more on Sodrel's record of fiscal moderation-- and his response to those who want to talk about it

HoosierPundit shares the Sodrel camp's press release on Young's accusations about Sodrel's voting record on government spending.

Similarly: Last night, after I spoke on behalf of Travis Hankins, a Sodrel representative met me outside the room to accuse me of misrepresenting Sodrel's record (I think the rep said "lying about", but I don't remember for sure) and trashing God's name (since I'm a Christian). The rep was so confident and aggressive about the accusation, that I was a little bit worried that I had missed something.

So, I took the time to re-investigate and was relieved to learn that I had been right on the proverbial nose. (No response yet from the Sodrel rep; I'll update as appropriate and as the rep allows me to speak on the record. UPDATE BELOW.)

Here are Sodrel's scores on his voting record (his "political experience") from the three groups focused on fiscal conservatism and government spending:

Club for Growth in 2005 and 2006
Citizens Against Government Waste (both years)
National Taxpayers Union (both years)

Comparing Hill, Sodrel, and Pence/Hankins...
-Hill has received 5 F’s and 3 D’s from the National Taxpayers Union.
-Sodrel received a B and a C+ (with ratings of 56% and 60% and rankings of 96th and 133rd).
-Hankins (like Mike Pence) would receive an A.

-Hill has a lifetime average of 18% from CAGW and is rated "hostile" to taxpayers.
-Sodrel averaged 55% in his two years and was labeled "lukewarm".
-Hankins (like Pence) would receive a grade above 90% and receive the designation "taxpayer hero".

-Hill received 16% from the Club for Growth in 2008—ranking him 216^th out of 435.
-Sodrel received 66% and 53%—ranking him 98^th and 129^th in 2005 and 2006.
-Pence has averaged 99% and been ranked in the Top 5 each of the four years of this rating system. Like Pence, Hankins would be at or near the top of the Club for Growth’s list.


A few other thoughts on the Sodrel press release:

-For what it's worth, I don't see a link to the CAGW award in Scott's post-- and don't see anything when I search their website for Sodrel's name.

-In any case, it's interesting that Sodrel has been publicly critical of CAGW's rating system on the one hand (in particular, for the 30 he earned in 2006), but celebrating their ratings and his award on the other hand.

-As I've often noted, there seems to be "confusion" (that's the charitable term for this) about the difference between conservative watchdog groups (where Sodrel was strong) and *fiscal* conservative watchdog groups (where Sodrel was mediocre). NJ, ATR and ACU are focused on a wide array of "conservative" issues-- with only modest interest in federal government spending. If you want a focus on fiscal conservatism and government spending-- and I can understand why Sodrel would not want that-- then you look to CFG, NTU and CAGW.

UPDATE: I exchanged a handful of emails with the rep for Sodrel's camapign. The rep was unwilling or unable to distinguish between conservative watchdog groups (interested in a wide array of issues) and watchdog groups focused on government spending. The rep was unwilling or unable to validate the watchdog group numbers and connect them to a mediocre rating. The rep falsely accused me of saying that Sodrel was not pro-life and supported "Massachusetts-style health care". And so on. Not a pretty picture...and one more reason-- if you still need it-- to find someone else for whom you should vote!