Posted on 07/19/2013 7:28:30 AM PDT by cotton1706
Yesterday I posted a combined average of the scorecards of Heritage, ACU, and Club for Growth. I've added the Freedomworks ratings to the average so we have an even better idea of how these republican senators have been voting.
I wish we could get rid of the unanimous consent so these senators couldn't hide behind that but we can only do so much.
Lee (UT) 100%
Paul (KY) 99%
Johnson (WI) 95%
Scott (SC) 94% 2014, 2016
Rubio (FL) 91%
Toomey (PA) 90%
Risch (ID) 89% 2014
Coburn (OK) 88%
McConnell (KY) 87% 2014
Cornyn (TX) 87% 2014
Crapo (ID) 86%
Inhofe (OK) 86% 2014
Flake (AZ) 82%
Hatch (UT) 82%
Barrasso (WY) 81%
Sessions (AL) 80% 2014
Coats (IN) 78%
Grassley (IA) 78%
Vitter (LA) 78%
Enzi (WY) 76% 2014
Roberts (KS) 76% 2014
Burr (NC) 76%
Ayotte (NH) 75%
McCain (AZ) 72%
Portman (OH) 72%
Heller (NV) 71%
Corker (TN) 70%
Graham (SC) 70% 2014
Boozman (AR) 68%
Chambilss (GA) 66% 2014
Moran (KS) 66%
Thune (SD) 65%
Shelby (AL) 65%
Isakson (GA) 64%
Johanns (NE) 62% 2014
Fischer (NE) 59%
Blunt (MO) 58%
Kirk (IL) 56%
Alexander (TN) 53% 2014
Wicker (MS) 50%
Cochran (MS) 47% 2014
Hoeven (ND) 43%
Murkowski (AK) 39%
Collins (ME) 28% 2014
Also, note that Jerry Moran, who as head of the NRSC is in charge of picking candidates to support, is at 66%.
The Tea Parties in the individual states should overrule his choices, because they will be obviously be go-along, get-along moderates like himself.
OMG! Rob Portman is tied with John McCain. I am thoroughly disgusted. I used to live in his district and voted for him: he was a Reaganite Congressman in those days. EXHIBIT A on the effects of incumbency. If they stay in Washington, they are owned. We need TERM LIMITS. We need some people to say, “NO. NO. AND HELL, NO!!”
Thune is the one that jumps out at me. After taking out Tom Daschle, he has steadily slid leftward, become more statist.
Yup, they don’t allow conservatives in the leadership. Although Cornyn and McConnell’s ratings are high, they hide behind the moderates and grease the skids for liberal legislation. And Cornyn in particular as head of the NRSC supported one moderate or liberal after another.
You must be nuts. Jerry Moran is a member of the senate tea party caucus. Love it how the national media is smearing him and down grading his ratings.
I didn’t make up the ratings. They’re an average of four different conservative groups’ ratings, based on their votes. The issues may be different but that’s why I’ve averaged them, to account for any bias.
ACu gave Moran a lifetime rating of 90%. In 2010 he has a rating of 92%. in 2011 he was 86 % Now he was 64% for some reason in 2012. But it is the amnesty Rubio loving ACU so I wouldn’t trust them. It is very hard to understand their chart, because I don’t know how to read the scorecard and it is upside down in the pdf.
The way to use scorecards is to get the list of votes they are scoring, and see if you agree with the way the candidate voted.
There are times when you, as a conservative, might disagree with a “conservative” organization’s position on a vote. But they usually are factually accurate in showing the voting records.
I understand.
I didn’t use lifetime ratings intentionally because they can be misleading. Senators can vote great when they get there, then turn left and hide behind their “high” lifetime ratings.
Heritage didn’t have a year and I used Freedomworks from 2013. I used the ACU and Club for Growth from 2012 so I got recent results. Moran wasn’t in the senate until January of 2011 so his 2010 rating must be as a congressmen. If he dropped from 86% down to 64%, he must have had a lot of bad votes last year, for which he should still be held accountable. Freedomworks has him at 73% for this year so far and Heritage at 57%. So he’s not voting with Tea Partiers Cruz, Lee, Paul, Johnson or even Rubio much.
“There are times when you, as a conservative, might disagree with a “conservative” organization’s position on a vote. But they usually are factually accurate in showing the voting records.”
Right. That’s why I did the average, because the different groups rate different issues and it’d be a fair assessment of their standing even if one skewed their numbers based on the issues assessed. I didn’t want any of my personal biases added in. They can’t all be off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.