“Top Ten” House and Senate Conservative List and Predictions for the 2002 Election

rightwing2 (Congressman ratings from The New American) | November 4, 2002 issue

[rightwing2]

“Top Ten” House and Senate Conservative List and Predictions for the 2002 Election

This is the final cumulative “top ten” Conservative Index for the 107th Congress as published in the New American magazine.

Senate

1. Kyl 75
2. Smith/Helms 73
3. Gramm 72
4. Nickles 66
5. Ensign 64
6. Inhofe, Voinovich, Sessions 63
7. Thurmond, Bunning, Enzi, Santorum 62

Unfortunately, three of the top four conservative heroes in the Senate are “retiring” this year—Smith, Helms and Gramm. (#2 ranked Bob Smith was defeated by Rep. John Sununu (R-NH) (Conservative Index rating 50) who is currently running slightly behind his opponent in the New Hampshire Senate race).

House

1. Paul (R-TX) 91
2. Flake (R-AZ) 88
3. Hostettler (R-IN) 86
4. Tancredo (R-CO) 85
5. Rohrbacher (R-CA)/Duncan (R-TN) 81
6. Goode (R-VA), Royce (R-CA) 79 Schaffer (R-CO) 78
8. Sensenbrenner (R- WI) 77
9. Jones (R-NC) 74
10. Hefley (R-CO) 73

Some curious facts. Did you know that three of the top six conservative Republicans in the House voted against the resolution to grant the President constitutional authority to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq? They are Paul, Hostettler and Duncan.

Leadership stats for 108th Congressional Republican Leadership

Senate

Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott (R-MI) 60

Senate Assistant Republican Leader candidates

Larry Craig (R-ID) 57
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 53

In an unfortunate development for conservatives, our fine principled conservative current Senate Assistant Republican Leader Don Nickles (66) in term limited and has dropped his bid to challenge Lott for Republican leader and has hinted at possible plans to retire from the Senate. I had hoped he would run against and defeat Lott, but apparently he has polled his Senate GOP comrades and the votes aren’t there to do it. Lott is likely to remain unchallenged for the top GOP Senate post. The other top conservative I have long advocated for Senate Republican Leader is the #1 ranked conservative in the US Senate for the 107th Congress, John Kyl. At minimum, Kyl should run for the open post of Assistant Republican Leader to clear the way for him to become Republican and hopefully Majority Leader sometime soon. We need an Assistant Majority Leader who is more not less conservative than Trent Lott although of the declared candidates, Larry Craig would obviously be the better choice.

House GOP Leadership

Speaker Denny Hastert 60
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay 59
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt 52

These stats don’t show the true picture because Hastert’s Conservative Index rating is not a true measure of his conservativeness as he only votes on the most important issues to the GOP. He generally scores in the 53-54 range. Hastert is a bipartisan Speaker except on the Bush signed Democrap campaign finance reform bill which he rightly condemned as amounting to Armageddon for GOP control in the House once it is implemented in the 2004 Elections. Hastert knows that the days of a Republican Congress are numbered due to the Bush signed Democrap campaign finance reform bill. A lot of good Republicans will probably retire once they realize they have been relegated to permanent minority status by this bill further padding Democrap one-party rule following the 2004 elections.

DeLay is a more reliable conservative than Hastert and will make a fine replacement for outgoing moderate conservative House Majority Leader Dick Armey. I would be happier if he or Chris Cox (R-CA) 61 would challenge Hastert for the Speakership.

Predictions for 2002 Election.

This year will see a brief return to one party Republican rule beginning in November with the election of Jim Talent to the Senate switching control of the Senate GOP immediately upon his swearing in next month. The GOP is set to score a one-seat net pickup this election in the Senate, which may tempt liberal Republican John Chafee (R-RI) 35 to pull another Jeffords and switch parties to the Dems. The Republicans will likely gain two to three seats in the House increasing their current 223-212-1 house majority.

Predications for 2004 Election

In 2004, the Iraq war/occupation quagmire which will likely result in thousands of US casualties from Saddam’s CBR attacks, a double-dip economic recession, rampant illegal immigration and amnesties in critical border states like Texas and most of all the one-sided Democrat campaign finance reform legislation signed by the President will combine to result in a great Democrat electoral wave which will result in the election of a more or less permanent Democrat majority in both houses of Congress and will return the White House to Democrap control with Al Gore being George Bush’s most likely successor.

[justshe]

Why don't you post your website bio, D.P.? Don't want others to see your stellar career achievements? Don't want others to see how your are wasting their taxpayer dollars?

And it was YOU who made this information known on other threads in an attempt to bolster your credibility and ego. Don't want to share now?

[Red Jones]

bump

[justshe]

If only the stats came from that website, then please ask the Admin Moderator to change the 'source'.

Your personal analysis should be the ONLY link as this is basically a vanity post. No wonder I couldn't find this article as a direct link. This seems like blatant advertisement for this John Birch Society publication as your 'link' does NOT go to the 'article' you post as theirs.

[iconoclast]

Some curious facts. Did you know that three of the top six conservative Republicans in the House voted against the resolution to grant the President constitutional authority to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq?

I don't see how this is curious. While giving Bush such authority is a Republican position, I fail to see how granting the Executive such authority is necessarily a conservative position.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

The only thing I would add is, its not curious at all if you think about it.

[ex-snook]

You hit a winner!

While giving Bush such authority is a Republican position, I fail to see how granting the Executive such authority is necessarily a conservative position. "

The Republican party has become more Democrat lite and not conservative. Bush has continued Clinton's policies - bombing without war declaration, outsourcing jobs and factories, an out-of-control Attorney General, ignoring illegal immigration, growing government, military still in countries. Most different feature - tax cuts for rich investors and the dead. Bush thinks we should believe that wars for the New World Order are conservative. No way, Jose.

[RonPaulLives]

The New American scores are to the ACU scores, as Gun Owners of America is to the NRA. (You should see some of the moderate-to-liberal Democrats that the NRA endorsed OVER their Republican opposition) I don't have the exact URL, but go the NRA web page, and click on their endorsments by state.) Anyway, I know that is a slight diversion from the topic at hand. But that is the thought that came to mind when I saw the ACU mentioned.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

If Al Gore were President, he would do nothing about Iraq, either. So you're in good company after all.

[rintense]

Yep. And since rightwing has stated he allegedly works at the pentagon, it makes it even more suspect, IMHO.

[That Subliminal Kid]

What's your problem exactly? I don't see what rightwing has done that's so terrible. And how is he wasting tax payer dollars? And what does D.P. stand for? send me a private message if you want.. I'm curious..

[rightwing2]

What's your problem exactly? I don't see what rightwing has done that's so terrible. And how is he wasting tax payer dollars? And what does D.P. stand for? send me a private message if you want.. I'm curious..

Don't worry about justshe. The reason that she is foaming at the mouth is because she hates conservatives. She wants to see them defeated at the polls and she just hates it when a conservative posts the truth and the facts about her favorite moderate candidates. I didn't attack any of her GOP moderate candidates yet she took offense anyway. She also thinks I am part of some conspiracy to undermine our esteemed President who I have vowed to support and campaign for in 2004 just as I did when Algore tried to steal his presidency. She's just another one of our resident tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists.

[rightwing2]

The New American scores are to the ACU scores, as Gun Owners of America is to the NRA. (You should see some of the moderate-to-liberal Democrats that the NRA endorsed OVER their Republican opposition) I don't have the exact URL, but go the NRA web page, and click on their endorsments by state.) Anyway, I know that is a slight diversion from the topic at hand. But that is the thought that came to mind when I saw the ACU mentioned.

Actually, I think that is very much ON TOPIC. The NRA has lobbied for more Democrat-sponsored gun control like background checks at gun shows, trigger locks, etc and continues to endorse moderate to liberal Democrat candidates. These NRA betrayals make me angry. As one of our greatest conservative congressman stated, Gunowners of America is "the only 100% pro-Second Amendment organization left in America." In addition, National Right to Life has begun endorsing candidates who pledge to employ pro-abortion litmus tests on Supreme Court nominees like Doug Forrester and others and says Sununu who supports exceptions for abortion on rape, incest, life and even health of the mother (which means anytime, anywhere) is 100% pro-life so it has completely lost any pretense of being a truly pro-life organization.

[justshe]

On many threads this guy, who supposedly works for the Pentagon, has so trashed the President and military personnel, both current and veterans, that I speak my piece, then I let it go. I have a real problem with someone in his supposed position attacking his CIC and the military. Many current military and vets have taken this guy on.

D.P. are the initials of this guy...according to him. He announced to many here at FR that he works for the Pentagon. If this is really the D.P. he stated his is, and not some poser, according to his own words :

He currently works as an International Programs Manager for the Department of the Army. In this capacity, he manages international agreements between the US and the nations of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Latin America, as well as Canada and South Africa. His current responsibilities include traveling as part of Office of the Secretary of Defense-led delegations to meet with mid to high-level Ministry of Defense delegations in their respective countries.
(This is just an excerpt from him)

I have a problem with him spending time posting on a public bulliten board his views which are quite contrary to the Pentagon's and the President's positions. I have a problem with him sharing information on other threads that help demoralize the American public.

Don't get me wrong. He is more than entitled to his views...but NOT in the supposed position he holds at the Pentagon--and in such a public fashion.

[justshe]

Excuse me, rightwing2. Re: my #32, I neglected to 'ping' you (as I referenced you in my post) as good web manners dictates.

[w_over_w]

I was very bullish about the prospects of President Bush in winning a second term until he decided to invade Iraq. Now, I think high casualties in Iraq resulting from their CBR attacks against our troops and a double-dip recession from Iraq and the Brazilian default will all combine to tip the scales and inaugurate a new nightmare for America with Algore as President.

Okay my friend, I'm a little clearer on your perspective and your spelling :^). IMHO, Bush has only been given the option to invade Iraq and it does not necessarily follow that this will happen. But, if it does here's another opinion on such an invasion,

"Our soldiers do not fear Saddam. I do not know a single man or woman in uniform who believes that our military will fail or suffer badly, should we go to war with Iraq. The best-informed insist we will hit the Iraqi regime with such overwhelming, unexpected fury that the world will be shocked by our effectiveness."
New York Post (Opinion) ^ | October 11, 2002 | Ralph Peters (Ret. Army Officer)

I haven’t studied the economic feasibility of a Brazilian default but suffice to say if such occurred it could have ramifications on our economy. BUT! (and that's a big but), does all this mean Al Gore (God, I hate typing that name) would be President? Come 'on! Haven't we suffered enough?

[That Subliminal Kid]

Well I for one am glad you posted this. I took the time to read a few articles from The New American and I think I may subscribe. There are not enough strong conservatives in this country. Good work. By the way, how does one go about getting a job like yours? What possible degree does one get to manage international.. whatever it was she said you do.. Just curious.

[rightwing2]

On many threads this guy, who supposedly works for the Pentagon, has so trashed the President and military personnel, both current and veterans, that I speak my piece, then I let it go. I have a real problem with someone in his supposed position attacking his CIC and the military. Many current military and vets have taken this guy on.

You could not have possibly made a more dishonest statement than what you wrote above. On all of my threads, as a former Army vet from a family with a very long military tradition, I have consistently defended the reputations and honor of general officers and other military personal from the vicious smear attacks of America-haters here on Free Republic. In fact, I was so offended by the attacks by your fellow ilk against our military veterans who in addition tried to personally destroy me that I formed my own veterans group along with several still-serving Army officers to fight their vicious attacks and help ensure that the opinions of veterans and in particular our retired general officers would receive greater attention by US policymakers.

I am a Bush supporter regardless of your lying statements that I am not. Just because I disagree with the President on Iraq and his betrayal of conservatives in signing into law a version of campaign finance reform which will ensure a perpetual Democrat majority in Congress, does not mean that I do not support him, will not campaign for him, and will not due my utmost to see that he gets re-elected President.

I have a problem with him spending time posting on a public bulliten board his views which are quite contrary to the Pentagon's and the President's positions. I have a problem with him sharing information on other threads that help demoralize the American public.

No, you have a problem with my posting the truth and the facts which happen to be contrary to your misguided opinions which serve not to demoralize but to alert the American people to pressure their elected representatives to do the right thing and support the US national security interest. You do not believe that a government employee should have the right to share his or her opinion with others on the Internet either during or after work hours. You have been very clear about your anti-First Amendment views in this regard.

[Long Cut]

Ping. It never ceases to amaze me how many alleged "conservatives" think that losing is a good thing. I've got news for them. If they hand the reins of power to the Dems, ABSOLUTELY NONE of their supposed goals will be realized.

Of course, since the Left will then choose or appoint judges, attorneys general, prosecutors, poll workers, bureuocrats, regulators, and ultimately cabinet members, any CHANCE to actually GET what they claim to want will be lost forever.

Almost makes you wonder what they really want...

[rightwing2]

I haven’t studied the economic feasibility of a Brazilian default but suffice to say if such occurred it could have ramifications on our economy. BUT! (and that's a big but), does all this mean Al Gore (God, I hate typing that name) would be President? Come 'on! Haven't we suffered enough?

Yes, we have suffered more than enough which is why I really hope I am wrong about Gore beating Bush in 2004. Gore is a very scary guy. That is why I am trying to advise him to do what he needs to do to ensure he gets re-elected and it starts with avoiding an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, which would likely result in a lot of undesired and mostly unforeseen blowback.

[w_over_w]

"That is why I am trying to advise him to do what he needs to do to ensure he gets re-elected and it starts with avoiding an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, which would likely result in a lot of undesired and mostly unforeseen blowback."

And this is why I pray unceasingly for our country and the men and woman who serve to protect it. I have every confidence that our Commander in Chief will continue to seek God's council on how best to lead our nation. Enjoyed your thought provoking post . . . gotta go to a DbA meeting (ugh!). But in passing thank you for your service to our country and God bless you!

[justshe]

Yes it DOES make you wonder, doesn't it? Long Cut, is this (from rightwing2) how you remember his overwhelming support for the military (btw--his website states he was in the Army reserves):

You could not have possibly made a more dishonest statement than what you wrote above. On all of my threads, as a former Army vet from a family with a very long military tradition, I have consistently defended the reputations and honor of general officers and other military personal from the vicious smear attacks of America-haters here on Free Republic. In fact, I was so offended by the attacks by your fellow ilk against our military veterans who in addition tried to personally destroy me that I formed my own veterans group along with several still-serving Army officers to fight their vicious attacks and help ensure that the opinions of veterans and in particular our retired general officers would receive greater attention by US policymakers.

Certainly not what I remember...so I'm asking for YOUR recollections.