Political Scorecards Handed Out Eagerly

Blame it on the Internet, political shorthand or the collective appetite of voters for easy-to-follow checklists. The fact is that political scorecards, Top 10 lists, Bottom 10 lists, rankings of all sorts, by all kinds of groups, have been on full display this election season in the race between Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her Republican opponent, Rep. Tom Campbell.

As he campaigns throughout California, Campbell routinely tells voters he was named “Cheapest Man in Congress” by the National Taxpayers Union. Of course, he isn’t inclined to talk much about Roll Call’s recent report that he missed more votes this year than any member of Congress.

Feinstein, meanwhile, can and does trumpet her support among some giants of Silicon Valley, including Republicans. Then again, there is that nagging ranking she received from Yahoo Internet Life as the “least Net-Friendly” member of Congress.

*

Lists, lists and more lists. They certainly are not new to politics, but they have never been so abundant or accessible, say many longtime analysts, consultants and party loyalists.

“It is just crazy,” said William Buck Johns, a GOP fund-raiser in Orange County and longtime Republican activist.

“I do think . . . that as time goes on, we will have more and more people become aware of these lists on the Internet because the information is flowing on that damn thing the likes of which [no one] could have imagined a short time ago.”

Said political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe: “The Internet has put a different perspective on it.

“Over the years, we have seen time and time again the comparative ads, the attack ads, which point out how much worse the opponent is. But you would see it as a 30-second spot and it would go away,” said Jeffe, senior associate at the School of Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University.

“It is not the same as sitting in front of your computer and calling up, at will, site after site after site of political information.”

Click on Campbell’s campaign Web site and you’ll quickly learn, not just about his views on issues, but rankings by special interest groups that include No. 1 free trader in Congress and No. 1 in cutting wasteful spending that harms the environment.

Feinstein’s campaign does not rely as heavily on such lists, though her critics do. Indeed, Campbell often points out that the same group that listed him cheapest man in Congress listed Feinstein the second biggest spender in the Senate. And other Web sites dedicated to her defeat try to paint her as elitist--one notes that she is among the five richest members of Congress.

*

Just how much impact any of these sites will have on the race remains very much in doubt.

For one thing, political observers note, rankings or scorecards can help define an unknown candidate but are not as successful in promoting, or damaging, someone already familiar to voters.

“If you have a candidate running statewide for the first time and you get some credible or even not so credible newsletter ranking them, it can be effective,” said California Democratic Party consultant Bob Mulholland.

But that is not the case, Mulholland said, with someone like Feinstein, who is well known to the vast majority of voters.

“It is like the attacks on [former President Ronald] Reagan. [Voters] just dismissed them because they knew Reagan and were comfortable with him.”

Moreover, observers say, more and more voters are becoming suspicious of such rankings because they realize how easily they can be manipulated and how closely they are connected to political parties.

“Let’s face it, if you are going to look up a report card by the League of Conservation Voters, you might as well call the Democratic Party offices,” said GOP consultant Allan Hoffenblum. “And if you’re going to call the NRA for its rankings, you might as well call up the Republican Party.”

Kam Kuwata, a longtime Democratic consultant and manager of Feinstein’s Senate campaign, agreed.

“These lists are created by interest groups to promote their own philosophy. . . . They segregate votes in a certain way so that people they like get an A and people they don’t like get an F,” Kuwata said.

“I don’t criticize interest groups for looking at issues. I just say that if you score high on a list . . . people need to look at what was voted upon and what wasn’t,” said Kuwata.

How often that will happen, of course, remains to be seen.

As political analyst Jeffe noted, candidate scorecards are time-tested crib sheets. “It makes it easy for the lazy voter.”