~ on the topic of our declaration that ‘liberal doesn’t mean anything’, one can look at the particular point that bush was trying to make that kerry is the most liberal senator, as determined by the ‘national journal’ [w]. the journal itself mentioned that this repeated point is inaccurate; they wrote that the theme is “…Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading — or just plain wrong.” the rating is based on the percentage of ‘liberal votes’ that are cast by the senators; as kerry has been campaigning and therefore has missed some votes, his rating is unfairly skewed. regardless of this fine point, our overall contention that the generalization is meaningless is also backed with regards to how one determines which is a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ vote, as the national journal declares that within its methodology “..identifying ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ votes is subjective. National Journal has never claimed otherwise.” furthermore, in the big picture, the reversal of excessive spenders from the reagans to the clintons to the bushes exhibits the topsy turvy world in which we live; the proposed spending of the ‘conservative’ candidate is $3 trillion, while the ‘liberal’ is only $2 trillion. maybe the fact that kerry’s spending, though less, includes health care is what earns it the damning label ‘liberal’. we presume everyone knows about bush’s squandering of the $5.6 trillion surplus that left. how did these republican dudes run corporations?

public response: