(knowing nod)

Yes, that was quite clear. Again, what this means is that you believe "conservative" is way farther to the right of almost, if not all senators. That kind of measuring stick puts you way, way far to the right of pretty much everyone and thus, as I said, almost unrecognizable as a political point of reference. An outlier.

Did you vote for him because he was a liberal wannabe?

No. I had just turned 18 and was on my own, having grown up in a right wing evangelical family. At the time I considered myself to be a Libertarian of the Heinlein variety and Regan was my choice. The family hated Carter, so...

But I'm not sure what the reason why I voted for Reagan has to do with the price of tea in China. You're seeing those connecting threads in your mind which no one else sees, Dr. B. You'll have to enlighten us po liberal folk.

You like to tell us about how you voted for Reagan. Fine. Did you vote for him because he was a liberal wannabe?

You're free to have you're own standards. I just wanted it on the record - so to speak - what you were implying by those standards.

You seem to be pretty much so conservative that there's literally no one in the government who satisfies your political views.

Which I guess puts you so far out of the mainstream as to almost be unrecognizable as a political point of reference.

And that assesment bothers you, in some way?

So, logically, all but one of the senators are to the left of McCain, and therefore to the left of Bush and therefore leftists.

Score!

If McCain is the #2 most conservative Senator, how come conservatives are unhappy about him as nominee?

Mostly because he's still substantially left of most of the party. He even comes down to the left of Bush who is at best, a centrist.

Then again, you knew that.

And that's a bad thing (if true) because? Look, given the severely diminished value of conservative Republican stock, I don't think conjuring up the liberal boogeyman is going to work anymore (not that I'd expect Fred Barnes to cease holding on to the hope). And we should put these things in some perspective. As James has pointed out both of our parties would fit comfortably within the British Conservative Party.

Heh. Well, a quick answer would be to break your statement out a little...

And that's a bad thing (if true) because.... as James has pointed out both of our parties would fit comfortably within the British Conservative Party....

And given the relative state of England, these days, that's not a harbinger of major problems?

Well, the guy has based his reputation on being a "maverick". Not sure what the really means in the real world, but it apparently means the illusion of bucking his party. Not being a conservative, I can't really say for sure, but they don't seem to take too kindly to even the illusion of bucking the party. One thing you can say about conservatives is that they like things.... well, they like things conservative. And even the illusion of bucking is considered not just in bad taste, but tantamount to treason.

"Stay on target" even if it means drilling into the ground.

I'm with you Dave--although Inhofe is pretty nuts. He is to the right of Bush on climate change and is a big "family values" guy.

I suspect there's more of you in this statement than you'd intended....

Remember, this is the guy who called a novelist to testify in Committee about science issues.

On utter cluelessness, he is close to McCain. In his recent campaign ad, he claimed Iraq is in Africa!

My point remains that the Senate is by and large less ideologically skewed than, say, the House and even if you're fairly far left by Senate standards it doesn't necessarily mean you're far left by national domestic policy standards.

I don't think there are any hard left Senators

Have you ever heard of a socialist called, Bernie Sanders?

if there's a hard right Senator I don't know who he or she is.

Have you ever heard of a neanderthal called, James Inhofe?