Coulter: Would Vote Clinton Over Mccain

[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.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1454637' date='Feb 2 2008, 06:16 PM']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]

Yes it is. Bush could not bring himself to say no to quite a lot of spending, and Congress couldn't resist spending. None of that is conservative at all.
McCain voted against the cuts twice: in 2001 and 2003. Conveniently he votes for cutting taxes just in time for another run at the presidency last year.

And at the time he voted against the tax cuts [url="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html"]he didn't say that he was voting them down because of spending[/url]. In 2001 McCain joined the liberals in voting against cutting taxes because he said that cuts favored the wealthy, and in 2003 because the cost of the war in Iraq needed to come down.

I am chalking his [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NATION/951285270/1002"]current tax cut explanation[/url] up with a lot of McCain's other stances, which have become increasingly more erratic, inconsistent, and leftist during his time in congress--especially in the past decade or so.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[KnightofChrist]

My whole problem with Mccain is that he is not a conservative. And he is not a friend of conservatives, or the conservative ideal. He is not as Liberal as Hilary and Barack, yet he does side with the likes of them when it counts. IE Finds legal Abortion necessary, Limiting Free Speech, Against Sanctity of Marriage, Using Aborted Fetus for Enslavement Scientific Research, Against the Sovereignty of the Untied States, *National Imposed Health Care, Anti Tax Cuts, and Anti Gun Rights.

Now all of that listed could be argued the other way, but it proves one thing Mccain is not a conservative.

*National Health would be a failure, think of Walter Reed or any VA hospital. The government can not even take care off our war heroes, and we should think they can care for the whole of the American people?

Edited February 3, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Justin86]

[quote name='XIX' post='1454621' date='Feb 3 2008, 07:33 AM']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,[/quote]
I would argue that it is a logical fallacy to assume all issues are of equal importance that can be listed by points. Say for example Ronald Reagan had sold top secret information to China, but still brought down the wall, and the Soviet Union. You think I would want anyone who claimed to carry his mantle in any government office at all? Its one issue for sure, but its treason. It negates everything else he accomplished. He would no longer deserve to be hailed as a great American President.

Of course McCain isn't a traitor of the country, but he certainly has betrayed conservatism with his restrictions on free speech and pro-amnesty stance. Those are simply non-negotiable issues with real conservatives and he sold out.

[quote]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?[/quote]
No one is arguing in this topic that one has to be a conservative in order to be Catholic. All I want, and am arguing for is for people to stop calling McCain a conservative. He betrayed the movement when he voted for amnesty, and against free speech. Those issues are about as non-negotiable as selling our national secrets.

I will vote for Romney in the primary but if McCain wins I will smell of elderberries it up and vote for him.

[daytondog]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1454745' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:07 AM']All I want, and am arguing for is for people to stop calling McCain a conservative. He betrayed the movement when he voted for amnesty,[/quote]

Did Ronald Reagan betray the movement when he signed into law the first and only illegal immigrant amnesty law in 1986?
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_196"]1986 US Immigration Reform and Control Act[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='daytondog' post='1454778' date='Feb 3 2008, 12:44 AM']Did Ronald Reagan betray the movement when he signed into law the first and only illegal immigrant amnesty law in 1986?
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_19"]1986 US Immigration Reform and Control Act[/url][/quote]

It was counter to conservatism. The difference unlike Mclame is that President Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.

Edited February 3, 2008 by KnightofChrist