RINO or Conservative: Who Scores Best?

1/15/08 | Dwar

[kevao]

And most of them aren’t even “good”.

[DWar]

Thanks for your input.

I find it interesting that on the one hand you excoriate me for considering electability important,

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

On the other hand you allow yourself to use the same criteria in judging whom YOU will support as you clearly prefer the most conservative candidate you can get but will not support Keyes. If as you say Keyes is the most conservative then why are you not supporting him?

Could it be the electability factor?

"Alan Keyes is probably the only candidate more conservative than Hunter. However, he is the most unelectable candidate running."

In a world where I alone get to chose, Hunter would be my first choice. Since I live in a world populated by other thinking people I must cooperate with others to make any progress. Please see my tagline and post # 141

[Onerom99]

Keep defending your big spending liberal.

[pissant]

Yes, but it is a separate animal than the medicare prescription drug plan the GOP passed, I believe. HSAs are good. Prescr. drugs, not so good.

[calcowgirl]

Good approach. I disagree a lot with your results though. By including so many categories regarding defense/WOT and business, your results are heavily skewed in favor of candidates whose strengths lie in those categories (i.e. Giuliani). I also don't think things like "electability" should be a factor in saying whether someone is more or less of a RINO.

I have to take strong exception to your giving Giuliani a "10" on SCOTUS appointments. His record is of appointing liberal judges. He has said that Presidents choose justices who think like them. His mention of "strict constructionists" should give little relief as the author of Roe v. Wade (Blackmun) was a "strict constructionist" and judicial activist who helped advance some of the most destructive laws of our time.

That said, here are some categories I included in a similar analysis:

• Property rights
• Stem-Cell Research
• LOST
• Small Gov
• Sovereignty
• Corruption/Other
• Border enforcement
• Amnesty
• Family/Marital
• Health/Age

[DWar]

"With a Democrat Senate, perhaps one that is fillibuster proof, Giuliani's appointments will be just as liberal as Obama's, or he won't have any. "

Except for the facts that:

• Stevens is 87
• Ginsburg is 74,
• Kennedy & Scalia are 71,
• Breyer 69
• Souter 68

Someone will likely die and the American public will not allow the seat to go unfilled and Giuliani is on the record committing to appointing "Strict Constructionist judges" in the model of Scalia and Roberts.

"As to the war in Iraq, I think it will end with Bush's presidency regardless of who is elected, Republican or Democrat. "

About Iraq.
In reality the war in Iraq is over. What's left is the rebuilding of the indineous security forces and that's progressing well. The odds of the next president withdrawing ALL forces from Iraq are about the same as they were for the president who followed Harry Truman withdrawing ALL forces from the very unpopular Korean War in 1952. By the way we still have about 40,000 service personnel there.

[DWar]

"Of course, Romney’s positions are based on his rhetoric, not his record."

Of course. All politicians positions are based upon their rhetoric. Perhaps you'd rather have a McCain who in the past has supported:

• McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance Reform,
• McCain Kennedy Illegal Alien Amnesty,
• Gun checks and assault weapons ban,
• Every tax increase proposed and,
• Afirmative Action

And opposed:

• Tort Reform,
• Drilling in ANWAR,
• Guantanamo and,
• Waterboarding.

He is very consistent, too because he still holds these positions.

It's just a question. You might find these positions appealing. None of them are conservative positions, that's all. The question is do you think McCain will become more conservative even though he holds a tight grip to his liberal ideas or is it wiser to trust someone who espouses more conservaive ideas today, like a Giuliani or Romney even though they once held some liberal ones?

[DWar]

"Remain true to yourself."

If I were 100% true to my self I could only vote for myself for president. Being "true to yourself" also involves being successful. You can be so faithful to every single principle you hold that you never win anything and therefore never get anything you value. There must be a measure of cooperation and compromise for political success to occur. They key is knowing how much coperation is valuable and how much is counter productive to conservative principles. See my tagline.

[Mr. Brightside]

Once you get past Thompson or Hunter, there are not many good choices.

As one person stated, it is like preferring diarrhea over vomiting.

I prefer vomiting and have nothing against those who prefer diarrhea.

[DWar]

"I would flip the free trade numbers upside down, since I think free trade is inherently conservative and good for us as a country."

I used to feel the same way about free trade. I almost think that its no longer an issue that has any political meaning since most all Democrats and Republicans support it. It seems only the far right and far left, the Paulites and Kuchinichites have problems with it. Personally I just think it need to be equitable; a level playing field for each nation. I need to do some further research into this issue.

"And I would quibble quite a bit with your “electability” ratings. McCain only gets a ‘10’ there if the only people allowed to vote are the media."

McCain's high electability rating has to do with his national electability against a Democrat. He consistently leads in the polls in this regard.

[DWar]

The post was in response to a question about the changeabiity versus the unchangeability of an issue. The question was whether I had considered the issue changeable or unchangeable through the efforts of far future presidents or immediately succeeding administrations.

So the question is, Is the direction of an issue, having been once decided, succeptable to influence by succeeding presidencies to change. And is it likely that this influence could be successful or not. For example, gay rights legislation, having been once enacted will likely never be changed.

[freekitty]

That’s going way overboard. That’s not what I meant. Being true to yourself is doing the right thing.

[Calpernia]

Ok, then past the govtrack link to the legislature you are referring to.

[xjcsa]

I used to feel the same way about free trade. I almost think that its no longer an issue that has any political meaning since most all Democrats and Republicans support it. It seems only the far right and far left, the Paulites and Kuchinichites have problems with it. Personally I just think it need to be equitable; a level playing field for each nation. I need to do some further research into this issue.

I became completely convinced in college, in large part through reading Thomas Sowell, that free trade is good for both parties. I'm also convinced that when it's not "fair", it really only hurts the country that's trying to play dirty (aside from actual theft/piracy issues).

McCain's high electability rating has to do with his national electability against a Democrat. He consistently leads in the polls in this regard.

You're right from an "objective" by-the-polls analysis. I just don't think the polls would hold up through a campaign.

[DWar]

I understand your frustration.

Wasn't it Jefferson who said,"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?"

I hope we're not at that point.

[calcowgirl]

I'm also convinced that when it's not "fair", it really only hurts the country that's trying to play dirty

How?

[publiusF27]

Never-the-less I did take the flip flop factor into consideration and ranked a candidate lower han his stated position if his past statements or votes seemed to be inconsistent with his position today.

And yet I notice Rudy got high marks in the area of judicial appointments on your chart.

In a February 2000 interview on Meet the Press, Rudy said that Congress should pass a law saying, among other things, that citizens should have to prove they have a need for a handgun before being allowed to own one. He went on to add that he had advocated that position for 20 years.

I know, I know, he says he has come around on guns. Perhaps. Still, where did he think Congress got that kind of power? The only answer I can think of is an expansive view of the commerce clause, which doesn't bode well for the judges he might appoint, IMO.

[DWar]

My answer to you was based on memory. I did a quick look at my research and found that it wasn't an increase in taxes but a reduction of benefits (by indexing them to increases in the CPI instead of ot the increase in wages) that prompted the 8 instead of a 10 for Soc Sec.

As I said before, perhaps that should be balanced by the idea that SS needs some kind of "salvation" and Fred's proposal might be a part of that. However, this proposal, too, is only a bandaide. I'll think about that one.

[DWar]

"Well done, young freeper."

Thanks for the "young" part!

[DWar]

At quick glance, Romney deserves a hell of a lot less thn 5 for health care.

I thought so,too at first. Originally I had him at 2. Then I began to read more about his ideas.

It looks to me like, even though his plan is comprehensive, it seems to be paid for by the free market and is policy holder controlled. It is far from Government RUN Healthcare like Hillarycare would be.

Thanks for the reminder. I need to look at it more closely but didn't have time for this first publication of the comparison. I'll look at it more in depth before the next posting.