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

[MrEdd]

Your subject question has no merit.

If I as a conservative throw my vote away on a republican party who won't run a conservative, then there will not be any reason for them to consider running a conservative in the future. As I want my vote to count in the long run, not just the next four years, my vote will go to a conservative, even if there is no R in front of the name.

[Kevmo]

See what I mean? Like you, I’m tired of RINOs.

[SuziQ]

Whoa! That’s a lot of work, and you done good. I agree with your assessments. But the bottom line is, I will vote for the Republican in November, no matter who he is. I do NOT want Her Heinous or Barack Obama anywhere NEAR the Oval Office, come Jan, 2009.

[SuziQ]

Unfortunately, the elected candidate will never get to know that you held your nose and puked while voting...

Herr Blucher provided us with the German term for this situation; BARFENVOTEN

[tear gas]

Rudy should not be given a 10 on “military strength” because he was a draft dodger. He’s a wimp, not a warrior.

[HerrBlucher]

I think that there needs to be special place on the ballot to cast “Barfenvoten.” It would help to sort out just how much REAL support a winning candidate actually has.

[SuziQ]

Does he match up with all four of those points? Abortion, Constitutional freedoms (especially the 2nd Amendment), smaller government, and secure borders?

Yes, he does. Check out the issues section of his website Fred08.com

[SuziQ]

WIll the DEMS ruin the country?
SHORT TERM? The answer is yes. However, people will only bear so much tyrrany and eventually shuck off (shuck? can I use that word w/o being racist?) their yokes and re-institute real liberty.

You might have had a point before 9/11. We no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to take control of our Foreign Policy or our Military, just to teach the Republicans a lesson. The stakes are way too high for that, now.

[SuziQ]

Ross Perot, and all those who fell for his populist bluster, gave us X42 and Her Heinous.

[Names Ash Housewares]

“Herr Blucher provided us with the German term for this situation; BARFENVOTEN”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=550316631659352176&q=south+park+giant+douche+turd+sandwich&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[SuziQ]

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

Doesn't matter how conservative the man is, if he doesn't have the ability to gin up support in the primary, he's not electable in the General.

[SuziQ]

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).

Fred has stated he'll be committed to appointing Justice to the Supremes who are willing to overturn Roe-v-Wade, which he considers bad law. He is pro-life, having a perfect pro-life voting record while in the Senate. I've heard him speak about Stem Cell Research, and he's against Embryonic Stem Cell research, favoring Adult Stem Cell Research, instead.

[SuziQ]

That would be a nifty addition!

[Bear_Slayer]

We no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to take control of our Foreign Policy or our Military, just to teach the Republicans a lesson.

It is not about "teaching" the republicans an academic lesson.

It's about forcing republicans politicians to enact conservatives laws and policy.

Otherwise, what does it matter if a D or an R is driving us into liberalism?

[Bear_Slayer]

Oh bull$hit!

I won't qualify on whether perot was a good choice or not, but it certainly wasn't his fault that many chose to exercise their fundamental right and NOT vote for Poppy.

R-Politicians need to put-up or shut-up, and it is not the voters fault if they exercise that right elsewhere.

Conservatives are in this mess because republicans want voters to believe there is a monoply on their "alleged" conservative party.

I'll say it again, either put up or shut up.

[DWar]

PING!!

"RINO or Conservative: Who Scores Best?"

[John Robie]

I can see you put some effort into this, but i do not understand why McCain rates so low on guns. Romney supports an AWB, and McCain has always oppossed it.

[Bosco]

Actually, I emailed the Romney campaign about his RKBA stance, and asked if he believed it was a collective or individual right.

FWIW, Here's what I got back from the Romney campaign:

Thank you for contacting me about the important issue of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your interest in my campaign for President and would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking the time to share your views with me.

I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It’s essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.

I firmly believe in the importance of responsible gun ownership and sales. I recognize there are people in this country who want to remove all guns in our society and I think they’re wrong. Washington needs to distinguish between law-abiding gun owners and criminals who use guns. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.

As Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, I stood up for the rights of gun owners and sportsmen over burdensome bureaucratic regulation. I advanced legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners in my state and I’ve been proud to have the support of pro-Second Amendment and sportsmen’s groups in my previous runs for public office. I also designated May 7 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”

One of the most active fronts in the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights today is being waged in the courts. As President, I’ll appoint strict constructionist judges who will follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. I’ll also fight to repeal the McCain-Feingold law, which sought to impose restrictions on the First Amendment rights of groups like the National Rifle Association, to advocate for issues we care about.

I am running for President because I fervently believe that I have the experience and vision to address the issues facing our country. Throughout my years in both the private and public sectors, I have been successful by pursuing innovation and transformation. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.

[DWar]

"but i do not understand why McCain rates so low on guns. "

*Has a C+ rating from the NRA, extremely low for a Republican. His rating used to be an “A”. The NRA believes he has grown more liberal on this issue more recently.

*McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it.

*McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.

*McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.

[roamer_1]

IMHO, "The Great Biggies" alone can decide these cadidates fate:

Abortion=Huckabee

2A=Huckabee

Immigration=All Suck.

Without Pro-Life and 2A voters there is no win, and there is no way they will go over to gun-grabbing baby killers. I will stand with JimRob's analysis that Huck is the next most logical pick.

I say this with the understanding that I no longer have a dog in the hunt, and will not vote for any of them. As a Reagan Conservative, I vote for the Coalition, and none of the candidates embrace all three pillars, ergo none can win in November.

I am sorry to say this considering your hard work, but in the end, I fear it is much ado about nothing.