Replies

I’ve git Michael Barone’s 2014 Almanac of American Politics in front of me. It presents the group ratings for votes cast during the 112th Congress (2011-2013) by ten different froups. Looking at the six groups with the clearest ideological bent fir each of 2011 and 2012, Steve Scalise was given a rating of 92% and 100%, respectively, from the conservative American Conservative Union; a rating of 84% and 87%, respectively, from the economically conservative Club for Growth (LA Republicans tend to be populist on trade issues); 90% and 100%, respectively, from the socially conservative Family Research Council; 0% for each year from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action; a combined 0% for the two- year period from the labor liberal AFSCME; and 9% for each year from the environmentalist liberal League of Conservation Voters. So among those six ideological groups that rate congressional votes, the aggregate conservative vote rating for Scalise was 94.58%. To put it in perspective, the aggregate conservative vote rating was 92.41% for Trey Gowdy; 93.00% for Michele Bachmann; 92.41% for Louie Gohmert; 92.67% for Tom Price; 94.58% for Steve King; 94.08% for Tim Huelskamp; and 95.00% for Jim Jordan. Scalise had a more conservative voting record for the most recent Congress for which the information has been compiled in a single source than did conservative stalwarts (and Tea Party heroes) Gowdy, Bachmann, Gohmert, Price and Huelskamp, and was tied with Steve King and just a hair behind Jim Jordan. So you’re going to take your idiotic claims of “RINOism” to the ignorant (or innumerate), not to FR, whete people read and think for themselves rather than repeat whatever tripe Mark Leven is spouting that day ir believing whatever innuendo liberals are feeding you.