"TOP TEN" CONSERVATIVE LIST

The New American ^ | December 3, 2001

[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%

[ReaganGirl]

I mean have you ever read the ACU conservative ratings and how they are arrived at? There is basically no methodology involved.

I don't need to read them...I'm the person who has compiled the ACU ratings for the past four years. I'm still waiting for an opinion other than yours that they are "discredited."

What's that.........can't come up with any....well thanks for playing anyway.

[ReaganGirl]

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.

Just so we're perfectly clear on this....Unless I agree with you then I'm "not conservative, a lackey chick and unagreeable?"

As a point of order I would like to be remineded of when it was decided, by you or anyone else, that you think for us all and that you're opinions are our opinions.

[DallasJ7]

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.

"The much discredited ACU". OK. I didn't realize that voting for school vouchers, ANWR drilling, tax cuts, the Ashcroft nomination, and against CFR, overseas abortion funding, NEA funding, and the International Criminal Court (among other things the ACU bases its ratings on) wasn't conservative. I'll be sure to take the ratings of the John Birch Society's magazine over the ACU. You can't possibly be serious.

[montag813]

Notice how none of these fine gentlemen are anywhere near the GOP leadership's top positions. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[rightwing2]

I don't need to read them...I'm the person who has compiled the ACU ratings for the past four years. I'm still waiting for an opinion other than yours that they are "discredited." What's that.........can't come up with any....well thanks for playing anyway.

Well the fact that you are not sharing the methodology for how you come up with your bogus ACU "conservative" ratings seems to provide additional circumstantial evidence that the ACU is just a lackey for the Liberal GOP Establishment and does not have much loyalty to conservative principles and ideals. Exactly what I expected from you.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yes, he is serious. Should we laugh or cry?

[ReaganGirl]

Fine -- I'll play. The ACU ratings go through a screening process that takes several months to complete. It begins with analysis of every single vote cast in both chambers. All non germain votes like "vote on the journal" and "quorum calls" are excluded. Then the remaining votes are put into three categories of votes. As the umbrella-lobbying group of the conservative movement, the American Conservative Union tracks a wide range of issues before the Congress, ranging from taxes to abortion. Accordingly, the votes we choose to rate are broken down into three general categories: Economic and Budget matters, social and cultural issues, and defense and foreign policy issues. We endeavor to analyze votes from each category so that we can obtain a comprehensive picture of an individual Member’s ideological predisposition, based on votes cast.

Votes are then rated on ideological distinction, NOT necessarily which are “most important.” Within those three broad areas, ACU selects the votes it rates based on a simple criterion: does the vote reflect a clear ideological distinction in the Congress? While we select important votes, they are not necessarily the “most important” or the “key” votes by some other criteria. They are chosen primarily to provide a clear picture of where individual Members of Congress stand on an ideological scale.

Our purpose in issuing our vote rating is to show to the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, just where individual Members of Congress stand on an ideological spectrum.

Vote breakdown. For the first session of the 107th Congress we rated 25 votes in the House and 24 votes in the Senate. Only the Senate vote on John Ashcroft’s confirmation as Attorney General was double-weighted. As a result, each vote – assuming a member cast a vote on all votes – is worth four points except for the Senate vote on John Ashcroft which is worth eight points (We do not count missed votes as either “for” or “against,” thus, the value of each individual vote rises for each vote missed by a member.)

Now your turn. There are still unanswered questions from my post above but you are only capable of hurling insults without backing them up so I won't hold my breath.

BTW -- The only person who has "discredited" the ACU ratings is you. I asked you to prove that the ACU ratings had been discredited and YOU CAN NOT. I

The ACU ratings are based on facts in evidence...votes cast by each individual member of the body there is no room for personal feeling or grievances to enter in to the system. THey are clean and accurate.

The ACU ratings are cited by everyone from the Almanac of American Politics to the Cook political Report and thousands of other publications. They are also considered "official and quotable source material" by the American Academic community.

Now put up or shut up.

[rightwing2]

Vote breakdown. For the first session of the 107th Congress we rated 25 votes in the House and 24 votes in the Senate. Only the Senate vote on John Ashcroft’s confirmation as Attorney General was double-weighted. As a result, each vote – assuming a member cast a vote on all votes – is worth four points except for the Senate vote on John Ashcroft which is worth eight points (We do not count missed votes as either “for” or “against,” thus, the value of each individual vote rises for each vote missed by a member.)...The ACU ratings are based on facts in evidence...votes cast by each individual member of the body there is no room for personal feeling or grievances to enter in to the system. THey are clean and accurate.

Selective "ideological" votes? "Double-weighted" votes? That makes for a very, very subjective rating process and provides for hardly any scientific accuracy in adjuding a member of Congress's dedication to conservative principles. Look, the truth is we represent too very different ideological perspectives. I represent the paleoconservative ideology ratwhile you represent the neoconservative idelogical perspective. For example, I rate a vote for permanent NTR for Communist China as a liberal vote, whereas you would probably rate that vote to appease the butchers of Beijing with permanent US taxpayer subsidized trade as a conservative vote. Accordingly, we are not going to be able to agree on a definition for conservatism let alone agree on whose conservative rating system is the most authoritative. That being the case, I apologize for calling you an "ACU lackey chick." I believe that you are doing a good service from your perspective. However, your latest statements explaining the ACU's "methodology" for computing the Conservative Rating scores of individual members of Congress have merely gone to confirm my aforestated views on the sunbjectiveness and unreliability on the ACU Conservative Rating system for purposes of determining who are the most reliable allies and most determined enemies of conservative legislation.

[Brownie74]

Thanks for the ping and a good post.

[rightwing2]

Orrin Hatch, R-UT 90??
John McCain, R-AZ 85???

Any "conservative" group that has the gall to rate Orrin Hatch at 90% and John McCain at 85% conservative is most obviously not conservative at all. For if a true conservative rating system were employed by the neoconservative holdout American Conservative Union, these two individuals would be revealed as the mushy moderate bipartisan Democrap-collaborators that they are. The scoring of Liberal Democrap trojan horse, John McCain at 85% conservative by the neocon ACU is most offensive of all! On the other hand, Ascroft continually scored in the top five or six conservatives in the Senate. He has most definitely digressed somewhat since then with his failure to defend the pro-life cause since becoming Attorney General. Also, Sen. Don Nickles is a good moderate conservative and will make a far better Majority Leader than Clinton collaborator and Clinton impeachment killer Trent Lott. Orrin Hatch, R-UT 90 John McCain, R-AZ 85

[rightwing2]

BTW, great post that exposes the duplicity of the ACU in making neoconservative America Last Senators look good!

[OWK]

Orrin Hatch, R-UT 90
John McCain, R-AZ 85
Trent Lott, R-AZ 92

BWWWAAAAHAHAHahahahahahahhhahahahahah!!!!!!

[rightwing2]

Check out Bird of a Feather's Americans for Better Immigration website link at post #70. It has all the congressional voting info you could want on immigration. Rep. Tancredo leads the pack on immigration issues with A plus grades and top marks from the New American magazine as well as America's top conservative in the House of Reps.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Regarding Tancredo, then, how about as a VICE PRESIDENTIAL running mate in 2004 with a more widely known and experienced non-RINO, conservative Republican at the top of the ticket?

Could be a good Perot-style Independent Party revolt against the two sellout parties over immigration and a ton of other issues and if done right, would appeal to mass segments of the American population.

By 2004, we will already more than likely have had our second or subsequent major terrorist attack(s) on the country, too, attributable to lax enforcement of our national borders, Political Correctness, pisspoor security and the sleeper immigrant alien agents that are already here.

This will also invariably fuel a potent national backlash.

[rightwing2]

Perhaps Ron Paul would be the exception. He doesn't mind being alone voting against a law for Constitutional reasons.

Yep, I went to the founding meeting of the Utah Republican Assembly back in early 1998 and Ron Paul was the keynote speaker. Rep. Chris Cannon preceeded him in speaking and told us that Ron Paul was known as Congressman "No" in the House because he opposed much of what the GOP House leadership of the time liked. Sen. Robert Smith (R-NH) is Ron Paul's equivalent in the Senate. He and Sen. John Kyl are the most reliable opponents of unconstitutional legislation there even if theirs are the only votes against such legislation..