Monday, April 24, 2006

Surprise: TIME's "Ten Best Senators" Boosts Liberals

Do I trust TIME to profile the “10 Best Senators” (4.24.06)? Would you? (If you do, see post on TIME’s coverage of the environment, “Global Warming: How Worried?”)

Well, not only are Republicans six of the ten best senators, Republicans are only three of the five worst. Pretty fair, huh?

No, not fair, in fact. TIME has a cute second category called “Up and Comers,” where it squeezes in three more Democrats (including Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, the Democrats’ politically-correct 2008 “Dream Team”) against just two Republicans. Though Democrats’ numbers in the Senate are at their lowest since 1930, the result of honoring 15 top senators, minus 5 bottom senators, is a net plus 5 for Democrats (7-2) and plus 5 for Republicans (8-3).

But that’s not all. The two Democrat “losers” don’t figure in any future Senate: Mark Dayton is retiring, and if Dan Akaka's primary opponent beats Akaka because of TIME, he will keep the seat Democratic anyway. So just set aside the two worst Democrats. The article now honors seven Democrats and five (net) Republicans.

The five (net) Republicans are all moderates, to TIME, the best kind of Republican. That’s because the three conservative Republicans TIME recognizes are offset by the three “worst” Republicans, all conservatives (including one, Montana’s Conrad Burns, whom TIME’s treatment may help knock off this Fall).

And of the seven honored Democrats, six are liberal, including one liberal, Kent Conrad, who faces a tough fight in a Red State (North Dakota), and will use TIME’s favorable rating in his campaign. The only moderate Democrat TIME honors is Arkansas’ Mark Pryor, who would have to be moderate anyway to hold his Deep South seat.

So to summarize, the best senators include six liberal Democrats, five (net) moderate Republicans, and one moderate Democrat from an old Dixie state. For 2006, the article tries to help one liberal Democrat and hurt one conservative Republican, a net gain of two for liberal Democrats. Good going, TIME.

No comments: