The Politico has a review of the new ad attacking U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole.
Josh Kraushaar of the political Web site's Scorecard blog notes that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's attack on the Salisbury Republican's effectiveness may be a little unfair:
Much of the rankings criteria, at first glance, are out of Dole's control. With Democrats in control of the Senate, only three of the top 22 most influential senators are Republican — and two of them are its presidential nominee John McCain and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And with Dole only being a first-term senator, it would be hard for her to rank highly on the list no matter her legislative accomplishments.
Indeed, one would think that Dole's opponent, state senator Kay Hagan, would begin near the bottom of the list if she won the election.
On the other hand, if part of Dole's effectiveness ranking is due to her being a Republican, then presumably any generic Democrat would fare better, provided the party remains in the majority.
By way of comparison, Dole's colleague, Sen. Richard Burr, is also a first-term Republican, and he was ranked 69th in the Senate.
Blog RSS feed
Re: Is 93rd ad unfair to Dole?
Obviously, it's not unfair, since Richard Burr, who is, as you point out, also a first-termer, ranks significantly higher. Elizabeth Dole has been singularly ineffective as a Senator from North Carolina. I suspect that's because she's not really from North Carolina at all.