Dig Those Crazy HRA Scores!
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 06:24PM The House Republican Alliance, the conservative group of House Republicans, is out with its first score sheet of the year, and all I can say is, “Dig those crazy ratings!”
According to the HRA scores, I’m a much better Republican than former Speaker Gene Chandler (73 vs. 62); than former GOP leader Sherm Packard (73 vs. 57); than David Hess (73 vs. 55); and, among many, many others than former Finance Chair Neal Kurk (73 vs. 51).
Yes, you read that correctly.
I, your humble maverick, your proud gadfly, score a 73 while Neal Kurk votes with Democrats almost half the time! That’s what 51 means—you’re voting with the HRA only slightly more than half the time.
To be specific, I’ve voted the HRA position 77 out of 105 times; Rep. Kurk only 54 out of 105 times.
But that’s just the tip of a very confusing iceberg. Bill Belvin, who served as Division I Finance Chair when I was on that august committee, gets a 52 to my 73. He’s voted with his HRA brethren only 55 times, a whopping one time more than Rep. Kurk.
Guess who’s tied with me at 73?
Yes indeed, your Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt gets 73 percent. The only difference is that while Rep. Kurk and I have been present for all 105 votes, D.J. has missed ten percent of the votes, so he’s voted with the party (which he’s supposed to be leading) only 69 of 95 times.
As you probably know, the Speaker is only called upon to vote during tie situation, but Bill O’Brien, unlike prior Speakers, decides to vote from time to time, and guess what? He’s only voted with the HRA seven of nine times. Deputy Speaker Pam Tucker has only voted with the HRA 66 of 88 times (75 percent—she’s been absent 16 percent of the time).
The HRA explains that its scores are based on how a Representative “supported the principles of fiscal restraint, personal freedom and responsibility, small government, free enterprise, and strong family values.”
This is so much fun; let’s check out some more RINOS (certainly anyone falling below 70 should be considered a RINO, n’est-ce pas?).
Hmmm…
Shawn Jasper, Bettencourt’s deputy leader, 61 percent; he voted with the HRA only 63 of 103 times. He missed two votes—must be when he didn’t dare stick around to vote on the Cohn redistricting amendment the second time around. Actually Jasper was actually officially listed as excused for that vote although he was present for the vote just before it and just after it (as were four other Hudson Reps)…but that’s a story…a very long one for another blog.
My seatmate, North Country police officer John Tholl (rumored to be a candidate for the Gallus senate seat) must be a RINO—he’s in at 59 percent.
Former Ways and Means Chair Norm Major checks in at 69%, seven points less than current Ways and Means Chair Steve Stepanek (76) and five points less than Finance Chair Ken Weyler (74).
How can this be?
Maybe HRA tri-chairs Dan McGuire (97), Marilinda Garcia (92) or better yet Stephen Palmer (98) can offer an answer.
Never have so many Republicans scored so low on the HRA score sheet. I’m not making editorial comments here, just stating a fact and asking the question—why?
Or How?
How can Neal Kurk be with Democrats almost half the time…or Sherm Packard…or Gene Chandler?
Am I reading this right?
Last year, I had a 90 on the HRA sheet; I wasn’t pleased; it was far too high a score, I told myself, fully realizing that my score would go down this year because unlike last year when we dealt with fiscal issues, we’re facing social issues this year.
After all, I am the most fiscally conservative member of the House and the most socially liberal. Cut more spending and legalize not only marijuana, but also prostitution; that’s my mantra, so a 73 seems entirely fitting for me.
Seth Cohn (80) and I agree on most issues, so his score makes sense, but D.J. and I together at 73, 12 points ahead of Jasper and 14 ahead of Tholl?
How can this be?
I can hardly wait to see the Liberty Caucus score sheet at the end of the year; I expect to be around 90 there (I know I’ve gone against their recommendations at least four times, and those are my philosophic brethren).
So, you may ask yourself, was anybody 105 for 105 with the HRA?
No.
Grafton County Rep. Charles Sova (I like him a lot) was 104 for 104. Hillsborough County Rep Holly Mecheski was 73 for 74.
The highest scoring Democrat was…regular readers here should be able to guess this one…Roger Berube at 35 percent, ahead of Dom Domingo at 30 percent (but Dom missed 71 percent of the 105 votes) and Manchester’s John Gimas who, with an excellent 96 percent attendance, voted with the HRA 26 percent of the time.
John…don’t tell Raybo, John. You may be primaried if you do.
The lowest scoring Republican, you ask?
Now that Derry Rep Ken Gould has left us, that honor falls to…the envelope please…Carolyn Gargasz at 24 percent, one point ahead of Julie Brown, two ahead of Priscilla Lockwood, three ahead of David Kidder, and five ahead of Alida Millham. Sorry, Irene, you're up at 42 percent...next thing you know, you'll be vaulting past Neal Kurk.
Of course, these numbers don't include Manchester Rep Norma Champagne who scored a ZERO because she was absent for all 105 votes.
You can check out the score of any of the 400 Reps (plus attendance for the 105 votes) by going to nhhra.org.
Hey blogmaster, maybe we should put the entire sheet up here.
This is so much fun I’m tempted to continue, but let’s wait for an explanation from the tri-chairs before we plow any more ground.
But wait…you need to know this…11 percent.
That’s Democrat leader Terie Norelli’s score (with 88 percent attendance).
The absolute lowest scores of people who show up from time to time…Strafford County Democrat Dorothea Hooper—34 percent attendance and three percent score; and Manchester’s Nick Levasseur—42 percent attendance and seven percent score.
Depending on how you look at it—they could be wearing badges of honor!
Reader Comments (10)
– C. dog waves his tiny banner from deep in his bunker
Sister ToldYa is banned from this site for continuing to call names (not to me, but to others). We don't allow ad hominem attacks, void of substance here, no matter which side you wish to disparage (in this case it was a Democrat).. Please, Sister, go some place else. If you continue to try to post here, I will delete it.
Steve V
There will be no apology forthcoming. I offered no editorial comment on why people were absent. I just reported the facts. I am sure many people have reasons for their absenses; me thinks thou doth protest too much. Had I offered condemnation, you would have a point, but I did no such thing. I did in fact offer condemnation on my TV show, but only of Manchester Reps who I know more about. In fact, on that show, I gave a pass to a Rep who I knew had been very ill, but in this particular forum, I said nothing at all against you. You are wrong when you say I don't check facts; the fact is your voting record is what it is. I check every fact before I use it; I wouldn't know you if I ran into you, so I have nothing against you--at least not until you wrote your silly diatribe. Stating a fact is not slandering anyone. I scolded no one. In fact, I deliberately avoided doing that. The only reason your name surfaced was because you were at a point on the sheet where it stood out--you were the lowest scoring Democrat among the Democrats who have showed up. Rather than scolding, that is in fact rather positive. There is no scolding intended by saying you are the lowest scoring Democrat--as I noted, some take pride in that! Note my joke about how my dear friend Irene Messier would have preferred a lower score!! In fact, considering the radical right wing nature of this House, I would have preferred a lower score for myself--there am I scolding myself? No, I am just stating the fact that my score was 73--probably because many fiscal issues were still being rated. Certainly I part with Republicans on almost all social issues, whether you want ot listen to me or not!I did in fact scold someone I knew spent the winter in Florida!!! But never you. If someone does not have the time to devote to the job, that person should not ask voters to send them here. I suggest you consider that when the filing period comes around. In 16 years here, I have missed one day--I was very ill. If I could not make it here nearly 100 percent of the time, I simply would not run. Voters deserve representatives who will carry out their promise to serve them. It's not about you; it's about dissemination of information.
Also note that while I have deleted a comment from someone who slurred another person (a Democrat), I have not removed your comment nor have I edited a single word. But if you choose to slur me again, I will remove your next comment.
Best of luck in your recovery. Take a deep breath and calm down.
The numbers speak for themselves. I suspect the reason you score a whopping 20 is that, as I've explained here before, there are times when liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans agree on issues, usually regarding freedoms. It's your libertarian streak that dooms you to a score of 20. You'll just have to live with it. And that's not scorn, but rather it's praise. Keep joining the right on issues of freedom and we'll have a better world.
Maybe you and Timmy could trade up, instead of down on freedoms. Say, legalize pot in exchange for getting rid of the Dept. of Cultured Affairs?
– C. dog, Political Matchmaker
Of course, devils lurk in the details of the sausage ingredients, and the criteria by which to judge them. Perhaps the simplest and most fair metric by which to judge all votes is whether it move the herd toward freedom, or further away, which is why the Liberty Caucus rating should be a more accurate scope to spot the errant RINO's for voter culling while out on Safari.
– C. dog