Hawaii Senator Dan Akaka was ranked by Time Magazine at the top of an alphabatized list of the 5 worst U.S. Senators. Akaka is running for re-election with a primary battle against Rep. Ed Case, a conservative Democrat who is giving up his House seat to challenge Akaka. So far Case has campaigned on a a single issue - that Akaka is too old. Time just gave Case the second leg of his campaign.
The Time Rankings are based on discussions with "dozens of academics, political scientists and current and former Senators". For starters, I fail to see a distinction between political scientists and academics, so let's not count them as two groups. So Time interviewed politicians and academics -- but they don't reveal who. Without that, Time's sophisticated readers will have a hard time putting all this in context.
Akaka is criticized not for doing anything wrong, but for failing to strive after big policy objectives. But with three paragraphs to summarize a 16 year career, its an incomplete picture. Another Democratic Senator, one of the "best", is complemented for focusing on developing expertise in a single area. Akaka deserves the same praise. While his efforts may not be widely recognized on the mainland, the Akaka bill is hardly a minor resolution. Instead, its one of the most controversial proposals among Hawaii voters -- the culmination of years of consensus building and work.
Akaka's expertise on veterans affairs issues also stands out. While its not glamorous (or rife with corruption) like Appropriations and Defense, his ranking status on the Veterans Affairs Committee means a lot to the people affected. There is no question that Senator Akaka is part of the grand political eco-system grown in the shadow of Senator Dan Inouye. But is that enough to make him one of the worst Senators?
The larger issue here though is what the scope of these discussions and the rankings were. Did each of their "dozens" of subjects get to construe "best" and "worst" for themselves? If I was making these judgements, there could be any number of attributs to consider.
For the best, I'd look for Senators that I agree with on the issues, Senators willing to take a stand when they believe in something strongly, Senators whose character and values are beyond reproach. On that scale, Akaka wouldn't make it in anybody's top 10, but he'd be above the fold.
For worst, I'd look for Senators whose values were out of touch, Senators who used wedge issues to stir up tensions, Senators with shady campaign financing and numerous ethics complaints. Or we could just take Abramoffs checkbook and look for the big numbers. Conrad Burns deserves his spot -- but how did Akaka make the list?