Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"TOP TEN" CONSERVATIVE LIST
The New American ^ | December 3, 2001

Posted on 04/26/2002 2:49:45 PM PDT by rightwing2

TOP "TEN" CONSERVATIVE LIST based on 2001 Conservative Index scores published in The New American magazine:

US House
1. Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) 95%
2. Rep. Paul (R-TX) (former Libertarian) 92%
3. Rep. Schaefer (R-CO) 90%
4. Rep. Hostettler (R-IN) 88%
5. Rep. Royce (R-CA) 84%
6. Rep. Rohrbacher (R-CA) 83%
7. Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) 81%
8. Rep. Duncan (R-TN) 79%
9. Rep. Barr (R-GA) Rep. Goode (R-VA) (former Democrat) Rep. Pombo (R-CA) all tied for 9th place with a 78% conservative rating.

US Senate

1. Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) 74%
2. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) 72%
3. Sen. Robert Smith (R-NH), Sen. James Inhofe & Sen Voinovich (R-OH) 70%
4. Sen. Strom Thurmond 69% (former Democrat)
5. Sen Phil Gramm (R-TX), Sen. Campbell (R-CO) (both former Democrats) & Sen. Frank Murkowski at 67%
6. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) & Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) at 65%


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: antidemocommie
I don't know if GW hates Conservatives, but he sure does not have any around him!

Exactly...George Bush has all those liberals around him like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Spencer Abraham, and the like.

41 posted on 04/26/2002 9:09:43 PM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Sir, you need to go to Aztlan.org and read what these immigrants have in mind for the USA. Then find out what LaRaza and MECHA wants for the USA. I'm taking for granted you are pro-USA.
42 posted on 04/26/2002 9:48:02 PM PDT by Travelgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
>> This just goes to show how far left the Democrat party has gone from its once conservative pre-New Deal 1932 party platform. <<

Sorry, my friend, but Woodrow Wilson, Charles & William Bryan, and John Peter Altgeld were not "conservative". The "leaders" of the Democratic Party were socialist and so was their platform (as is today). In fact, a major arguement of the McKinley campaign in 1896 was that Bryan's positions were a duplicate of the Socialist Party platform (back in those days, the GOP could expose the Dems as "socialist" without being called "mean-sprited angry right wingers". Instead, Bryan screamed that McKinley was a "cold-hearted capitalist" and a "tool of the rich and elite" Sound familar?)

True, some SOUTHERN Democrats were conservative (and probably roughly a 1/3rd of party), but the fact that they were in denial about their party's "leaders" didn't change the fact that conservatives NEVER had control of the Democrat Party in ANY part of the 20th century. Speaking of which, Franklin Roosevelt was the Dem nominee for V.P. in 1920 and he was just as liberal then as he was in 1932. Luckily, most "conservative" Democrats realized trying to get their party to support their views was a lost cause-- the bad part was it took the "conservative" Dems until the 1960s and 70s to finally REALIZE this and quit the scumbag party.

Here's your "pre New Deal" Democrat platforms. Conservative? HA!

"Woodrow Wilson hails with patriotic pride the great achievements for country and the world wrought by a Democratic administration under his leadership... adherence to the fundamental progressive principles of social, economic and industrial justice and advance"
"The Democratic party favors the league of nations as the surest if not the only practicable means of maintaining the permanent peace of the world and terminating the insufferable burden of great military and naval establishments. It was for this that America broke away from traditional isolation...we commend the president for his courage and his high conception of good faith in steadfastly standing for the covenant agreed to by all the associated and allied nations at war with Germany and we condemn the Republican senate for its refusal to ratify the treaty merely because it was the product of Democratic statesmanship thus interposing partisan envy and personal hatred in the way of the peace and renewed prosperity of the world."
"We reject as utterly vain, if not vicious, the Republican assumption that ratification of the treaty and membership in the league of nations would in any wise impair the integrity or independence of our country. The fact that the covenant has been entered into by twenty-nine nations, all as jealous of their independence as we of ours, is a sufficient refutation of such a charge"
"During the war president Wilson exhibited the very broadest conception of liberal Americanism. In his conduct of the war...America constituted a decisive factor in the victory and brought new lustre
to the flag".
"A review of the record of the Democratic party during the administration of Woodrow Wilson presents a chapter of substantial achievements...by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, the old system, which bred panics, was replaced by a new system, which insured confidence....we wisely insisted during the war upon meeting an adequate portion of the war expenditure from current taxes and the bulk of the balance from popular loans, and, during the first full fiscal year after the fighting stopped....We condemn the attempt of the Republican party to deprive the American people of their legitimate pride in the financing of the war, an achievement without parallel in the financial history of this or any other country, in this or any other war. And in particular we condemn the pernicious attempt of the republican party to create discontent among the holders of the bonds of the government of the United States and to drag our public finance and our banking and currency system back into the area of party politics".
"The simple truth is that the high cost of living can only be remedied by increased production, strict governmental economy and a relentless pursuit of those who take advantage of post-war conditions and are demanding and receiving outrageous profits. ...we pledge the democratic party to.... economy in government expenditures, and to the enactment and enforcement of such legislation as may be required to bring profiteers before the bar of criminal justice."
"The Democratic party is now as ever the firm friend of honest labor and the promoter of progressive industry. It established the Department of Labor at Washington and a Democratic president called to his official council board the first practical workingman who ever held a cabinet portfolio. Under this administration have been established employment bureaus to bring the man and the job together, have been peaceably determined many bitter disputes between capital and labor, were passed the child-labor act, the workingman's compensation act (the extension of which we advocate so as to include laborers engaged in loading and unloading ships and in interstate commerce), the eight-hour law the act for vocational training, and a code of other wholesome laws affecting the liberties and bettering the conditions of the laboring classes. In the Department of labor the Democratic administration established a woman's bureau which a Republican congress destroyed by withholding appropriations. Labor is not a commodity; it is human. Those who labor have rights, and the national security and safety depend upon a just recognition of those rights and the conservation of the strength of the workers and their families in the interest of sound-hearted and sound-headed men, women and children. Laws regulating hours of labor and conditions under which labor is performed, when passed in recognition of the conditions under which life must be lived to attain the highest development and happiness, are just assertions of the national interest in the welfare of the people."

-- 1920 Democratic Party Platform

And that's only a FEW paragraphs from the FIRST five pages of their little opus. This thing is Clintonesque before Clinton existed! 26 pages of government regulations, tax-and-spend, buruecratic ideas, and condemning traditional values. Any "conservative" Democrat who pledged allegance to those "old" Democrat platforms was a fool!

43 posted on 04/26/2002 9:58:12 PM PDT by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
"Republican[s are].... the principal cause of the unequal distribution of wealth, it is a system of taxation which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, under its operations the American farmer and laboring man are the chief sufferers, it raises the cost of the necessaries of life to them,but does not protect their product or wages."
"We denounce the action of President Taft in vetoing the bills to reduceth tariff in the cotton woolen metals and chemical schedules and the Farmer's free bill, all of which were designed to give immediate relief to the masses from the exactions of the trusts."
"We insist upon the full exercise of all the powers of the Government, both State and National, to protect the people from injustice at the hands of those who seek to make the government a private asset in business. There is no twilight zone between the nation and the state in which exploiting interests can take refuge from both. It is as necessary that the Federal government shall exercise the powers delegated to it as it is that the States shall exercise the powers reserved to them, but we insist that the Federal remedies for the regulation of interstate commerce and for the prevention of private monopoly, shall be added to, and not substituted for State remedies".
"We congratulate the country upon the triumph of two important reforms demandedin the last national platform, namely, the amendment of the Federal Constitution authorizing an income tax... we call upon the people of all the States to rally to thesupport of the pending propositions and secure their ratification...--a measure demanded in ournational platform of 1908, and at that time opposed by the Republican Party--and we commend the Democratic House of Representatives for extending the doctrine of publicity to recommendations...to the ownership and control of newspapers, and to the expenditures made by and in behalf of those who aspire to presidential nominations, and we point for additional justification for this legislation... the President and his predecessor in the recent contest for the Republican nomination for President".
--1912 Democratic Party Platform

"The greedy commercialism which dictated the Philippine policy of the Republican administration attempts to justify it with the plea that it willpay, but even this sordid and unworthy plea fails when brought to the test of facts. The war of criminal aggression against the Filipinos,entailing an annual expense of many millions"
"Private monopolies are indefensible and intolerable. They destroy competition,control the price of all material, and of the finished product, thus robbing both producer and consumer. They lessen the employment of labor, and arbitrarily fix the terms and conditions thereof; and deprive individual energy and small capital of their opportunity of betterment...They are the most efficient means yet devised for appropriating the fruits of industry to the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and unless their insatiate greed is checked, all wealth will be aggregated in a few hands and the Republic destroyed. The dishonest paltering with the trust evil by the Republican party in State and national platforms is conclusive proof of the truth of the charge that trusts are the legitimate product of Republican policies, that they are fostered by Republican laws, and that they are protected by the Republican administration, in return for campaign subscriptions and political support."
"We pledge the Democratic party to an unceasing warfare in nation.... against private monopoly in every form. Existing laws against trusts must be enforced and more stringent ones must be enacted providing for publicityas to the affairs of corporations engaged in interstate commerce requiring all corporations to show, before doing business outside the state of their origin, that they have no water in their stock, and that they have not attempted,and are not attempting, to monopolize any branch of business or the production of any articles of merchandise; and the whole constitutional power of Congressover interstate commerce"
"We favor such an enlargement of the scope of the interstate commerce law as will enable the commission to protect individuals and communities from discrimination, and the public from unjust and unfair transportation rates."
"In the interest of American labor and the uplifting of the workingman,as the cornerstone of the prosperity of our country, we recommend that Congresscreate a Department of Labor, in charge of a secretary, with a seat in the Cabinet, believing that the elevation of the American laborer will bring with it increased production and increased prosperity to our country athome and to our commerce abroad."

--1900 Democratic Party Platform

44 posted on 04/26/2002 10:19:45 PM PDT by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
How about Tom Tancredo for President? Anyone agree? 2004?
45 posted on 04/26/2002 10:58:50 PM PDT by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Vallandigham
5. Sen Phil Gramm (R-TX)

One out of three - and he is retiring. I am suprised Pete Sessions didn't place higher. He gets a A+ on immigration issues.

47 posted on 04/27/2002 3:51:36 AM PDT by Brownie74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2; One_Particular_Harbour
It is far and away more accurate than the much discredited American Conservative Union "Conservative Rating" listing which ends up measuring party loyalty (voting with the GOP House or Senate leadership) rather than votes that tend to show adherence to conservative principles.

Proof of discredit please? Citations of measuring the Leadership votes rather than conservative principles please?

Don't forget the linky poo to back up your false claims.

48 posted on 04/27/2002 4:09:49 AM PDT by ReaganGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2; Fred Mertz; Wally Cleaver; don bell; the irate magistrate
I wonder where Jim Bunning is? Ron Lewis? In fact Kentucky only has one listed.
49 posted on 04/27/2002 4:42:15 AM PDT by SLB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
This is just the latest post that suggests that you ought to go back to Arkansas because your desire to RINOize New Hampshire does not do you credit. I certainly hope that Sununu the Younger has more principle than the turncoat birdbrain that fate dealt him for a father. Furthermore, some of us have been Republican long enough to distinguish between slimy yuppie greed and actual Republicanism.

Perhaps you can tell us how you (not Sununu the Sequel/Nightmare in Manchester Part II) feel about abortion and homosexuality and homeschooling. His father claimed to be right on those issues and gave us that three-dollar bill Souter on the Supreme Court who, if anything, is probably worse than Brennan.

Actually you have a desire to send Shaheen to the Senate for six years-- when she only got six years as Governor because she faced weak opponents (including someone that is viewed by the NH electorate just as Smith is-- Gordon Humphrey). Shaheen will just use the same playbook that worked well against Humphrey. In fact, Shaheen now has Mr. Weaver-- John McCain's former top campaign aide helping her after Weaver decided to switch parties. He lead McCain to his NH primary upset. He knows plenty about winning NH elections.

The most ridiculous part about Smith's campaign is that he is acting insanely desperate and the voters can smell fear-- and it's never a good thing. Smith was the only Senate incumbent running re-election radio ads last summer. Last summer!!! Voters know that electable incumbents don't do that. Smith has decided to be a card-carrying Green Party member on animal rights and the environment to try to soften his image. If the voters didn't view him as a wacko, he wouldn'thave to worry about his image. Sununu is a conservative and I'm not going to go through the reasons for the 100th time. This is about electing a conservative to the Senate. The reason Smith is so behind in GOP primary polls is because the GOP voters don't view Sununu as a liberal.

As far as fathers, Reagan's was a fall-down drunk. Are you going to hold that against RWR? Of course not. Rep. Sununu had nothing to do with Souter's appointment. You're just setting up a straw man.

I am a a conservative. I voted for Huckabee-- he of the "tax me more" fund that crystallizes the stupidity of the liberal mindset. I held up and marched back and forth with a "Nelson in '94" sign while Bill Clintoon gave a speech to about 100 fellow high school students in 1990 in LR.

You're use of "yuppie" tells me you're no better than a liberal trying to use class warfare. I don't know why you have your panties in a knot about this race, but Smith is going to lose in September because he has alienated GOP voters with his ridiculous statements and environmental votes. It's not the establishment against Smith.

50 posted on 04/27/2002 5:59:34 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SLB; don bell; fred mertz; pocat; one_particular-harbour
yeh SLB, you have the globalist Weasel, as that one.
51 posted on 04/27/2002 8:12:19 AM PDT by the irate magistrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
So you agree with his logic that the son should be judged by what the father did? Maybe you'd be more comfortable at DU where that sort of fallacious argument is promoted.

You are just in denial. You don't want to admit that Smith, in his desire to moderate his image (so he has any chance at all of winning re-election), has taken wacko positions on the environment and animal rights. Sununu has a moderate personality (and he doesn't come off as someone who should be strait-jacketed like Smith) and can get away with being a conservative without having to moderate his views.

Just go right ahead and vote for Buchanan and others like him. Maybe they'll eventually win 1% of the vote.

52 posted on 04/27/2002 3:10:43 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
So TNR is a left-wing rag now? OK. I totally understand where you're coming from. It all makes sense now.
53 posted on 04/27/2002 3:12:39 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You know, Tancredo probably has a good voting record generally but catering to anti-Mexican bigotry is not a particular feather in his cap. How many times do y'all need to be whacked over the head with a 2 by 4 before you get the message that those coming north are potential allies? But NOOOOO, we just aren't really conservative unless we show that the old Know Nothing Party wing of the GOP's ancestry is still alive.

You aren't a typical Smith supporter I guess. You'd be happier in the Sununu camp. We'll welcome you with open arms.

54 posted on 04/27/2002 3:28:30 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Yeah, what's McConnell doing up there?...he's a RINO. Bunning is much more of the conservative mold IMHO. Where's Ron Paul? This ranking is bogus.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if McConnell is a RINO than so is George W. Bush since Bush is to the left poltically of McConnell as proven by McConnell's championing the fight against the Bush-supported Democrap Congressional Majority Insurance Bill. McConnell is a good man. As for Ron Paul, he is ranked #2 in the House. Only Tancredo voted more conservative than he did this past session. Remember, this ranking is based on votes, not statements. In other words, a congressman who sounds like a tough talking conservative may actually vote conservative less of the time than a congressman who talks moderate, but votes more in line with his conservative principles.
55 posted on 04/27/2002 7:18:41 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend, sonofliberty2
How about Tom Tancredo for President? Anyone agree? 2004?

Tancredo would make an excellent conservative America First presidential candidate. However, in 2004, he will have only six years of experience in Congress under his belt. He will need at least 10-12 years in Congress to make a credible run at the Presidency. He needs time to build a name for himself. I mean I never heard of this guy until last year with his high-profile effort to reform immigration and I am a longtime Congress-critter watcher. I say Tancredo for President in 2008!
56 posted on 04/27/2002 7:23:24 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ReaganGirl
Proof of discredit please? Citations of measuring the Leadership votes rather than conservative principles please? Don't forget the linky poo to back up your false claims.

Who are you--some ACU lackey chick? I had the mistaken impression that you were actually a conservative in my last online encounter with you, which was much more agreeable. Anyway, any Conservative Rating that places Bob Dole in the 90-100% conservative range and has a mushy moderate like John Sununu in the 95% range is thoroughly discredited as a matter of course. I mean have you ever read the ACU conservative ratings and how they are arrived at? There is basically no methodology involved. It is fairly subjective. I have already provided you with sufficient examples above if you would read my posts. They rate a vote for Clinton's massively liberal budgets as conservative merely because the GOP congressional leadership supported them. I will say that the ACU has done a good job in opposing amnesty and campaign finance reform.
57 posted on 04/27/2002 7:30:47 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative, BlackElk
Smith has decided to be a card-carrying Green Party member on animal rights and the environment to try to soften his image. If the voters didn't view him as a wacko, he wouldn'thave to worry about his image. Sununu is a conservative and I'm not going to go through the reasons for the 100th time. This is about electing a conservative to the Senate.

Smith a card-carrying Green Party member?? ROTFLOL!!! Apparently, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the you know where. Smith votes wrong on one single issue and suddenly, you have the Senate's top-rated conservative as a card-carrying Green Party? You are a real RINO wacko as is proven by your mistaken assertion that Sununu is in any way a conservative. Sununu is a mushy moderate who has received donations from Palestinian terrorists for his pro-Palestinian stands among other things. If he wins the primary, NH might as well elect Shaheen because the only major difference will be control of the Senate. The fact is that the GOP is going to lose this one anyway because of RINO attacks like yours on arch-conservative champion Sen. Robert Smith which have produced a lot of bad-blood and acrimony in the Republican camp which regardless of the winner is going to mean big trouble on election day.
58 posted on 04/27/2002 7:38:49 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
What Congressional experience does President Bush have? Furthermore, why are Professional Politicians needed to run the Federal Government? Shouldn't someone who can show that they have Constitutional Principles at hand be given the benefit of the doubt over avid socialists who only happen to have been a Professional Politician.
59 posted on 04/27/2002 9:30:06 PM PDT by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
What Congressional experience does President Bush have? Furthermore, why are Professional Politicians needed to run the Federal Government? Shouldn't someone who can show that they have Constitutional Principles at hand be given the benefit of the doubt over avid socialists who only happen to have been a Professional Politician.

Good reposte. Bush never had any federal experience. He was elected with less than 6 years experience as a Governor. In my opinion, unabashed conservative champion Pat Buchanan would have made the greatest US President in the last 70 years and his experience was limited to appointed posts working for four presidents with no electoral experience. However, had he had some time as a Senator from his home-state of Virginia for example, he would have made for a far more credible and formiddable candidate. Congressman, do not as a rule get elected President. Senators and Governors often do though. Tancredo would make for a great President, more dedicated to the conservative cause even then Ronnie Reagan, I have no doubt, but to win he needs more experience and name-recognition.
60 posted on 04/28/2002 7:50:33 AM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson