I would like to point out that here in front of us we have an example of the uselessness of the RINO-covering “ratings” offered up by DC-based special interest groups.
“Conservative” groups rate this woman highly, even though her most fundamental stances are destructive of the very basis of American self-government and liberty. (She’s a pro-abort.)
BUYER BEWARE!
From the article:
Hutchison’s record
The senator’s scorecard
National Right To Life Committee 85
NARAL Pro-Choice America 0
National Rifle Association A+
National Journal – composite conservative score 80.3
Americans For Tax Reform 95
Christian Coalition 90
Eagle Forum 87
Club for Growth 70
Family Research Council 88
SOURCES: Project Vote Smart; interest groups; National Journal
You say Hutchison is “pro-abort”, but you cite these ratings:
National Right To Life Committee 85
NARAL Pro-Choice America 0
Now, I realize that your point is the uselessness of ratings by special-interest groups. Still, those ratings must come from some votes. Can you explain why NARAL is giving a zero to a pro-abortion Senator?
HUTCHISON 2008 - 76 Lifetime - 89.38
And most of the votes that make her “conservative” are things she followed Cornyn’s lead on, then later switched her stance when the cameras weren’t rolling. (Border fence comes to mind)