McCain's voting record.

Given all the references in the press the last couple of days to McCain's voting record, I thought that I would look up some numbers. McCain is on the liberal side of Republicans, but there is a big difference between him and the average Democrat.

McCain's ACU ratings (100 most conservative, 0 most liberal):

2006 65 Average for Republicans 81 Average for Democrats 11
2005 80 Average for Republicans 86 Average for Democrats 12
2004 72
2003 80
2002 84
2001 68
2000 81
1999 77

McCain's Americans for Democratic Action ratings (higher means more liberal with 100 as the highest):

2005 10

Here are the two liberal votes in the index that he made that year:

amendment to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug manufacturers for lower drug prices under Medicare. Rejected 49-50.

McCain (R-AZ) amendment to establish the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation as the uniform standard for interrogating persons detained by the Department of Defense, and prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of any prisoner detained by the U.S. government. Adopted 90-9. October 5, 2005.

In only the first of the two votes could his vote have mattered.

2004 35

Here are the seven liberal votes included in the index that he made that year:

1) Voted to require gun locks sold with guns. 70-27
2) increasing funds for childcare by $6 billion over five years. 78-20
3) extending unemployment benefits 59-40
4) "amendment blocking reclassification of nuclear waste that would allow the Defense Department to leave the waste in place." 48-48
5) Voted for Ted Kennedy amendment on Iraq. Given his claims on the Iraq war, this is very strange since it was a pretty much party line vote with Kennedy trying to cause trouble for the Republicans. 48-50
6) Against constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman. 48-50
7) "A bill reorganizing 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and creating a national intelligence director with power to freely transfer money among the CIA, National Security Agency and other defense and civilian agencies." 96-2

The Emptiness of Campaign Finance Reform

The Drudge Report mentions that the Clinton's may be spending their own money now on Hillary's campaign. Note how the WSJ recently reported:

Former President Clinton stands to reap around $20 million -- and will sever a politically sensitive partnership tie to Dubai -- by ending his high-profile business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle. . . .

Obviously Clinton has gotten a lot of money from other sources so there is no need to single out Burkle, but Burkle obviously can't donate $10 or $12 million to Clinton's campaign. Yet, if he pays Clinton for work that isn't very obvious, Clinton can then turn around and spend it on a campaign. Does it really matter that Burkle can't give the money directly to Clinton?

Typical email that I am getting on the Republican Presidential Candidates and Gun Control

John,
First of all thank your hard work defending the 2nd Amendment. I have to vote today and am quite torn as usual. I am not a one issue voter. I have always admired John McCain's sacrifice for our country, but seeing him chumming up with Arnold really bothers me. I have a lot of friends in CA that are furious about The Governor signing yet more anti gun legislation, as as they say so goes CA, so goes the Nation. So I may end up voting for a man I don't respect as much...

Any thoughts?

My response:

Well, with Romney you will likely get an new assault weapons ban. With McCain, you will get a gun show regulation bill that will regulate all private transfers of guns. I would also guess that you could get a bill requiring that people use gun locks. I am not sure what Romney really believes because he has changed his positions on too many issues. Of these different laws, I think that the gun locks rule is the worst because if prevents people from using guns defensively.

Personally, I worry that both Romney and McCain will be weak general election candidates though for different reasons. Romney because he has changed his position on too many issues. McCain will be attacked as too old and will have a tough time getting the conservative base to turn out.

My bottom line is the courts. I think that Romney is probably more likely to appoint conservatives to the courts than McCain. I think that McCain will have a very hard time appointing conservatives to the court if he really wants his campaign finance regulations put in place. I believe that there is a strong correlation between their views on protecting the First Amendment on political speech and the Second Amendment.

I hope that this helps.

League of Conservation Voters endorsed McCain in 2004

I thought that this endorsement by the League of Conservation Voters was enlightening:

LCV has endorsed Republican John McCain for reelection in the U. S. Senate to represent Arizona. Senator McCain has been a leader on global warming, a strong voice of reason against drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and has voiced his opposition to the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill. He is the lead sponsor on the bipartisan McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 that would require a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010. Senator McCain said, "We must take action, and act appropriately. Many have hidden for too long behind what we do not know or the uncertainties around climate change. Their shield is shrinking." The Senator voted against an amendment that would have opened the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling and in a letter addressed to the President said, "I have thought long and hard about this debate and the vote that I will cast. I still hope we can achieve a more balanced national energy strategy, but I am not convinced that a key component of that policy should be to drill in ANWR." Before voting against the Energy Bill, he sent a letter to Congress stating his opposition to the manner in which the bill was developed, he said, "One of the other problems that I have with this bill is the way in which it was developed. This secretive, exclusive process has lead to a 1200 page monstrosity that is chock full of special interest giveaways and exemptions from environmental and other laws that frankly can´ withstand the light of scrutiny." If you would like to support Senator McCain's campaign, please contact Vivien Braslau at vivien_braslau@lcv.org.

Here is an interview where McCain is arguing that he is the strongest green candidate:

Why should voters consider you the strongest green candidate? What sets your platform on energy and the environment apart from the others?

My clear record of environmental advocacy and activism, ranging from my efforts to protect the Grand Canyon to working with [Connecticut Sen.] Joe Lieberman to get a cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through the United States Senate.

You've said that global warming would be one of three key issues for your presidency. Why do you think the issue is important?

It's like Tony Blair said: Suppose we're wrong, and there's no such thing as greenhouse-gas emissions, and we adopt green technologies. All we've done is give our kids a better planet. But suppose we're right, and do nothing? Then what kind of a legacy are we handing on to future generations of Americans? I think we ought to frame the debate that way.

And I think most, if not all, of the ways that we can address this issue are through profit-motive, free-enterprise-system-driven green technologies. General Electric dedicated itself to green technologies, and guess what? They're still making a lot of money.

Yet, for the evidence on the global warming see here.

Brief to over turn DC gun ban filed today

The brief for the attorneys challenging the DC gun ban was filed today. You can read it here.

A good textbook discussion on the benefits of globalization

Donald Boudreaux has a new book out, Globalization, that covers everything from why people trade to the "alleged exceptions" to free trade to how trade impacts jobs and wages. The book is well worth using for an undergraduate class or for anyone interested in learning about the benefits of trade. It is priced as a textbook (so it is expensive), but I am glad that I bought a copy and I think that others will be too.  I particularly thought that Chapter 4 on "Trade, Jobs, and Wages" as well as Chapter 6 on "The Balance of Trade" were well done.  If Chapter 4 alone was read by enough people, the political debate these days would be quite different.

Another Shooting in a Gun Free Zone

Of course, permitted concealed handguns do not exist any place in Illinois given that this is one of two states that completely ban them any place. Yet, the ban doesn't seem to have stopped this attack:

TINLEY PARK, Ill. — A gunman fatally shot five women in a robbery at a store in a suburban Chicago strip mall and fled Saturday, prompting police to sweep through neighboring shops as terrified customers watched. . . .

Police say that "Good Guys Won"

Stories about how this break-in in Las Vegas, NV was stopped can be found here (February 2nd:

A man was shot after he broke into an east Las Vegas home and attempted to rob the people inside Thursday night, Las Vegas police said.

The man, whose name was not released, was taken to a hospital and remained there Friday, police said.

He and another suspect entered a home on the 2100 block of Casa Ladera Street, near Lake Mead and Nellis boulevards, about 9 p.m. Thursday. During the attempted robbery, a struggle broke out among the victims and the two suspects, police said, and one of the suspects was shot.

The victims "were at a barbecue, and people broke in and it went to hell, but it looks like the good guys won," said Las Vegas police Lt. Mitch Bradshaw, who oversees the department's sexual assault unit. . . .

Thanks very much to L. J. O'Neale for sending me this link.

Another Review of Freedomnomics

Brian Shelly has a review of Freedomnomics here:

However, I read Freedomnomics by Economist Dr. John Lott. This book was a pretty easy read and I found some of the information jaw dropping. His specialty is crime and punishment and Chapter 4, which focuses on that, just blew me away. It really showed how conventional wisdom is flat out wrong when you look at the data on crime. . . .

Fox's 24 falling to political correctness

The Wall Street Journal reports that political correctness hits "24":

Producers would later experience trouble casting roles, once some of the most desirable in television, because the actors disapproved of the show's depiction of torture. "The fear and wish-fulfillment the show represented after 9/11 ended up boomeranging against us," says the show's head writer, Howard Gordon. "We were suddenly facing a blowback from current events."

Last spring, Fox executives asked producers to come up with a plan for what to do with their onetime crown jewel. The producers decided to take the radical -- and rarely attempted -- step of reinventing the show. While some fans complained "24" had grown too formulaic, the producers also grudgingly saw the importance of wrestling the show from its ties to an unpopular conflict. . . .

If you look at the viewing data provided in the article, it seems very hard for me to discern a fall off in viewership because of opposition to torture. If you look at the last season, there was a drop that was already occurring before the New Yorker piece repersented by the orange dot in the 2006/2007 season (the vertical lines represent viewership). If you click on this link, you can use the interactive features in the WSJ picture.

What is an all too common reaction to gun ownership

I was pointed to this blog posting by Amanda Nalley, someone who I don't know, but her discussion was interesting because of the reactions that she faced from getting a concealed handgun permit are so similar to what I am sure that many face. It is also clear that there continue to be so many misconceptions about the risks of having guns.

I know owning a gun is dangerous, but so is getting in a car, or sharpening kitchen knives.

What bothers me the most about my choice is talking to non-gun owners.

I keep hearing the same things over and over and over again. They don't want to sound prudish by saying guns are bad but they want to know why you are doing it and have dozens of reasons as to why you shouldn't.

"Why? I mean, I don't mind guns and I don't mind people owning them. My grandfather even owned one. I just don't get it though. What are you trying to accomplish? What about kids? Will they be safe? Why would you ever want to carry one on you? Wouldn't it just incite a situation?"

Most gun owners know there are safety issues in owning a gun. A responsible owner, like a responsible driver, will obey rules and store their guns safely. But there are those who don't obey the rules just like there are drivers who run red lights.

Guns, like cars, are everywhere. They are like the dirty little secret we pretend isn't all around us. And they are one of the few things that EVERYONE has formed an opinion on (other topics would include tipping and abortion).

The four gun classes that were held this weekend were some of the largest in the state. And the variety of people there was awe inspiring. . . .

The problem of course is that these safety rules come at a real cost for people's safety. Locking up guns make it much harder for people to use guns defensively.

In 2004, there were 649 accidental gun deaths, 76 of those deaths involved women. I just did a really quick search on this.

Unintentional poisoning 20,950, women 7,016
Unintentional Falls 18,807, women 8,951
Suffocation 5,891, women 2,671
Fires 3,322, women 1,368
Unintentional bicycle deaths 843, women 111
Unintentional Motor Vehicles 44,933, women 14,096
Drowning 3,308, women 714

Talks in California this next Week

The beginning of this next week will be busy with several talks in California. The two big talks are the Commonwealth Club at the Menlo Park City Council Chambers – 701 Laurel Street – Menlo Park on Wednesday, February 6th and the Conservative Forum on Tuesday, February 5th. You can find more on the Conservative Forum here.

As part of all this, I will also be doing an interview on KSFO at 6 PM (PDT) on Monday.

Democrats in Washington Proposing More Gun Control: Gun Show Regulations

The Virginia Tech Shooting is being used to push for a gun control law that no one is arguing would have had to do anything with the shooting. I guess this passes for rigorous reasoning:

This week, two Senate Democrats introduced legislation to close that loophole in federal law, despite a recent failure in Virginia -- where a gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech in April -- to change a similar state law.

Accompanied by family members of some of the Virginia Tech victims, along with gun-control advocate Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Democratic Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Jack Reed of Rhode Island unveiled their proposal at a news conference Wednesday. . . .

This time Lautenberg and Reed are using the Virginia Tech shootings to build their case, though gunman Seung-hui Cho bought his guns from a licensed dealer and underwent a background check.

My book, The Bias Against Guns, spends a lot of time in chapter 8. The one impact that I found from these laws is that they reduce gun shows by about 25 percent.

Places where concealed handguns can be carried in Georgia expanded

See this:

Debate continues in the Georgia General Assembly over weapons. But on Thursday the House voted 111-58 to allow Georgians with concealed gun permits to carry their weapon at bus stops, other transportation facilities, houses of worship and restaurants. According to the Telegraph, the House vote expands a move by the Senate allowing people holding permits to carry guns at public parks & restaurants without alcohol licenses.

More on what is happening in Georgia regarding gun free zones can be found here.

Hillary versus Obama on Delegates

I was looking at the delegate totals for the Democrats and while Hillary is ahead in total delegates, her lead is entirely driven by Super Delegates. Among delegates won in the primaries and caucuses, Hillary won 48 and Obama 63. The thing with these super delegates is that they can change their minds. If we had the less compressed schedule for primaries that we had in 2004 or 2000, Obama would easily win. I don't know whether he will have enough steam by Tuesday.