RINO or Conservative: Who Scores Best?

1/15/08 | Dwar

[DWar]

If Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter don't "make it" and it becomes necessary to vote while holding my nose and puking, I tried to devise a rational way to determine which RINO (Republican In Name Only) would make me the least ill. I identified my top issues and prioritized them based on:

• How immediately an issue could impact the nation- Immediate, Urgent, Serious
• The power of an issue’s negative impact on the nation- Devastating, Powerful, Strong and
• Once implemented the likelihood an issue could ever be changed- Unchangeable, Changeable.

It seemed rational that issues like being conquered by illegal immigrants or losing the war, being more immediate, potentially negative and unchangeable, were more critical than even important issues like Gay Rights or Healthcare. Therefore issues that are more immediate, more negative and that were relatively unchangeable were more highly prioritized.

I’ve spent weeks researching and analyzing the candidates’ quotes and votes. I have watched every debate more than once and spent dozens of hours on numerous websites including http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm, to make some judgments about their level of conservatism.

Taking into consideration the, "If their lips are moving, they're lying" factor, I marked a candidate lower if I thought their stated position was shaded like with Huckabee on Taxes, McCain on Immigration, Romney on Gay Rights or Giuliani on Guns. They were marked down a bit even if their position today sounds rock solid conservative.

Consideration was also given to whom their past constituencies were. They are all politicians and in past statements or votes they sometimes had to speak or vote in a way that is a little less than straight forward than they might have liked. Like every smart husband has to do when his wife asks,”Do these pants make my rear end look fat?” The way he answers depends on who his wife is; Eva Longoria or Rosie O’Donnell.

I included two categories usually not even considered, as the first and second in importance; Stability of Personality and Electability. While excitement, passion and a certain impulsiveness may be desirable in a candidate, stability and deliberativeness are necessary in a president. An unstable personality in a president would be a disaster waiting to happen.

In addition, none of the conservative political agenda has any hope of being followed with Hillary or Obama in the White House. Therefore electablity is not a sacrifice of conservative principle but rather the most important of conservative principles. Winning and getting something, is better than losing and getting nothing. Even Reagan wasn’t “Reagan” (the size of both the government and the budget grew) but it was important for conservatism that he won.

The ranking scale range is:

• Conservative = 10
• Conservative tendencies = 8
• Moderate or Unreliable = 5
• Liberal tendencies = 2
• Liberal = 0

I separated and subtotaled the top 10 and the top 20 from the total to see how the candidates compare on the most important issues as opposed to the total. If a candidate scored in the middle on the total of issues but the highest on the top 10, I might want to support him.

In the interest of full disclosure I have taken multiple candidate preference quizzes. They always come out with my order of preference being Hunter and Thompson numbers 1 & 2 with the others in various positions depending on the quiz. My desire is for the most conservative candidate who is also electable to win the nomination.

This is a work in progress. Adjustments to the matrix are made regularly as other issues come to my attention, issues rise or fall in importance or candidates appear to change positions.

As of now the order of most conservative to most liberal are:

On the top ten issues:

• Thompson- 95/100
• Hunter- 93/100
• Romney-92/100
• Giuliani- 81/100
• Huckabee- 60/100
• McCain- 49/100

On the top twenty issues:

• Hunter- 190/200
• Thompson- 181/200
• Romney- 173/200
• Giuliani- 146/200
• Huckabee- 119/200
• McCain- 117/200

On the totality of issues (33):

• Hunter- 315/330
• Romney- 292/330
• Thompson- 279/330
• Giuliani- 241/330
• Huckabee- 203/330
• McCain- 190/330

Feedback is welcome.

Candidates Side by Side Comparison

Issue	Immediacy	Negativity	Changeability
				Giuliani	Huck	Hunter	McCain	Romney	Thompson
1- Stability of Personality	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	8	8	10	5	10	10
2- Electablity	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	8	5	2	10	8	5
3- Illegal Immigration	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	5	2	10	0	10	10
4- War in Iraq	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
5- War on Terror	Imminent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	5	10	5	10	10
6- SCOTUS appts	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	5	10	2	10	10
7- Guns & 2nd Amend	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	0	10	10	0	5	10
8- Business/infl/rec	Imminent	Powerful	Changeable	10	8	10	5	10	10
9- Lower Taxes	Imminent	Powerful	Changeable	10	2	10	2	10	10
10- Iran	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	10	5	10	10	10	10
Top 10 Total				81	60	92	49	93	95
11- Pro-Life	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	0	10	10	10	8	8
12- Healthcare- gov run	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	5	10	8	5	10
13- Soc Sec	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	10	10	10	10	8
14- Internet Neutrality	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	0	10	10	10	10
15- Internet Tax	Urgent	Devastating	Unchangeable	10	0	10	10	10	10
16- Kyoto Treaty	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	10	8	10	10	10	10
17- Global Warming	Urgent	Devastating	Changeable	0	0	10	0	5	8
18- Energy Indy	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	8	8	10	5	10	10
19- ANWAR Drilling	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	5	10	10	0	10	10
20- Globalism & Free Trd	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	2	8	8	2	2	2
Top 20 Total				146	119	190	117	173	181
21- Military Strength	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
22- Guantanamo	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	0	10	0	10	10
23- Waterboarding	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	0	10	0	10	10
24- Tax Reform	Urgent	Powerful	Changeable	10	10	10	8	10	8
25- Gay Rights	Serious	Powerful	Unchangeable	0	10	10	5	8	8
26- CFR & 1st Amend	Serious	Powerful	Changeable	0	0	10	0	10	0
27- Crime	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	5	10	10	10	10
28- Education	Serious	Powerful	Changeable	5	5	5	5	5	5
29- Death Penalty	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
30- Tort Reform	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	8	10	5	10	5
31- School Vouchers	Serious	Strong	Changeable	10	10	10	10	10	10
32- Federalism	Serious	Strong	Changeable	5	8	10	5	8	10
33- Affirmative Action	Serious	Strong	Changeable	5	8	10	5	8	2
All Issues Total				241	203	315	190	292	279
			Conservative= 10
			Conservative tendencies= 8
			Moderate or Unreliable=5
			Liberal tendencies= 2
			Liberal= 0

[luvadavi]

A rino president will give Cabinet positions to his fellow rinos, naturally.

[Tennessee Nana]

Ping a FReeper when you mention her...

:)

[Badeye]

‘A rino president will give Cabinet positions to his fellow rinos, naturally.’

No, a President tries to balance things out via Cabinet appointments. It would be the exact opposite of what you suggest.

but then again, your post isn’t really about cabinet positions, its about trashing anyone that might win the nomination at your guys expense.

No problem, but at least be honest about it, okay?

[bluebeak]

Thompson, Hunter, and Tancredo are the most consistent on their positions/conservative street cred ...

Tancredo is out ... Hunter will probably soon be out ... Thompson is the last hope for Reagan conservatism.

The rest are RINOs at their core. Based on their past, McCain is more conservative than Romney. That should tell you alot.

[DWar]

"The abuse you are taking for Romney being so high is a bit unfair. Scoring Romney is difficult because he comes across as so darn insincere and he doesn’t SEEM like a Conservative because he parses his positions like a Liberal."

Romney was a tough one. On several issues he talks like a conservative, Gay Rights, Abortion, Guns, but his record in MA on these issues is certainly not conservative.

However, in order to be a SUCCESSFUL politician, you must tailor your message to your constituency to a degree, I had to try to judge if some of his more liberal policies were necessary in Boston for overall success there but would be less of a factor in Washington. Never-the-less, because of his past, I did grade him lower on several issues in which he now says he is strongly conservative.

[Man50D]

It's amazing Duncan Hunter, who scores highest as a Conservative on the totality of issues, is being treated by a Conservative website, such as Free Republic, as if he were advancing the cause of socialism. This throw the strongest Conservative under the bus attitude for the sake of expanding the voter base by appeasing those who lean to the left is precisely what has been destroying the GOP.

The same behavior occurred on the state level in Connecticut when the Republicrats abandon staunch Conservative Alan Schlesinger in his bid for Senator against Joseph LIEberman. Many Republicrats voted for LIEberman because they were more concerned about the perception of keeping a powerful Senator in Congress than advancing Conservatism. The result is another six years of a powerful Socialist Senator.

Instead of employing the defeatist hold the nose mentality those at this website should show the courage of their alleged Conservative convictions by supporting the Candidate who has most represented those Conservative ideals throughout his political career. That candidate as the record shows is Duncan Hunter.

[DWar]

Thanks.

Sincere, thoughtful input is truly welcome.

[Edit35]

Romney could easily flip flop back to being a lib for the general election.

Firstly, Romney never was a governing lib like many Hunter-only people claim on FR.

Did he make a few pandering statements while running for US Senate in 1993? Yes.

But when elected Mass. Governor, he governed fairly conservative.

Romney scored A- or B+ from the National Right to Life, and Romney was not endorsed by NARAL or homo-groups like some claim.

Neither did Romney propose allowing openly homo Scoutleaders to take boys on camping trips, or whatever baloney people spread on some FR threads.

All Romney ever said was that all people, including homosexuals, should have equal rights.

Which happens to be what most conservatives believe, including myself.

[Greg F]

You left out a “Member of a cult” on your chart.

[Notary Sojac]

Duncan Hunter gets only minimal support on FR because the majority of Freepers are so busy having Fredgasms all day long.

[Bear_Slayer]

Thank you for the bump Sir.

I've always believed in an Intelligent Designer.

[MarkDel]

No, you were right to downgrade Romney...I agree with you. But some people are saying to have him rated too high. I was trying to explain the inherent difficulty in rating a guy like him. Clearly Duncan Hunter is the ideal choice, but I think it has been painfully clear for months that we are firmly in “hold our nose” territory in 2008.

Your rankings are very helpful to people who are willing to take the reasonable approach which suggests that ALL of the Republican candidates, except perhaps Ron “headed for a rubber room” Paul, are preferable to ANY of the Democratic candidates.

[Man50D]

Duncan Hunter gets only minimal support on FR because the majority of Freepers are so busy having Fredgasms all day long.

They are too busy focusing on the false perception of who seems to be the most electable candidate instead of who has been a consistently strong Conservative

[Edit35]

Romney could easily flip flop back to being a lib for the general election.

Besides making a few pandering statments in 1993 and 2002, what specifically are the awful liberal laws Romney is guilty of enacting?

[Bear_Slayer]

And as an after thought. The GOP regained so much in 96 when conservatives saw how bad The Clintons were.

Likewise, should DEMs controlled the House/Senate & executive branch in 08, I guarantee you the conservatives will come out in droves to vote.

However Conservative politicians need to be waiting for them or we will continue to repeat the cycle of destruction.

[Always Right]

Duncan Hunter gets only minimal support on FR because the majority of Freepers are so busy having Fredgasms all day long.

???? Is it that hard to see that Duncan has zero chance. Fred's chances are bad enough, but he is light-years ahead of Hunter. Hunter has no money, nobody knows him, and his is only a congressman, which has never been a springboard to the presidency. Fred at least can get some national coverage, is well known, and has finally shown some life in the debates. It is really not that hard to understand.

[Rockitz]

pinging Revelation 911

Don't bother. I'll never vote for anyone who has not grasped the Islamic threat to the West (i.e. Ron Paul).

[unlearner]

“his wife...Rosie O’Donnell”

Bad example. In this case Ms. O’Donnell is the husband.

Your second mistake is to put electability into the list of conservative qualities. A person is as electable as the voters decide.

Thompson may be more electable than Hunter, but Hunter is more conservative. Alan Keyes is probably the only candidate more conservative than Hunter. However, he is the most unelectable candidate running.

Further, your top ten is not mine nor most conservatives. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

My top three, like most social conservatives, are abortion, family (i.e. mainly defending against the homosexual agenda), and freedom of religion (which would be 1st amendment rights).

Of these three things, I think Hunter and Huckabee are both fairly solid. But Hunter is more solid AND is conservative across the board.

Very few presidents have moral awakening during their presidency. Most have a moral base before running. Sometimes they change positions or compromise, but their moral center informs their decisions. The only exception I am fairly sure of is Lincoln, although some would debate that point.

I say this to say that... I could support Huckabee with the hope that his faith might correct some of his liberal views, but of this I have little confidence.

I could support Thompson if he pledged a firm commitment on pro-life issues including embryonic stem cell research (using federal dollars, as this is the only issue under debate).

But my first pick would be Duncan Hunter. He is a true conservative. If he was the party nominee, he would pick up pretty much all of Huckabees votes. He is electable if conservatives get behind him. If we don’t, we are not 100 conservative. Most Freepers are not, sadly.

The BIG factor to consider when it comes to electability is not charisma. The big factor is that our candidate best represents the core values of conservatism. If so, conservatives will show up and vote.

Electability should not include appeasement. That is a liberal approach. For every liberal a Republican candidate convinces to vote, two conservative votes will be lost. Many will say, “why bother... it’s more of the same”. Those with pet conservative causes will not show up because they are left out of the coalition.

The fact that Thompson is a famous actor can help build brand awareness sooner and get the word out, but that is nothing compared to the fame of getting the party nomination.

One other factor on electability. ALL of the Republican frontrunners can be easily vilified by either real or apparent scandals or by their voting record that is likely to break up a conservative coalition.

When mudslinging begins, having someone of unimpeachable character will be far more important than good looks and charisma.

I think Duncan Hunter deserves a higher mark for electability. And I know he deserves a higher mark for conservatism.

Thanks for your contribution to the forum and debate.

[Jokelahoma]

If electability isn't an issue, then screw messing around with Hunter. Vote your convictions and write in Reagan. You can do it! After all, actually getting your candidate into office isn't important is it?

[DWar]

You're right about Romney. But every candidate serious about being elected speaks to be best received by the constiuency to whom he is speaking. McCain down plays his amnesty by emphasising his "I'll secure the borders first" phraseology. Huckabee emphasises his faith and social conservatism not his economically more liberal tendencies. Thompson emphasises his strong state rights position not his strong support for McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance Reform.

No politician can be trusted to be the "True Conservtive." Lord Acton said, "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even Reagan was much less conservtive in his last two years than his first two.

So if a candidate's sincerity appeared questionable I downgraded them from a 10 to an 8 or a 5 even when they strongly claimed to hold a paticular view.

BTW: I don't have a dog in the primary hunt. My state's primary is held so late the nominee will have already been chosen.