Rick Hill (R) – Governor Candidate 2012

by a Tea Party Group

Here is a list of Rick Hill’s votes in Congress:

Congress 105-1

  1. For extension of guaranteed rural multifamily rental housing loans. HR 28
  2. For building more prisons. HR 3.
  3. For $20 billion spending for socialist programs. HR5
  4. For auto pilot federal spending. HR 1469
  5. Against withdrawal from UN. HR 1757
  6. For Spending, FEMA, Peace keeping in Bosnia. Disaster relief. HR 1871
  7. Most favored nation trading status for China. HJR 79

Congress 105-2

  1. Against constitutional disclosure of intelligence spending. HR 1775
  2. For Federal block grants. HR 1818.
  3. Against eliminating the national endowment for humanities. HR 2107
  4. Against eliminating sugar loan subsidies. HR 2160.
  5. Against eliminating market access programs and for subsidizing overseas advertising by big corporations. HR 2160
  6. Against eliminating export subsidies. HR 2159
  7. Against eliminating population controls and foreign aid. HR 2159

Congress 105-3

  1. For VA/HUD appropriations. HR 2158
  2. For foreign aid. HR 2159
  3. For a global crime court. HR 137
  4. For dismissing Dornan election fraud. HR 355
  5. Disaster assistance to Bosnia. HR 3579.
  6. For more federal involvement in public schools. HR 6

Congress 105-4

  1. For super pork. HR 2400
  2. For revising our First Amendment. HJR 78
  3. For food stamps etc. S 1150
  4. Against $150 billion in tax cuts. HJR 284
  5. Against Elimination of corporate welfare. HR 4101
  6. For Agriculture subsidies. HR 4101
  7. For funding welfare for women, infants and children (WIC). HR 3874
  8. For taxpayers subsidizing trade with China. HJR 121

Congress 106-1

  1. Against Clinton impeachment. HR 611
  2. For wild and scenic rivers land grabs. HR 193
  3. For more AG subsidies. HR 1906

Congress 106-2

  1. For more support for China. HJR57
  2. Against slight farm aide cut. HR 2606
  3. For corporate welfare. HR 2606
  4. For more foreign aid. HR 2606
  5. Against transparency in campaign disclosure in Doolittle campaign finance legislation.
  6. Against the 1st amendment and free speech. HR 417
  7. For more Ag subsidies. HR 1906
  8. More Federal Education subsidies, removing local autonomy. HR 2
  9. For Federal Education grants. HR 2
  10. For labor/ HHS / Education spending. HR 3064

Congress 106-3

  1. For small business admin. corporate welfare. HR 3843
  2. Against $270 Billion in tax cuts by conservative action team.
  3. For HUD expansion. HR 1776
  4. For providing TV for underserved areas. HR 3615
  5. For funding for disabilities education. HR 4055.
  6. For monies for more land grabs by Feds. HR 701
  7. For permanent normal trade status with China. HR 4444

Congress 106-4

  1. For automatic funding of the welfare state. HR 853
  2. Against disclosure of intelligence spending to Congress. HR 4392
  3. For the welfare state with more than 7% spending increase. HR 4577
  4. Against the second amendment. June 21, 2000, Roll call 308.
  5. For more Ag subsidies. HR 4461
  6. For Foreign aid giveaways. HR 4461
  7. For more normal trade relations with communists. HJR 103


Copyright (c) 2013 by PolyMontana LLC or by the author. All rights reserved.


  1. 1

    It looks like a lot of these “votes” are bogus. There never was a bill in Congress called “$20 billion spending for socialist programs, HR 5″, or “Super Pork, HR 2200″. Whoever sent this to you is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

    And the implication, I think, is that Rick Hill is somehow a RINO for making these supposed votes. That’s dishonest. Hill scored a lifetime rating of 88 from the gold standard of conservative watchdog groups, the American Conservative Union.


    See for yourself:

    And before you say that 88 is a weak score, Ron Paul’s lifetime score is 83:

    These scorecards and votes that Hill took a decade ago have some value to judge how he’ll govern, and all indications are that he’ll govern as a staunch conservative. But isn’t the more important thing to judge him on the policy direction that he’s campaigning on today?

  2. 2

    @02, Lisa, I would like to read more basis for the “Clinton-Gingrich” votes. That is a very large number of Republicans to conclude it was a bad vote. I think we need details about the bill and the circumstances when it was voted on.

    As further evidence, three of those supporting the bill are well-known to be very conservative, namely, Chenoweth (Idaho), Doolittle (Calif.), and Sununu (N.H.).

    Chenoweth was recognized as a patriot. Doolittle was my rep when I was in California and he had the reputation for being the most conservative California representative. Sununu is too smart to have voted foolishly. So there must be some yet unexplained reason for all of them voting for this bill.

  3. 3
    Lisa Jensen says:

    I don’t know how your conservative union comes up with their figures; but obviously conservative does not mean constitutional! AS Hill, Mont voted with the Gingrich Clinton agreement and is noted (http://www.conservativeusa.org/vote-rec98.htm) as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we have enough of that in government don’t we? This is food enough for me to look for another candidate!
    And also take note Thune voted for this also!! Actual article below:

    “The Gingrich-Lott-Clinton budget agreement…is a comprehensive betrayal of Constitutional obligations and a rejection of the conservative policies for which many Americans thought they were voting in supporting Republican control of Congress in 1994 and 1996.” Howard Phillips October 20, 1998
    More information on the Federal Budget

    “Clinton-Gingrich Republicans”:

    These Republican House members, on October 20, were among those who voted 333-95 to approve the Clinton-Gingrich-Lott budget (Roll Call no. 538): Aderholt (Ala.), Archer (Tex.), Armey (Tex.), Baker (La.), Barrett (Neb.), Bass (N.H.), Bateman (Va.), Bereuter (Neb.), Bilirakis (Fla.), Bliley (Va.), Blunt (Mo.), Boehlert (N.Y.), Boehner (Ohio), Bonilla (Tex.), Bono (Calif.), Bryant (Tenn.), Bunning (Ky.), Burton (Ind.), Buyer (Ind.), Callahan (Ala.), Calvert (Calif.), Camp (Mich.), Canady (Fla.), Cannon (Utah), Chambliss (Ga.), Chenoweth (Idaho), Combest (Tex.), Cook (Utah), Cooksey (La.), Cox (Calif.), Crapo (Idaho), Cubin (Wyo.), Cunningham (Calif.), Davis (Va.), DeLay (Tex.), Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Dickey (Ark.), Doolittle (Calif.), Dreier (Calif.), Dunn (Wash.), Ehrlich (Md.), Emerson (Mo.), English (Pa.), Everett (Ala.), Ewing (Ill.), Fawell (Ill.), Foley (Fla.), Forbes (N.Y), Fossella (N.Y.), Fowler (Fla.), Fox (Pa.), Franks (N.J.), Gallegly (Calif.), Ganske (Iowa), Gekas (Pa.), Gibbons (Nev.), Gilchrest (Md.), Gillmor (Ohio), Gilman (N.Y.), Gingrich (Ga.), Goodlatte (Va.), Goodling (Pa.), Goss (Fla.), Granger (Tex.), Greenwood (Pa.), Gutknecht (Minn.), Hastert (Ill.), Hastings (Wash.), Hayworth (Ariz.), Herger (Calif.), Hill (Mont.), Hilleary (Tenn.), Hobson (Ohio), Horn (Calif.), Houghton (N.Y.), Hulshof (Mo.), Hunter (Calif.), Hutchinson (Ark.), Jenkins (Tenn.), Johnson (Conn.), Kasich (Ohio), Kelly (N.Y.), Kim (Calif.), Kingston (Ga.), Knollenberg (Mich.), Kolbe (Ariz.), Latham (Iowa), LaTourette (Ohio), Lazio (N.Y.), Leach (Iowa), Lewis (Calif.), Lewis (Ky.), Linder (Ga.), Livingston (La.), LoBiondo (N.J.), Lucas (Okla.), McCollum (Fla.), McCrery (La.), McDade (Pa.), McHugh (N.Y.), McInnis (Colo.), McKeon (Calif.), Metcalf (Wash.), Moran (Kans.), Morella (Md.), Myrick (N.C.), Nethercutt (Wash.), Ney (Ohio), Northup (Ky.), Norwood (Ga.), Nussle (Iowa), Oxley (Ohio), Packard (Calif.), Parker (Miss.), Paxon (N.Y.), Pease (Ind.), Peterson (Pa.), Pickering (Miss.), Pitts (Pa.), Pombo (Calif.), Porter (Ill.), Quinn (N.Y.), Radanovich (Calif.), Ramstad (Minn.), Redmond (N.M.), Regula (Ohio), Riley (Ala.), Rogan (Calif.), Rogers (Ky.), Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Ryun (Kans.), Saxton (N.J.), Dan Schaefer (Colo.), Sessions (Tex.), Shadegg (Ariz.), Shaw (Fla.), Shimkus (Ill.), Shuster (Pa.), Skeen (N.M.), Smith (Ore.), Smith (Tex.), Snowbarger (Kans.), Solomon (N.Y.), Souder (Ind.), Spence (S.C.), Sununu (N.H.), Talent (Mo.), Tauzin (La.), Taylor (N.C.), Thomas (Calif.), Thornberry (Tex.), Thune (S.D.), Tiahrt (Kans.), Walsh (N.Y.), Watkins (Okla.), Watts (Okla.), Weller (Ill.), Whitfield (Ky.), Wicker (Miss.), Wilson (N.M.), Young (Fla.), and Young (Alaska).

  4. 4
    Lisa Jensen says:

    Sorry but you cannot put any value on the “policy direction” for which one campaigns! These candidates have to be judged on their moral, ethical and understanding of our Constitution as well as the moral courage to stand up for our constitution and “we the people.” Our Constitution is being desecrated and with it our American values and our way of life. The time to stand up for Liberty is now, and you will not find that value or any value in an American candidate that fails to uphold our constitution, whether it was today or yesterday. It must be upheld always……..

  5. 5
    Lisa Jensen says:

    The words, “is a comprehensive betrayal of Constitutional obligations and a rejection of the conservative policies for which many Americans thought they were voting in supporting Republican control of Congress in 1994 and 1996.” These are strong words which lead me to believe that the constitution was again betrayed and we the people ignored again.

    It doesn’t matter the number of republicans voting for this thing or the reason why…It matters was it constitutional? Was the ethics of our government jeopardized, was there special deals made like Obama Care? If it may be deemed as Unconstitutional for any reason; they should have voted against it!

    One small infraction of disrespect for our constitution eliminates you as a candidate for any elected position…………as the responsibility of upholding our constitution should be your first and foremost task; after all you do take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States; or is it the United Nations????

  6. 6
    Lisa Jensen says:

    Ed this is what I found and I am NOT happy about it! (http://www.conservativeusa.org/budget.htm)

    17.9 BILLION TO THE IMF (International Monetary Fund) United Nations



    OKAY, Read for yourself…see below

    The Outrageous 1999 Federal Budgets

    The Conservative Caucus
    450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626
    Additional GOP betrayals of conservatives


    How did YOUR Senators and Congressman vote on this outrage?
    Read the full Budget (at Thomas)

    Excerpts from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of December 15, 1998


    Human Events points out (10/30/98, p. 4) that “Funding under Title X (family planning) for groups like Planned Parenthood increased from $203 million to $215 million….

    “[A] provision sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R.-Okla.) restricting government-funded clinics from providing minors with contraceptives was dropped. Istook’s provision, which was passed by the House…would have required parental consent for minors to immediately receive contraceptives, but only parental notice if the children were willing to wait a few days.”



    Human Events points out (10/30/98, pp. 4, 5) that “Funding under Title X (family planning) for groups like Planned Parenthood increased from $203 million to $215 million….

    “[A] provision sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook (R.-Okla.) restricting government-funded clinics from providing minors with contraceptives was dropped. Istook’s provision, which was passed by the House…would have required parental consent for minors to immediately receive contraceptives, but only parental notice if the children were willing to wait a few days.”



    At a press conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on October 20, speaking as Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, I said:

    “The Gingrich-Lott-Clinton budget agreement…is a comprehensive betrayal of Constitutional obligations and a rejection of the conservative policies for which many Americans thought they were voting in supporting Republican control of Congress in 1994 and 1996.”


    “So long as Republican members of the House and Senate vote to retain Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott as their leaders, then they are responsible for the decisions negotiated with Bill Clinton by Gingrich and Lott.

    “Even those members of Congress who may, quite properly vote against this latest budget agreement will still be responsible for it, if they vote to re-elect Gingrich and Lott to leadership positions when Congress reconvenes in January.”


    “Among the most egregious decisions made by the Congressional GOP leadership are these:

    “1) A $17.9 billion transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to the bureaucrats at the International Monetary Fund and the financial power brokers in behalf of whose private profit they act.

    Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution begins by asserting that “All legislative Powers…shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”. Congress unconstitutionally surrenders legislative authority vested in it when it assigns control over resources and policy to the IMF.”


    “2) There is no Constitutional role for the Federal government in education. Most grass-roots conservatives have accepted at face value the no longer operative assertion that the Republican Party wants to return control of education to parents and local communities.

    But how can that be true when the GOP Congress supports so many of Bill Clinton’s primary Federal education control objectives, including Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and Outcome Based Education. The GOP’s latest $1.2 billion concession (at our expense) further undermines local and parental control, while enhancing the power of left-wing special-interest pressure groups such as the National Education Association.”


    “3) While it is good that Congress has committed additional funds for defense, it is outrageous that they have subtracted from that total an additional $1.9 billion to sustain the unconstitutional U.S. presence in Bosnia.

    At the same time, the GOP leadership has failed to take decisive action, via NATO, to block United States military action against Yugoslavia, a country which, whatever its faults, has not attacked the United States of America and which is beyond the proper scope of the NATO alliance.

    The President has the authority to act unilaterally in defense of our homeland, but he has no authority to launch offensive operations without a Congressional declaration of war.”


    “4) The decision to send another $200 million-plus to the United Nations – at a time when the U.N. has failed to reimburse us for more than $10 billion worth of international intervention operations which have weakened our military and caused American soldiers to fight under foreign commanders bearing the insignia of the United Nations – is an additional mark of the absence of principled Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.”


    “5) The agreement to enact an additional $6 to $7 billion in agriculture subsidies is a significant retreat from the progress toward free market principles which, previously, was one of the few bright spots on the Republican agenda.”


    “6) The Republicans surrendered on a provision to bar adoptions by homosexual applicants in the District of Columbia.”


    “7) They gave up on a measure to block doctors from “helping” people who are terminally ill to kill themselves.”


    “8) They abandoned a widely supported proposal to bar the Food and Drug Administration from licensing RU-486, a poison pill the exclusive purpose of which is to kill innocent, unborn children.”


    “9) They authorized $325 million – $55 million more than last year – to purchase private lands for purposes beyond what the Constitution authorizes with respect to Federal government ownership.”


    “10) In the area of immigration, they decided to authorize massive new welfare subsidies for non-citizens from Haiti and Nicaragua, even as they voted to, in effect, kill – by virtue of a 30-month delay – a previously enacted law to require border patrol officers to keep track of non-residents entering and leaving the USA from Mexico and Canada.”


    “And they undermined American workers seeking jobs in high-tech industries by virtually doubling the number of employment visas available for foreign workers from 65,000 to 115,000 over the next two years and 107,500 in the third year of the agreement.”


    “One of the most transcendent disappointments is the failure of the Republicans to give back any of the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases to which they agreed in 1997 – not even the modest $80 billion in cuts which they had promised.”


    “The Republicans claim that they have preserved a budget surplus. But, taking into account Social Security taxes which have been diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund – $98 billion this year alone – there is, in fact, a budget deficit – not a budget surplus.

    “Of course, the basic question is whether we should have a $1.7 trillion budget at all. Even taking into account inflation, $1.7 trillion is a lot more than the $1.2 trillion being spent at the end of the Reagan Administration and the $600 billion when Jimmy Carter left office.

    “And, of course, that $1.7 trillion is merely a down payment on the $1.9 trillion budget which America’s bipartisan political establishment intends to saddle us with right after the turn of the century, if not sooner.

    “The Conservative Caucus plans a massive grass-roots effort calling on conservative voters to contact their GOP Senators and Representatives in Congress, urging that they replace Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House and Trent Lott as GOP leader in the Senate.”


    Brad Phillips, Administrative Director of the U. S. Taxpayers Alliance, made the following comments: “The Republican leadership of the Congress has betrayed the hopes of American taxpayers that, following GOP Congressional victories in 1994 and 1996, the size and cost of the Federal government would be reduced.

    “Instead, since 1994, overall Federal spending has grown from $1.46 trillion per year to a current level of $1.72 trillion per year, and, under the Clinton-Lott-Gingrich budget deal agreed to in 1997, that number will grow to $1.9 trillion shortly after the turn of the century.

    “Tax collections, similarly, will have increased by some $550 billion annually to a grand total of nearly $1.9 trillion.

    “The individual income tax alone currently yields $791 billion per year, compared to $543 billion in 1994. It is projected to yield $877 billion in FY 2002.

    “We were promised that we would get a paltry $80 billion refund on the Republicans’ $550 billion tax hike, but we wound up getting virtually no refund at all.

    “It is time for Republicans in Congress to either choose new leaders or forfeit their claim on the votes of tax-paying Americans.”


    JOIN NOW as a member of The Conservative Caucus. You are only getting part of the story if you fail to receive each month the latest edition of Howard Phillips’ Visions of Victory audiocassettes; which are available as a web-only offer to Minuteman and Patriot membership levels.

    Previous tapes have included speeches or interviews featuring Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Gary North, Michael New, Dr. Jane Orient, Larry Klayman, and many more

  7. 7
    Linda Johnson says:

    Let me jump in here: I think that Rick Hill is probably a very good American and wants to do the “right thing” the problem is the political crony world can corrupt or make folks forget what/why the US Constitution is so very important and needs to be highly protected and followed. I’m wondering Why Rick hill gets the high votes with this American Conservative Union and yet he has laid groundwork for destructive freedom robbing policies to Montana. Oh yes, he has done a lot of good but he has done some very questionable “voting”. When Rick Hill served in Congress he voted for several bills that EXPANDED Federal Control of state lands – Where is it written in the Constitution that the Federal government is authorized to take state lands?

  8. 8
    Linda Johnson says:

    In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13 says that with the Consent of the Legislature the Federal government may establish military outposts and other needful bldgs. That’s it! Please don’t give me that double speak about the General Welfare Clause, The Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause…….

  9. 9
    Lisa Jensen says:

    Rick Hill supported the Gingrich-Clinton budget which not only gave 17.9 BILLION dollars to the IMF; but it allowed the Federal Government to STEAL our SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE THE DEFICIT THEY CREATED!!! NO this is not constitutional! Why is social security going bankrupt? Read this bill and maybe it will be a little more obvious to you! If they can’t tax you, they will steal any which way they can and for a Senator, Congressman or any other elected official to support this type of behaviour; this bill; not only should they NOT be reelected, they should be barred from ever running again!!! This is Theft, deception amongst the people, a crime of tyranny! To take from the people, Social Security and then rob that account to use it to subsidize payment to the IMF and the UN is atrocious!!!!
    Those funds should be taken out of the pensions of the officials and put back into the social security fund where they belong. If they want to give pension monies to the IMF and the UN, let it be theirs that they give!!!

  10. 10
    Mark French says:

    @1, C.Denowh states:

    It looks like a lot of these “votes” are bogus. There never was a bill in Congress called “$20 billion spending for socialist programs, HR 5″, or “Super Pork, HR 2200″. Whoever sent this to you is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

    Mark responds:
    You are correct, there was no HR 2200, and I did not reference 2200. I referenced 2400. I excuse this for a minor clerical error on your part.
    See: Super pork 105th Congress
    HR 5 in 105th Congress
    These bills do exist.

    C. Denowh states:

    And the implication, I think, is that Rick Hill is somehow a RINO for making these supposed votes. That’s dishonest. Hill scored a lifetime rating of 88 from the gold standard of conservative watchdog groups, the American Conservative Union.

    Mark Response:
    There is nothing dishonest at all. The voting record reveals facts. These bills did exist and he did vote on them. The American Conservative Union states in their “principles” :

    We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the best political charter yet created by men for governing themselves. It is our belief that the Constitution is designed to guarantee the free exercise of the inherent rights of the individual through strictly limiting the power of government.

    Mark’s Response: If the American Conservative Union gives R.Hill a high rating, with these principles, and rates Hill higher than Ron Paul, I don’t have much respect for the American Conservative Union. They are not following their written principles.
    Out of all the bad votes listed, you refute 2 of them. Does that mean all the other bad votes are valid? There is alot of explaining to do for Mr.Hill.

  11. 11
    Annie Bukacek says:

    The American Conservative Union is highly questionable as a “gold standard of conservative watchdog groups.” They give Mr. Hill an 88% rating (and Ron Paul an 83% rating!) based on his support of numerous unconstitutional pork bills and bills that promote the power of the UN at the expense of protection of our national sovereignty. By what process did ACU become the gold standard?!

    Regarding the statement, “But isn’t the more important thing to judge him on the policy direction that he’s campaigning on today?”

    It is currently popular for candidates to portray themselves as constitutional conservatives to Republican and Independent voters. It is possible to make promises that win points among tea partiers while at the same time the insiders know another insider is no threat to their power structure. That strategy provides the utmost electability if the sham is not exposed. In these perilous times, more than ever, we need a Montana governor with a proven track record of upholding the US Constitution and protecting Montanan’s from the overreaching federal government. The honesty and integrity required for this job is not present in candidates who portray themselves as constitutional fiscal conservative while their moderate voting record does not support these claims.

    Annie Bukacek

  12. 12
    Lisa Jensen says:

    The American Conservative Union (ACU) is a large conservative political lobbying group in the United States. (Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to achieve some result, typically from government authorities and elected officials.) It can consist of the outreach of legislative members, public actions (e.g. mass demonstrations), or combinations of both public and private actions) They are well-known for their annual ranking of politicians according to how they voted on key issues, providing a numerical indicator of how much the lawmakers agreed with conservative ideals. These scores are often used in political science research. The ACU publishes Battleline magazine quarterly to inform its members of issues important to the conservative movement.

    Perhaps the ACU’s most famous event is the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). CPAC has an annual attendance of over 4,000 people from around the world. Speakers regularly include sitting and former presidents and other famous conservatives.

    The ACU was founded in December of 1964 following the defeat of Barry Goldwater in that years presidential election, with Donald C. Bruce serving as its first chairman. The current chairman of the ACU is David Keene, who has held that position since 1984.
    Donald Cogley Bruce (April 27, 1921 – August 31, 1969) was a U.S. Representative from Indiana and a founder of the American Conservative Union.
    David A. Keene (b. May 20, 1945) is the current chairman of the American Conservative Union, a position which he has held since 1984. Additionally, additionally, he is the managing associate at the Carmen Group Lobbying, a lobbying firm based in Washington, D.C. In December 2007, Keene endorsed Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
    Carmen Group is a bipartisan firm whose staff members personally advocate for both Democratic and Republican parties. Carmen Group is recognized as a top 20 government relations firm ranked according to Lobbying Disclosure Act filings. Carmen Group’s clients include State Departments of Transportation, hospitals, Historically Black Universities, water districts, trade unions, marketers and international organizations.

    [edit] Public Opinion
    Carmen Group donated office space to the Bush/Clinton Katrina fund, supports Project 312 of the national “I Have a Dream” foundation and provides two annual merit scholarships at American University’s School of Public Policy. (The mission of the “I Have a Dream” program is to motivate and empower children from low-income communities to reach their education and career goals by providing a long-term intervention program of mentoring, tutoring, and cultural enrichment. Upon graduation from high school, each Dreamer is eligible to receive a last-dollar, four-year tuition-assistance scholarship for college or vocational school.)

    This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org – the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

  13. 13
    Robert Brown says:

    Mr. Denowh,
    #1. Let me see if I go this straight, are you saying that CAMPAIGN PROMISES are more important than voting records?

    #2. Comparing Mr. Hill’s lifetime record to Ron Paul’s is a little deceptive, as these scores don’t represent the same years or the same issues. It would be a more fair comparison to say, for example, that in 1999, Mr. Paul scored a 92%, while Mr. Hill scored an 88% … or in 2000, Mr. Paul scored a 76%, and Mr. Hill scored a 92%. (choose your statistics based on what you are trying to “prove”)

    #3. Far more important than the numerical scores the American Conservative Union gives is to determine the standard by which the ACU judges! Mr. Denowh claims the ACU ratings to be “the gold standard” of conservative ratings. The only “gold standard” worth anything to me is the US Constitution. In reading through the ratings on conservative.org, they are clearly NOT using the Constitution as their gold standard, but instead some vague “conservative” standard.

    Our elected officials pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the united States, not some vague “conservative” standard. The best CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED voting record report I’ve found is the Freedom Index, published twice per year in The New American Magazine (cited above in the original post). In this report, Mr. Hill earned a cumulative 59% Constitutional rating, while Mr. Paul’s record DURING THE SAME YEARS was a 100%.

    The Constitution is the ONLY true conservative gold standard!

    Robert Brown

  14. 14
    Dallas Erickson says:

    Ron Paul is very far from being a Conservative. To compare him, a flaming Libertarian to a Conservative is like comparing apples and oranges. During the lame duck session Paul joined with the liberals on three important votes. The last being his support of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Ron Paul is much more dangerous than Pelosi ever was.

    The sooner the Conservatives disavow Libertarian philosophy the better for the sake of our nation as we slouch toward Gomorrah.

  15. 15

    Timothy Baldwin notes the famous Daniel Webster changed his mind about the critical issue of state nullification:

    Webster was considered America’s more knowledgeable statesmen on the anti-nullification/interposition/secession position. … However, not without extraordinary significance, Webster changed his original position and eventually saw the error of his ways … declared that States do in fact hold the kind of sovereignty that only independent nations possess—not as mere counties to the federal government in a consolidated form, but as free and independent as the Declaration of Independence and Treaty of Paris of 1783 declare in a federal form.

    Therefore, how should we respond if Rick Hill said he changed his mind about some important issues he voted on in the past?

    Would we give Rick Hill the same welcome recognition that we now give Daniel Webster for changing his mind on nullification?

    Or are we going to claim Rick Hill’s ten-year-old voting record supersedes what he now says he would do if elected governor of Montana?

  16. 16
    C. Denowh says:

    I don’t think this is about whether Rick Hill changed his mind on important issues or not, you’d have to ask him for sure, but I don’t think he’s changed his position on anything.

    Voting records and campaign promises are both important in judging a candidate, but I wouldn’t trust a voter that relies solely on one or the other. That’s because, as the conflicting comments on this page illustrate, a voting record that relies on only a handful of votes can be used to prove whatever you want it to prove. Is the ACU more right about a candidate than the John Birch Society, or vice versa? Of course not, but for whatever reason they conflict.

    Even if you had a voting scorecard that accounted for every single vote Rick took in Congress, we still wouldn’t all be able to agree on whether each vote was the conservative position or not. Each commenter on this board would not agree 100% on everything. Politics is not as black and white as some wished it were.

  17. 17
    Robert Brown says:

    Mr. Denowh,
    The issue, to myself at least, is not about who is the most CONSERVATIVE candidate (whatever that means). CONSERVATIVE is not black & white. I’m not interested in some vague “conservative” standard.

    I am interested in who is the most CONSTITUTIONAL candidate. The ACU judges based upon their view of what a Conservative should be. The Freedom Index judges against the black and white text of the U.S. Constitution. That is why they conflict.

    For those who will read the Constitution honestly, holding elected officials accountable to stay within the ENUMERATED POWERS it gives them, there isn’t much confusion or debate. That is why we are dismissing the ACU standard, & holding Mr. Hill accountable to the Constitution. After all, that is what he swore an oath to.

    If you want to hold him to some other standard, which you feel is more important, that is your prerogative.

  18. 18
    Robert Brown says:

    On facebook, I recently asked RICK HILL which ENUMERATED power in the US Constitution authorizes his past votes for foreign aid.

    Instead of answering the question, he deleted it from his facebook page & blocked me from posting comments.

    I suppose he didn’t like the question.

Speak Your Mind


Please enter the CAPTCHA text

%d bloggers like this: