Pete King vs. Caroline Kennedy Battle Looms

I was just looking at the ACU ratings *of course they tell only part of the story*. McStain scores well after all. D’Amato lifetime score is just 57 slightly better than Maine Olsen Twin Territory while King scores 76 lifetime. I forgot about his Sein Fein love. Odd guy.

The Conservative Party is a joke. They back RINOs and even rats in some local races. They almost backed the rat who took Fossella’s seat, I think they did back him for City Council.

The Conservative Party is just a patronage machine for Mike Long and his family. He backed Pataki in 1998 and 2002 largely because George Elmer gave his daughter a plush job.

Correct. The American Conservative Union ratings are a good "overall" look at where someone is on the political spectrum, but they are not the end all, be all. They're VERY good when you look at it vote by vote in each year because it almost always shows what types conservative legislation a congressman is supporting or opposing. A few reasons why it may not be entirely accurate when you look at their "lifetime scores" is the ACU used to occasionally give "double weight" to an important bill, but now they rate all legislation equally, so being "wrong" on a major issue like partial birth abortion or the troop surge gives a candidate the same deduction that being "wrong" on an amendment to reconsider a 2 cent increase on fishing licenses for the district of Columbia. Also, missing a vote is not tabulated, so a candidate could sit out 90% of the votes that year and boycott important conservative legislation, vote the right way on the one bill they DO vote on, and get a "100% conservative" rating for 2007.

One of the websites that is a joke when it comes to rating politicians is "OnTheIssues.org". Their method of rating politicians is extremely sloppy and missing critical information, but alot of freepers use it anyway. I ignore all their ratings.

I tend to use Project Vote Smart to give an complete summery of where candidates are and look at 20 or so lifetime ratings they get from various issue groups (Americans against government waste, NRA, committee for immigration reform, ACU, eagle forum, etc.) That is the best way to get a complete picture.

When using the ACU rating alone, the general rule of thumb is that over 80% lifetime rating is reliable conservative. Anywhere from 50-80% lifetime rating is wimpy moderate (the "hold your nose and vote for the squish if he's running against a far left Democrat candidate" type), and under 50% (like Arlen Specter and Mark Kirk often get) is liberal douchebag RINO who pretends to be a Republican but regularly votes with the RATs.

I'm surprised D'Amato got only a lifetime 56% score, he's usually pretty good on the issues of major importance to conservatives. He must be weak on several key items. I would still argue he's better than King on the most important stuff.

Under normal circumstances, guys who get a 72% lifetime rating would be "acceptable" in the general election because they're wimpy moderates running against commie Dems, but two major exceptions to this rule would be Ray LaHood in Illinois and his New York equvilent, Peter King. Both of them are unacceptable to ANY principled reason for a simple reason: although their lifetime voting record on "the issues" is marginally OKAY, their past associations and actions outside of voting on legislation proves they are in bed with marxists and are Democrat sleeper cells who repeatedly work to personally promote socialists and continually attack their own party. Ray LaHood would be totally unacceptable as a "Republican" senator, not because his of his record on taxes, abortion, the WOT, etc., but because he would PERSONALLY carry the water for his pal Obama and work behind the scenes to destroy the GOP every chance he gets. Peter King, if elected to the Senate, will likewise do what he has done in the house for the last decade and be a personal "yes man" for Hillary Clinton's dirty deeds, and work to destroy conservative opposition to the Clintons. Although there are not a lot of viable candidates in New York, we as conservatives have to draw the line somewhere. Just as Al Franken is unfit for the Senate and the Dems should not back him, we should not lower ourselves to allowing an "former" IRA shrill and Clintonite thug to represent New York state.

Aside from this record, Peter King was outed as a RINO backstabber over a decade ago. Conservatives who do not stick to their principles are the reason the GOP feels they can walk over the GOP with impunity. When freepers threaten to "never again" vote for someone UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES if that politician stabs them in the back on a key issue, they need to stick to their guns. Now, I have never been a single issue voter, so if King admitted he was wrong and was otherwise a solid conservative, I could see the point of forgiving him. Peter King is unrepentant, and continues to stab conservatives in the back -- do a search engine on "Peter King" and look at this actions in 2007 and 2008 alone. Just as it's foolish for black voters to be misled by Father Pfledger doing his "angry black man" impersonation (talking "black" when he's a white man) at a church and getting them all rilled up against "whitey" by tossing red meat at the crowd, so should we reject Peter King's attempts to get the GOP base behind him by coming on TV and pretending to be a Reagan Republican, doing his usual "we're gonnna take out all the Muslim terrorist scum and fight to dismantle the IRS" rhetoric. It is a dog and pony show to get your vote. King is a loyal Clinton yes-man and a RINO on the inside, no matter what he says outwardly.

Under NO circumstances should any thinking conservative vote for the likes of Peter King. Let's not be Charlie Brown when Lucy puts out another football.

NEVER VOTE FOR THESE REPUBLICANS AGAIN

PETER KING IS...

Secretary of State Hillary: "Pete, I see your naughty colleagues in the GOP caucus are looking into what my trip to North Korea WAS really for. That's unfortunate. This hearing might take a while. Why don't you pass the time with a little game of solitaire?"

Senator King: "Yes, mother"

Well I’m glad I won’t be faced with the choice of King or Princess Caroline (I refuse to believe Patterson will really appoint her it would be like if Barak Obama were elected President....)

I hope I don’t face a make a decision on Mark Irk for Governor or Senate.

About Toomey that’s hilarious getting a C from the Club for a Growth. Their endorsement for primary candidates I give some weight to.

He he a good ACU score 92 in his first year. But in the 1998 primary he was the moderate business-backed guy and beat what were called 2 more conservative opponents, there was some conservative disappointment about that. I believe Human Events called him a moderate-conservative I guess it was just posturing.

Ontheissues does stink. I took their match quiz and I don’t come close to matching anyone and they have lots of people to be matched to, ok I’m an iconoclast but come on! Seems like a poorly run site.

“Ontheissues does stink. I took their match quiz and I don’t come close to matching anyone”

Well, it does give the votes on the related issues and that was what I was looking at mostly. As far as their ‘rating’ I didn’t even see that. Toomey’s votes were quite conservative there, but thanks for filling in the history.