Coulter: Would Vote Clinton Over Mccain

[Dismas]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454498' date='Feb 2 2008, 10:27 AM']Well the Constitution party doesn't seem to have a presidential candidate as of yet. If the candidate holds to the party line, then you would be ok.[/quote]
I believe that the Constitution Party decided to not nominate a candidate yet, in case Ron Paul were to have received the nod. Though it is practically impossible at this point, I think they will wait until he is eliminated.
[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454498' date='Feb 2 2008, 10:27 AM']While I wish that McCain would drop the abortion exceptions, I think he's awesome.[/quote]
He won't nominate another Justice Alito. Based on his judicial rhetoric, I doubt he would sent Congress anyone more pro-life than Justice Kennedy. Of course, for all we know, the two justices that he would likely nominate will turn out like Justice Souter.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/willcarlavi2.gif[/img]

[daytondog]

Wow, I see a lot of suppositions and insinuations from the McCain haters; why don't we look at the facts:

The American Conservative Union, which is the oldest conservative lobbying group in America, puts out an authoritative "Conservative Rating" based upon Congressional voting records. So you McCain haters can quote every liberal media source you want, twist John McCain's words around all you want, but lets look at how he has put his ideas and values into Congressional action by looking at his Conservative voting record:
John McCain lifetime Conservative ranking of 82.3
Rick Santorum, former senator from Penn., staunch Roman Catholic lifetime Conservative ranking of 88.1
Barak Obama lifetime Conservative ranking of 8
Hillary Clinton lifetime Conservative ranking of 9

Clearly, McCain is right (no pun intended) in line with the Santorum wing of the Republican party no matter how you want to slander him as a Clinton liberal.

I can't believe you folks are so foolish and unsophisticated (sorry if I come across as self righteous) to fall for the New York Times editorial board and not see through their shrewd political maneuvers. The NY times is keenly aware that any endorsement they give a Republican candidate can only hurt that candidate in the view of the Republican base. And when they looked across the Republican candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who beats every Democratic candidate in the polls. (Please visit www.realclearpolitics.com for this evidence) So this is the NY Times and their liberal allies only real chance to stopping a Republican victory in November: stop the McCain nomination, and you guarantee Obama or Clinton (or both) in the White House.

Wake up people. Why are you willing to cut off your nose in order to save your face?

Stop Hillary!
Stop Barack Osama bin Laden!



How ACU Determines Its Ratings and Why They Are Significant

As the premier conservative rating listed in all major political almanacs and reference guides, ACU's "Rating" is often quoted by the media and is extensively used by political strategists and candidates running for public office.

As the umbrella grassroots lobbying group of the Conservative Movement, ACU tracks a wide variety of issues before Congress, ranging from taxes to spending and national security to abortion. Accordingly, our ratings encompass three general categories: (1) economic and budget matters; (2) social and cultural issues, and (3) defense and foreign policy. ACU endeavors to analyze votes from each category in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records.

Each member of the House and Senate is rated on a scale of 0 to 100.

The purpose of the "Rating" is to inform the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, exactly where individual Senators and Members of the House stand on the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative.

[Justin86]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454528' date='Feb 3 2008, 03:01 AM']Wow, I see a lot of suppositions and insinuations from the McCain haters; why don't we look at the facts:

The American Conservative Union, which is the oldest conservative lobbying group in America, puts out an authoritative "Conservative Rating" based upon Congressional voting records. So you McCain haters can quote every liberal media source you want, twist John McCain's words around all you want, but lets look at how he has put his ideas and values into Congressional action by looking at his Conservative voting record:
John McCain lifetime Conservative ranking of 82.3
Rick Santorum, former senator from Penn., staunch Roman Catholic lifetime Conservative ranking of 88.1
Barak Obama lifetime Conservative ranking of 8
Hillary Clinton lifetime Conservative ranking of 9

Clearly, McCain is right (no pun intended) in line with the Santorum wing of the Republican party no matter how you want to slander him as a Clinton liberal.

I can't believe you folks are so foolish and unsophisticated (sorry if I come across as self righteous) to fall for the New York Times editorial board and not see through their shrewd political maneuvers. The NY times is keenly aware that any endorsement they give a Republican candidate can only hurt that candidate in the view of the Republican base. And when they looked across the Republican candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who beats every Democratic candidate in the polls. (Please visit www.realclearpolitics.com for this evidence) So this is the NY Times and their liberal allies only real chance to stopping a Republican victory in November: stop the McCain nomination, and you guarantee Obama or Clinton (or both) in the White House.

Wake up people. Why are you willing to cut off your nose in order to save your face?

Stop Hillary!
Stop Barack Osama bin Laden!
How ACU Determines Its Ratings and Why They Are Significant

As the premier conservative rating listed in all major political almanacs and reference guides, ACU's "Rating" is often quoted by the media and is extensively used by political strategists and candidates running for public office.

As the umbrella grassroots lobbying group of the Conservative Movement, ACU tracks a wide variety of issues before Congress, ranging from taxes to spending and national security to abortion. Accordingly, our ratings encompass three general categories: (1) economic and budget matters; (2) social and cultural issues, and (3) defense and foreign policy. ACU endeavors to analyze votes from each category in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records.

Each member of the House and Senate is rated on a scale of 0 to 100.

The purpose of the "Rating" is to inform the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, exactly where individual Senators and Members of the House stand on the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative.[/quote]
Notice how you didn't name a single piece of legislation that he voted for to demonstrate this conservativeness you attribute to him. I'm actually rather surprised by that. I thought for sure you were going to put "he voted for the surge" in there, which while true, is but one issue.

In either case, I'm no McCain hater, but lets show some intellectual honesty: one simply can not describe themselves as conservative when they are pro-amnesty, and when one's very name is the title of a bill that restricts free-speech! Of course, he's really no different then Romney, which is why I'm rather surprised by Ann's venom against him, but none of this changes the reality that we won't be getting a conservative president this fall no matter what.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1454482' date='Feb 3 2008, 01:01 AM']As for McCain's handling national security, bah. What was he doing for the military in the 90's? Oh yeah, dismantling it for Bill Clinton.[/quote]
Being for the surge and downsizing the military aren't two issues that go hand-in-hand easily. If anything, he'd probably at least maintain the current plan to up-size the Army and the half-assed up-sizing the Marine Corp has been doing.

Of course its true that McCain didn't invent the surge, as he currently likes to spin it, but it is true that he was one of its strongest proponents.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Justin86

[daytondog]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1454532' date='Feb 2 2008, 01:29 PM']Notice how you didn't name a single piece of legislation that he voted for to demonstrate this conservativeness you attribute to him. I'm actually rather surprised by that. I thought for sure you were going to put "he voted for the surge" in there, which while true, is but one issue.

In either case, I'm no McCain hater, but lets show some intellectual honesty: one simply can not describe themselves as conservative when they are pro-amnesty, and when one's very name is the title of a bill that restricts free-speech! Of course, he's really no different then Romney, which is why I'm rather surprised by Ann's venom against him, but none of this changes the reality that we won't be getting a conservative president this fall no matter what. [/quote]

Having served in both houses of Congress for over 25 years, and accumulating a lifetime conservative rating of 82.3 while doing it, there just isn't enough room or time to enumerate each and every piece of legislation he voted for over the last two and half decades, get real. The number 82.3 speaks for itself. But, at your instance of "intellectual honesty" here is the anecdotal proof you demand:

John McCain voted to convict Bill Clinton on both impeachment counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. The conservative stalwarts Senators Fred Thompson, John Warner, Richard Shelby, or Ted Stevens did not even had the conservative fortitude to do this.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/mccain/2008/01/25/67382.html"]McCain Does Not Fit 'Conservative' Definition[/url]

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:01 AM

By: David Limbaugh

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness. But intramural bickering isn't the issue.

What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain — overnight — into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back — not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona."

Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

McCain's defenders — in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech — forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.

We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.

Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character, a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.

I respectfully reject that McCain's honorable and sacrificial character-building experiences or his self-description as a "straight talker" place his veracity above question.

I remember him sidling up to the media by falsely claiming George Bush didn't level with the American people about how long the Iraq war could take.

I remember him blaming dirty campaign tricks on Bush in South Carolina in 2000, when investigations revealed there was no evidence Bush was behind it.

I remember him joining liberals in slandering the truth-telling Swift Boat veterans as "dishonest and dishonorable."

I remember his disingenuous derision of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts as being only for the rich.

I witnessed him changing his position on immigration to shore up support in South Carolina, then after that primary arrogantly denying to Sean Hannity that he'd flip-flopped.

People can assess for themselves whether McCain is always straight, but hopefully they'll base their decision on the evidence and not his hero status. I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:

He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.

He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.

He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.

Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback.

[daytondog]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1454581' date='Feb 2 2008, 03:11 PM'][url="http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/mccain/2008/01/25/67382.html"]McCain Does Not Fit 'Conservative' Definition[/url]

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:01 AM

By: David Limbaugh

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness. But intramural bickering isn't the issue.

What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain — overnight — into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back — not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona."

Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

McCain's defenders — in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech — forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.

We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.

Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character, a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.

I respectfully reject that McCain's honorable and sacrificial character-building experiences or his self-description as a "straight talker" place his veracity above question.

I remember him sidling up to the media by falsely claiming George Bush didn't level with the American people about how long the Iraq war could take.

I remember him blaming dirty campaign tricks on Bush in South Carolina in 2000, when investigations revealed there was no evidence Bush was behind it.

I remember him joining liberals in slandering the truth-telling Swift Boat veterans as "dishonest and dishonorable."

I remember his disingenuous derision of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts as being only for the rich.

I witnessed him changing his position on immigration to shore up support in South Carolina, then after that primary arrogantly denying to Sean Hannity that he'd flip-flopped.

People can assess for themselves whether McCain is always straight, but hopefully they'll base their decision on the evidence and not his hero status. I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:

He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.

He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.

He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.

Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" (Regnery) was recently released in paperback.[/quote]

Wow, more fallacies of argumentation. Limbaugh thinks a laundry list of anecdotes some how outweighs 82.3 conservative rating. How does someone receive a conservative rating of 82.3 by being liberal, please explain? That's right, this whole McCain thing has degenerated into an anecdotal battle between one side listing all these examples of him being a liberal, and the other side listing all these examples of him being conservative. That is why the American Conservative Union puts out its conservative ranking, in order to avoid this kind of childish bickering. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454600' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:26 PM']Wow, more fallacies of argumentation. Limbaugh thinks a laundry list of anecdotes some how outweighs 82.3 conservative rating. How does someone receive a conservative rating of 82.3 by being liberal, please explain? That's right, this whole McCain thing has degenerated into an anecdotal battle between one side listing all these examples of him being a liberal, and the other side listing all these examples of him being conservative. That is why the American Conservative Union puts out its conservative ranking, in order to avoid this kind of childish bickering. Let the numbers speak for themselves.[/quote]


82.3 rating? Ha! I would never eat at a restaurant that had a 82.3 sanitary rating. If we are to look at the numbers by the year many of them are in the 70's and 60's. Also this overall rating of Mccain is from 2006. Two year old news. And to add its but one rating, from one group. 82.3 so what...

Edited February 2, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Alycin]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454528' date='Feb 2 2008, 12:01 PM']Stop Barack Osama bin Laden![/quote]


You have GOT to be kidding me.

You actually expect people to take you seriously now?

[XIX]

Knight of Christ, as a future actuary/statistician type guy, I can tell you right now that the article you posted really means nothing in terms of answering the question of McCain's conservatism. It only shows that Mr. Limbaugh can take every instance of him being liberal in appearance--regardless of whether he was liberal in fact--and put it in a list.

At least your sample size was greater than that of Justin (who fell for the most popular logical fallacy of all: the sample size of one), but it was still extremely insufficient to draw any real conclusions. A statistical conglomeration of a thousand examples tells more accurate story than a finely chosen list of 1-15 examples,

Also...and people might bite my head off over this, but so be it: where in Church teaching does it state that every single conservative axiom in American politics? I'll admit Aloysius has me sold on de-centralized government, and I almost always vote conservative because their advantage in the pro-life department is simply too great to be surmounted. However, I'm not sure why some people seem to think that being a Catholic social conservative means that they have to automatically flock to all of the other conservative viewpoints. Tell me, if you are against the dismemberment of children, what does that have to do with believing that tax cuts for the rich help the poor? Or your views on Guantanamo Bay? The war? Social security? The environment? Etc?

One would expect most of these issues to be completely independent from one another, yet because we have this "taking sides" mentality, we seem to have created a situation where being a pro-life Catholic automatically means you have to be of the opinion that global warming is a hoax. Which naturally means that you think aliens should be booted back to Jupiter where they belong. And if you believe that, then you clearly believe that President Clinton should have been impeached and booted out of office.

Call me crazy, but I don't understand this "pure conservatism" idea. I happen to think that conservatives are right on most of the issues, but with the exception of the social issues, I can stomach the liberal stance okay. Bottom line, it would be an incredible coincidence if the liberals were wrong about everything. Even a blind squirrel catches a nut. Personally, I tend to think liberal about the environment (regardless of whether global warming is real), the death penalty, Guantanamo, and *gasp* I think that pulling out of Iraq is the less-bad solution at this point in time.

I'm right-of-center on the economy but can see the upside to taxing the wealthy. I believe in small government. I somewhat believe in "securing the border" but am not totally sold on the conservative stance here. I'm against universal health care, but at least we'd all supposedly have access to health care. I also think social security tax is a sham, and that SS should be privatized. Alright, so I guess that might make me a little further right of center fiscally.

But if someone disagrees with me on those issues, I'm not going to whine too much about it. Bottom line, Hilary is essentially the current-day empress of the Culture of Death. She gets in, we will have liberal judges for the next 35 years, the Mexico City Act will be repealed in order to send taxpayer money to fund abortions overseas...and every single pro-abortion, pro-cloning, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-abortifacient birth control legislation is going to be pushed and pushed by Hilary until they all become reality. McCain at least has to work with the Republican party, so he will probably be anti-abortion if only to be status quo. If having him in office means that I have to give up an extra 5% of my paycheck, well that's just tough noogies on me. Being moderate or liberal on some issues may tarnish one's label as a "pure conservative," but honestly, why the presupposition that 100% conservative = 100% aweXome?

Anyways, back to my initial point: the 82.3 conservative rating is a lot more important from an analytical standpoint than an list of anecdotes. I will mention that 82.3 is NOT on the same plane at Santorum's 88.1. The numbers look similar, yet one could look at it the other way. Santorum has a 11.9 liberal rating, and McCain has a 17.7 liberal rating. Ergo, McCain is 48.7% more liberal than Santorum. Still, it really puts to rest Coulter's attention-grabbing idea that Hilary is more conservative than McCain. The statistical analysis may not be perfect, but it's a lot more effective than coming up with an anecdote. After all, you can't draw a conclusion based on a population sample of one.

[Jaime]

McCain is a heck of a lot more conservative than Bush

[XIX]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1454608' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:52 PM']82.3 rating? Ha! I would never eat at a restaurant that had a 82.3 sanitary rating. If we are to look at the numbers by the year many of them are in the 70's and 60's. Also this overall rating of Mccain is from 2006. Two year old news. And to add its but one rating, from one group. 82.3 so what...[/quote]
Again, I don't understand this assumption that conservatives are correct on every single issue. At least try to justify your implied assertion that conservatives are always correct.

It's one rating, but it is based on a whole lot more than anything else I have seen here. I'll give you that it's two years old (or it could be 14 months old for all I know). It doesn't really matter if it's one rating if that one rating is based on a sufficient quantity of data. For example, "one rating from one group" means a lot if that rating is based on 100 pieces of data. Conversely, "six anecdotes from six groups" really means nothing by comparision, because that only gives you six pieces of data with which to work. And if they are anecdotes, you can assume that they are probably biased to suit the views of the person giving the anecdote (i.e. a Giants fan pointing out a statistic that makes the Giants look good).

82.3 means a lot more than saying "I can list all of his liberal actions without mentioning his conservative ones!"

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454623' date='Feb 2 2008, 05:38 PM']McCain is a heck of a lot more conservative than Bush[/quote]
I dunno about that. Even Bush saw value in cutting taxes. McCain can't even get that right.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1454632' date='Feb 2 2008, 04:59 PM']I dunno about that. Even Bush saw value in cutting taxes. McCain can't even get that right.[/quote]


McCain said on "Meet the Press" that he was against cutting taxes without cutting spending. Which is a conservative position. He's for making them permanent now, but he wants to cut spending when he becomes president.

That's a different cry than our current president.

From Meet the Press [quote]And let me go back to 2001 again. I was right, we had to have restraint of spending. I'm proud to have been one in the Reagan revolution where we not only cut taxes, which I'm proud to have supported and I have a record of it, but we restrained spending. And when you have tax cuts and not restrain spending and let things go completely out of control, as we did, look, we lost the 2006 election because we didn't restrain spending.[/quote]

[daytondog]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1454612' date='Feb 2 2008, 05:03 PM']You have GOT to be kidding me.

You actually expect people to take you seriously now?

[/quote]

Must have been a typo. Is Barack Saddam Hussein Obama better? Isn't that his real name?

What me serious!? I don't take a "community organizer" serious when he runs for president on platform of platitudes and non-substance. But I do take a naval fighter pilot, POW war hero seriously though when he runs for president. Even though I know McCain would rightly distance himself from my childish rants if given the chance. Oh well; that's why writing on message boards is so entertaining.

[daytondog]

[quote name='XIX' post='1454621' date='Feb 2 2008, 05:33 PM']Anyways, back to my initial point: the 82.3 conservative rating is a lot more important from an analytical standpoint than an list of anecdotes.[/quote]

couldn't have said it better myself.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html"]McCain's ACU Ratings[/url]
By Randall Hoven

Senator John McCain's lifetime rating of 82.3% from the American Conservative Union is often cited as proof that he is conservative. Here is a closer look at that 82.3 rating.

First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006.

Generally, McCain has voted less conservatively in more recent years. His average for 1990-97 was 88, but was only 74 for 1998-2006. Below are his yearly ratings since 1990.


Year ACU Rating

2006 65

2005 80

2004 72

2003 80

2002 72

2001 68

2000 81

1999 77

1998 68

1997 80

1996 95

1995 91

1994 96

1993 83

1992 85

1991 86

1990 87


So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues. He was more consistently conservative on spending and defense issues. The list below summarizes all his votes since 1998 that differed from the ACU's position.


Year and Issue Vote Margin

2006, Taxes 50-50

2006, Immigration 50-49

2006, Immigration 62-36

2006, Social: Same Sex Marriage 49-48

2006, Native Hawaiian Govt. 56-41

2006, International: Iran sanctions 54-45

2006, Immigration: Border Fence 71-29

2006, Social: Embryonic Stem Cells 63-37

2005, Taxes 51-49

2005, Environment: Climate Change 60-38

2005, Environment: mercury emissions 51-47

2005, Environment: ANWR 51-48

2005, Taxes: Oil & gas development 51-48

2004, Spending/Social: School vouchers 65-28

2004, Regulation: seat belts 57-41

2004, Legal Reform: Gun manufacturers 70-27

2004, Spending: Unemployment 58-39

2004, Taxes 51-48

2004, Spending: Education of disabled 56-41

2004, Legal Reform: Torts 44-43

2003, Taxes 50-50

2003, Taxes 50-50

2003, Taxes 51-49

2003, Environment: Kyoto 55-43

2002, Voter fraud, state control 55-40

2002, Regulation: SUV fuel efficiency 56-44

2002, CFR 60-40

2002, Taxes: death tax 55-44

2001, CFR 69-31

2001, CFR 60-40

2001, CFR 57-43

2001, Taxes: marriage penalty 73-27

2001, Taxes: capital gains 51-47

2001, Taxes 58-33

2001, Taxes/Health: med. savings accounts 53-45

2001, Legal Reform: torts 54-42

2000, Taxes 56-44

2000, International: Troops in Kosovo 53-47

2000, CFR: Brad Smith on FEC 65-35

2000, CFR 57-42

1999, International: Troops in Kosovo N/A

1999, Health: managed care N/A

1999, Spending N/A

1999, CFR N/A

1998, Health: surgeon general confirm. 75-23

1998, CFR 50-47

1998, CFR 50-48

1998, CFR 51-48

1998, Taxes: tobacco 72-26

1998, Taxes: tobacco 57-42

1998, International: Troops in Bosnia 65-31

1998, International: IMF lending 74-19



Another piece of information from the list above is that many of the votes were close. In one third of these votes, a swing of only two senators would have changed the outcome. In over two thirds, a swing of ten senators would have changed the outcome. As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position.

As might be expected, ACU ratings essentially reflect party affiliation. At the halfway point, ranking 50th, we have Richard Shelby (R-AL, formerly D-AL) with a lifetime score of 74.2. But Robert Byrd (D-WV) ranks just slightly lower at 58th, with a score of only 29.6. By the time you get to 66th place, all scores are below 20.

[b]What this means is that McCain's ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans.[/b] The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona's other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

Not much the cheer about here.

[KnightofChrist]

Something else about the ACU, its Chairman David Keene has endorsed Romney... just saying.

[XIX]

I agree that McCain is pretty liberal for a Republican. I wouldn't vote for him in a primary even if Ron Paul withdraws. I don't think he is nearly as liberal as the recent hype would suggest, and he's nowhere near as liberal as Barack or Hilary.

The whole bit about how he's the 38th ranked senator tells me more about the disparity between the Dems and the GOP, than about his lack of conservative credentials. I do think it's a concern that he represent conservative Arizona, and as President, would have a more liberal constituency.

The whole bit about how McCain votes liberal when it matters...I don't really buy that. They make it sound like a "ten-vote swing" is a lot. A ten senator swing, just to clarify, is not equal to ten vote. It's equal to twenty. In other words, a ten vote swing would be equal to winning a vote 59-39. That's not exactly a close call.

If you want to talk about close votes, I would count the one-third of his votes that came when the swing was two senators or fewer. I'm curious as to how many of his conservative votes came in similar circumstances. If a lot fewer than 33% of his votes came in tight decisions, then you might be onto something. If it's at or around 33%, then you would have to think otherwise.

Personally, it seems to me like he voted liberal on too many lopsided issues to accuse him of only striking out with the bases loaded. Furthermore, a quick glance at the list indicates that he has only voted liberal on social issues 3 times. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, but it's better than a lot of other people think. And it is probably good enough for me to somewhat tolerate for 4-8 years.

One last note: NARAL did in fact give McCain a 0% approval rating. While in the Senate, apparently he voted pro-life 113 out of 117 times. I'm not sure why that doesn't translate into 3-4% rating, but you get the picture. He's not great, and strictly speaking, he's not pro-life. I wouldn't vote for him in a primary. I'd probably vote for him in a general election--unless I decide to symbolically vote for Ron Paul or someone.