This is from another FR thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815398/posts
1998 was the last year that Gingrich, Paul and Santorum were all in Congress. Gingrich’s annual and lifetime ACU ratings were better than both of the others:
(100% = perfect conservative voting record)
100% - Gingrich: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (90% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
88% - Paul: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (88% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
84% - Santorum: Annual 1998 ACU Rating (83% Lifetime Rating as of 1998)
Source: http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/1998/98houseratings.htm
I don't get why this keeps getting repeated. '98 was Newt's last year in congress...what makes that year more significant than others?
It's like saying Hank Aaraon's last year in Major League Baseball was 1976. He only hit 10 homeruns that year and Willie Stargell hit 20.
It's a cherry picked snapshot and means only that Stargell had a better year...THAT YEAR.
If you want to truly compare apples to apples, i.e. overall lifetime stats, that's fine. Newt's lifetime ACU rating is 90%. He edges out Santorum at 88.1%.
Yes, I'm perfectly willing to admit Newt has a (marginally) higher lifetime score from the ACU. similarly, Rick has higher lifetime scores from the NRA and GOA. I think it's also fair to consider, when comparing ACU ratings, that Newt (again at 90% lifetime) was a representative from a safe conservative district. Rick (again 88.1% lifetime) was a Senator from a swing state. Rick's lifetime rating, BTW, is two points higher than Fred Thompson.