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.

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.