-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Researching an article a week or so ago, I came across this old Dana Milbank column. Milbank was miffed that conservatives were beating Republican incumbents in primaries, so he started Googling their American Conservative Union ratings.
President Gerald Ford, Republican leader in the House from 1965 to 1973? You’re outta here! He rated 67 percent in 1973 — failing both the Murkowski and the Bennett tests.
Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP nominee and longtime Senate Republican leader? Gone! He rated only 82 percent, flunking the Bennett test.
Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, Senate Republican leader from 1977 to 1985, would also be excommunicated with a score identical to Dole’s. And check out Baker’s predecessor as Senate Republican leader, Pennsylvania’s Hugh Scott. ACU rating in 1976: 29 percent, failing both the Murkowski and Bennett standards by a mile.
The three men who between 1969 and 1995 served as Republican whips in the Senate, the number two leadership position, would all be purged under the Bennett test: Alan Simpson (Wyoming) had a 78 percent lifetime rating, Ted Stevens (Alaska) rated 64 percent lifetime, and Robert Griffin (Michigan) scored 83 percent in his last year.
In today’s House, where 95 percent and above is the new normal, longtime Republican leader Bob Michel (84 percent) and his predecessor, John Rhodes of Arizona (53 percent) would have reason to worry.
How many of you would have actually missed these people?
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/31/this-is-only-a-litmus-test
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
MrD| 1.31.11 @ 1:32PM
When will Milbank write the article about all the center-right, pro-life Democrats that have been run out of the party? Liberals are mainstream and everyone else is "extreme". I am so sick of his BS. It about time the GOP found its balls.
Willy| 1.31.11 @ 2:06PM
This is a list of people who almost destroyed destroyed conservatism. Good riddance.
Walt Gilbert | 1.31.11 @ 2:39PM
This topic came up in a heated discussion between myself and old friend during the O'Donnell/Castle saga. I maintained that the GOP was a much more liberal body during the Reagan Era than it is today, while he maintained that ACU ratings are a meaningless yardstick because they lack context -- or (dare I say?) nuance.
I suppose there's a case to be made for either position, but it just seems to me that while what makes a Republican a Republican may change over the years, conservatism is remarkably, albeit not perfectly, consistent.
I think back on the charges that were leveled against Bob Packwood during the Clinton Era and the strong defense of him mounted by everyone on the right back then, and try to imagine if that would happen today. Given his leanings, I have a hard time believing he'd have been defended nearly as vehemently as he was if he'd committed his transgressions in the current scheme of things. In fact, I suspect he'd have been thrown under the bus post-haste if it happened today, irrespective of the impact it would have on the Senate headcount.
Occam's Tool| 1.31.11 @ 2:59PM
I seem to recall Ford lost to JIMMY CARTER! A mangy mutt!
kevinsoberg | 1.31.11 @ 6:04PM
Historically, the more forthrightly Conservative candidate/party has won the support of the American public since the time of Harding, if not before. Squishy Moderates as presidential candidates/ party leaders undermines the ability of the more conservative party to achieve electoral success. Once a party's/ candidate's conservatism comes into question, it's advantage is lost and the election then becomes a battle of personalities. God save us from the squishes.
Conservative Bob| 2.1.11 @ 10:36AM
One could make the case that these leaders paved the way to our current position where we are on the very edge of loosing our republic. They went a long to get along and step by step inch by precious inch sold our freedom and birth right for their social acceptance in the halls of power.
We are at a place where there is no longer any room to compromise and still maintain any pretext of limited constitutional governamce.
The times require more conservative leaders just to hold the line.