really to the wall. When the vote really counts. When other issues pale in comparison, they vote against us. Sure those votes may be few and far between, but they can’t be discounted as just 20%.
This same concept has been demonstrated in the business community for years, under the name of Earned Value Management (EVM). Just saying that a politicians has cast 80% of his votes correctly is insufficient. Just as EVM teaches that not every task is equal, not every vote is equal. One must consider the effort necessary of each task, or in the case of politics the importance of that vote. Once you take that into account, I think you’ll find that many of these same politicians who are defended with the 80:20 rule, don’t even come close to 80%.
And in cases like that, rather than defending them and look the other way as they sell out conservatives. I’d rather stand up and call a RINO a RINO. If you feel the label is unfair, prove me wrong, as I’d welcome it.
* According to the Department of Numbers-I-Made-Up
[Crossposted at True North]
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in Immigration, Political Mumbojumbo | 
4 Comments »
November 14th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“… If you feel the label is unfair, prove me wrong, as I’d welcome it.”
I have to try, because I worry about your mental health if I don’t, and fear that it may be contagious.
First of all, if you are going to propose a “weighted average” test for the 80-20 rule, then somebody has to decide which are the “important” votes, which are not, and how the weighting of those votes are to be done. One way to do it is to let a “committee” handle the ratings. The American Conservative Union gives him a 64% last year, 75% lifetime. The National Right to Life gives him an 83% vote, but it is 100% on “final” votes. If right to life is your issue, and for a lot of “us” it is, you cannot do any better than Norm.
As for the other issues, you need to get over the emotional reactions and look at actual votes. For example, Norm Coleman voted AGAINST the comprehensive immigration reform bill, on the final vote, the only one that ought to matter. On the final vote on SCHIP in the Senate, Norm voted “against” us, but because of what he saw as specific detailed provisions in the bill that would make SCHIP a /more/ conservative program than it is now. That might be bad judgement or a flawed assessment, but it seems to be based on conservative principle, so do you really want to argue with that?
And I’m still going to tell you that 80-20, or even 64-36, is a heck of a lot better than 16-84, which is how Mark Dayton ranked with the ACU. (And I think Amy Klobuchar is 6-94.) I know you want better than what you think Norm’s done, and I want something better than what he’s actually done. I’m greedy, I admit it. But Better Than Norm is NOT one of your options. It’s going to come down to Norm or “Much Worse Than Norm.” Reality bites. Please deal with it.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:07 am
You still don’t point how how he’s NOT a RINO. All you do is indicate how a RINO is better than a Democrat. Which very well may be true, but it still doesn’t explain why we have to settle for a RINO to begin with.
Those percentages you list, are not weighted so you’re not even addressing the substance of my post. Congrats for trying to obfuscate away from it.
And you do the same on the actual votes. Coleman saved his vote until well after it was decided and then voted with the tide. I don’t call that principled, I call it cowardly.
And I would hardly say his SCHIP vote was based upon conservative principle. Nowhere is overspending a conservative principle. Nor do I think taking an extremely narrow view of virtually everything is an admirable trait.
And I realize Better Than Norm is not currently one of my options. It still can be however, and I’m not embracing Coleman until November of 08, and then only if I literally have no other choice.
Reality bites, you’re right. And I am dealing with it. Not by rolling over and accepting it, but by calling things as they are.
Perhaps if you’d spend less time defending Coleman you might have time to realize why it is that he constantly needs to be defended from his own base.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
[...] of the Senate” type bill indicating their opposition to drivers licenses for illegals. I gave lukewarm praise for having the right idea, but doing it via a method that was essentially [...]
February 25th, 2008 at 1:54 am
[...] are finally starting to hold the necessary feet to the fire, rather than just mumble about an 80:20 rule. It almost makes me sorry that our BPOU convention is going to be relatively boring by comparison. [...]