American Conservative Union 2002 Ratings of Congress

ACU ^ | 2/27/03 | ACU

[AuH2ORepublican]

Does the ACU take a Senator's or Representative's votes on abortion into consideration when handing out their rankings? The numbers suggest that they did in 2001, when the 10 pro-abortion Republicans listed in "Top Ten Increases" scored between 25 and 52 (average score, 39), while the 7 pro-life Democrats listed in "Top Ten Decreases" (all but Byrd, Conrad and Jeffords) scored between 32 and 64 (average score, 50). But in 2002, the same 10 pro-abortion Republicans scored between 56 and 92 (average score, 74), while the same 7 pro-life Democrats scored between 8 and 32 (average score, 21), which suggests that their votes on abortion were not taken into account. Given the general increase in ACU ratings in 2002 for nominal Republicans (heck, Lincoln Chafee scored a 56, for crying out loud!), I have to assume that the ACU gave more weight in 2002 to party-line votes on proposals pushed by the Democratic Senate and Republican House, respectively, than in previous years, at the expense of pro-life issues.

That helps explain why Arlen Specter's ratings were 53 in 2002 but are 42 for his career. Given the fact that all Republicans received a slight "bump" from the ACU in 2002, Specter's rating is just as pitiful as it's ever been. To Specter apologists out there, all I have to say is, go, Pat, go!

[Stay the course]

Good call. Turns out there were three abortion-related bills that went into the 2001 ratings, but only one in 2002.

[sarcasm]

Colorado H Tom Tancredo R 100 100 99 4

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Wow. Look at the ratings of Goode, Hall and Lucas. "

---

Virgil Goode of Virginia switched to an independent in 2001 and ran for re-election as a Republican in 2002. Ralph Hall is a gazillion years old, represents a North Texas district where Bush got over 70% of the vote, and will most probably retire in 2004.

Ken Lucas is a really conservative Dem who flirted with switching to the GOP in January, but decided he was a man of his word and remained a Democrat. While I can respect that, I would respect him more if he similarly honored his pledge to serve no more than 3 terms (he's in his 3rd term right now). Alas, he already announced he's breaking his pledge and running for re-election. This is one of the GOP's best takeover opportunities of 2004, since he sits in a Kentucky district in which Bush got 62% in 2000 (which Bush should increase to 65% or more in 2004), and Lucas won by only 52-48% over the underfunded Geoff Davis in 2002. Davis has already expressed interest in running again, and with a little more money, big Bush coattails and Lucas breaking his pledge, I think he'll win this time. Lucas may be a conservative, but he's still a RAT, and voted twice for Gephardt as Speaker (he abstained from voting for Pelosi in 2003, not that it mattered). I'd gladly take him if he switches, but so long as he's got a D next to his name, I'll have to go with Geoff Davis.

[Xthe17th]

Here's an interesting one for y'all. Consider the Senate candidates up for re-election in 2004: Not counting McInsane & Sphincter (whom we hope lose their primaries), Lisa Murkowski (unknown rating but rumoured pretty low), Breaux (probably no serious Repub challenge), or Miller & Hollings (likely retirees), the average Republican candidate's CU rating is 84 versus 12 of the average 'Rat senate candidate.

With that spread, and the fact that most of our guys are safe in Bush states, with some decent candidates, we should be able to beat the 'Rats like a drum next year.

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks, my friend!

[Lancey Howard]

BUMPED and bookmarked.
This is critical information.
Saving the country begins with saving the Republican Party, and saving the Republican Party begins with getting good candidates to replace the liberal pigs who masquerade as Republicans.

[BillyBoy]

Worth repeating:

His Holiness Zell Miller dropped from 60% in 2001 to 47%

No matter HOW MANY TIMES people vow on this forum NEVER to trust a DemocRAT again, some gullible freepers will put some southern 'RAT on a pedastal and proclaim he's "more conservative than most Republicans" SIMPLY because the guy makes pretty speeches (never mind his campaigning for ultra-liberals, voting for Daschle, and left-of-center voting record-- pro-abortion, pro-gay rigths, pro-CFR, etc.-- they don't want to be reminded)

It's funny how they worship Zig Zag Zell when even McCain manages to be more reliable (probably because McCain still has an "R" next to his name while Zell is a loyal Clinton Democrat and has no intentions of ever switching party's)

Here are some other Republicans senators who are frequently attacked on FR as "the usual RINOs" and "liberal traitors" even though they've always voted FAR more conservative than Zell EVER has. Voting slightly conservative in Georgia because it's neccessary is one thing, but voting solidly conservative in Illinois takes GUTS.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 90%
Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) 88%
Mike Dewine (R-OH) 83%
George Voinovich (R-OH) 81%
Richard Lugar (R-IN) 79%
Gordon Smith (R-OR) 76%
Ted Stevens (R-AK) 63% (83% in '02, 92% in '01)

[Clemenza]

New York H Vito Fossella R 92 88 90 5

This is my guy. Not bad for an NYC congressman.

New York H Nydia Velazquez D 0 0 3 10 This is the district adjacent to mine. Scary what a difference a few blocks can make.

[rmlew]

Vito is a good congressman for anywhere in the Northeast.
It's a shame that we are lossing Grucci. We really must get that seat back as well as NY-2.

[mountaineer]

I'd love to see Jay run for Congress, even more than the governor's post. Byrd gave me the distinct impression a couple years ago that Mollohan was his heir apparent, so the question is when (or whether) will he finally retire or otherwise vacate the senate seat?

[Xthe17th]

I wouldn't call only 79% in solid Republican territory Indiana "solid conservative" for Richard Lugar. Senator Lugar's record should be much better than Peter Fitzgerald's, but it t'aint so I still put Luugee in the Arlen "Scottish Law" Sphincter category.

[AuH2ORepublican]

If Mollohan runs for the Kleagle's Senate seat and opens up his House seat, that's a probable GOP pick-up (Bush got like 54% in Mollohan's district in 2000). But knocking off Mollohan will be very, very difficult, even for Jay Wolfe. I think we have to be patient in West Virginia, a state you've got to admit values seniority in its Congressional delegation.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I think we need to take these rankings with a grain of salt. ACU picked X number of votes that it felt were indicative of whether a candidate performed as a conservative or a liberal, but the deviations from one year to the next prove that there is no consistency in the selection of votes. Those who are social conservatives and economic liberals tend to do better in 2001 than in 2002, but social liberals and economic conservatives tend to do better in 2002 than in 2001. Part of the reason is what you pointed out regarding the fact that 3 abortion votes were included for 2001 but only 1 for 2002, but I have to assume that it's only part of the problem. The huge drop-offs for pro-military, but economic liberal Dems Gene Taylor and Ike Skelton makes me believe that defense issues were more prominently used for 2001 than for 2002, which is quite ironic. If I were a Democrat and a conspiracy theorist (and I am neither), I would believe that the ACU changed its formula to make sure that Rockefeller Republicans did better than Scoop Jackson Democrats. I hope that's not the case.

I find it is better to look at a series of group ratings, not just one, in order to rate how conservative a Congressman truly is. However, from what I recall looking at the Christian Coalition rankings released just prior to the 2002 elections, their ranking system wasn't very good either (they cherry-picked only a handful of votes, and appeared to be giving a pass to RINOs and being extra hard on conservative Dems). So I propose that we come up with our own FREEP Ratings for Senators and Representatives, based on their actual votes, and which makes sure that a certain percentage of votes measure each of social, economic and foreign-policy conservatism. Such a system should also include votes for Speaker and Senate Majority Leader (I know there's no actual vote for Senate Majority Leader, which automatically goes to the leader of the party with a plurality of members, so for the Senate we should use the proxy of whether or not there's an R next to the Senators name), since having the Democrats in power ensures that a conservative agenda never even gets to the floor. What do you all think?

[Stay the course]

Not bad for an NYC congressman.

Not bad at all. But I'd expect nothing less from a guy named "Vito".

[Stay the course]

Good points. ACU's choice of votes is subjective, and does seem to emphasize different issues in different years. This can be mitigated in part by focusing more on the Lifetime ratings, and less on the individual years. But there are also plenty of other more specialized ratings to look at.

If you have a copy of the Almanac of American Politics (and I can't imagine any political junkie being without it), you can see ratings from the National Taxpayers Union, National Tax-Limitation Committee, Christian Coalition, and National Journal. I like the National Journal ratings, because they give separate ratings for each of the three areas you mentioned: social, economic, and foreign policy. They are also more "conservative" in their ratings than ACU. For example, ACU gave out 79 perfect 100's in 2002. National Journal is more discriminating.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I certainly own Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics, and can't wait for the 2004 edition to be released later this year. The ratings that you mentioned are in the book are what I was referring to when I said that I prefer to look at a series of ratings and not rely just on ACU.

I think the National Journal's ratings are useful, but one problem with them is that they don't measure what percent of the time the Congressman voted as a "conservative" (which itself may be problematic---is voting in favor of giving China permanent normal trade authority "liberal" or "conservative"), but in what percentile a candidate falls. Thus, a candidate who always votes in the same way may be deemed more "conservative" or more "liberal" depending on what the rest of Congress does (I bet you a lot of supposedly "conservative" Republicans saw their NJ ratings drop big-time after the 1994 elections, when dozens of conservatives joined the House and Senate). That's why NJ ratings never reach 100%: Even if you're the one Senator who voted the conservative position in 100% of the included votes, you're only more conservative than 99% of Congress (since you can't be more conservative than yourself), and in the more common occurrence of having several Congressmen who each voted the conservative position every time, they would all be tied for first place with an even lower percentage (if 5 Senators vote the conservative position 100% of the time, they would each be in the 95th percentile). So I'm not sure that the NJ ratings are really more "discriminating." That's why I suggest we use the collective brainpower of FR to come up with our own rankings.

[Cacophonous]

Virgil Goode is my rep, I am prouf to say. If you get the chance to hear him speak, do so. He is outstanding.

[ScholarWarrior]

I would like that, thanks.

It is high time we rewarded those who support America and penalize those who do not.

It is time for Specter to go. "Darken not our doorways again, Arlen."

Arlen is my father in law's name. He's a commie too, although I'm working on him...

[BureaucratusMaximus]

What's Dubya's scores?