Late last week I wondered whether Ron Paul could be a sleeper candidate for some conservatives.  Fraley took issue with it in the comments, and started quoting Interest Group Ratings from 2006, apparently in an effort to discredit his conservative credentials.  You can see all Ron Paul's ratings at Project Vote Smart.  What's interesting about Ron Paul's ratings is how widely they vary from year to year.  For instance, in 2006 he had a 65% rating for NARAL, but only a 20% rating from Planned Parenthood, and in 2004 had a 73% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.  In 2003, NARAL, which has rated him highly now gave him a 0% rating.

Among the numbers that Fraley didn't cherry pick were his rating from the Americans for Tax Reform which was 82%, and the National Taxpayers Union which was 84%.  In 2003, 2004 and 2006, The John Birch Society ranked him with a 100% rating on the Conservative Index, and the American Conservative Union ranked him with a 76% rating in 2006 as well.

The reality is that these percentages don't tell you much unless you know how they were determined, which Project Vote Smart doesn't reveal.  So exactly what Fraley is trying to point out is difficult to say.  One theory I have is that many of these groups create their ratings simply by deciding whether a particular bill helps or hurts their cause, and then rates the politicians by whether they voted yes or no on that bill.  If that is the case, then Ron Paul would be held at quite a disadvantage.  Why?  Because that doesn't say anything about why he may have voted yes or no on any particular bill... and for Ron Paul, the why comes more into play than for most.

If a Federal abortion ban came around, but he voted no on federalist grounds, does that mean he's pro-choice, or that he's principled regarding federalism and state's rights?  If he votes no on a bill laden with pork, does that mean he doesn't believe in the goal of the bill, or that he believes more strongly in fiscal responsibility?

Many Republicans seem to love Federalism and fiscal responsibility, but then are quick to throw these types of meaningless ratings around, which seem to ignore these principled stands.  If you truly believe in federalism, fiscal responsibility, and small government, as many Republicans claim too, then that means you have to vote no on bills even when it's an idea you support but by the wrong level of government.  Ron Paul has done just that, and now people are holding it against him.

When I talk about how there is no such thing as a Conservative who is not a Republican, this is what I mean.