Live Updates: Massive Tornado Damage Near Okla City…Kids Dug Out of Rubble…Homes Demolished…Triage Units Being Set Up…Multiple Others Touch Down

Watch Live Local Coverage of Tornado Aftermath

Government

The 15 Most Conservative U.S. Senators — And You May Have Never Heard of No. 1

Feb. 20, 2013 4:16pm Jason Howerton

Analyzing all the roll-call votes during the second session of the 112th U.S. Congress, the National Journal has put together a list of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate. If you were to guess who earned the number one spot, you probably wouldn’t have said Sen. James Risch of Idaho — but don’t worry, you’re not alone.

“All of these guys rank on National Journal’s most conservative list, but none of them hold the top spot. That honor goes to James Risch of Idaho, a senator so obscure that he might as well be dubbed the Ann Veal of the Senate,” the National Journal reports.

The 15 Most Conservative Senators And You May Have Never Heard of No. 1

Idaho U.S. Senator James Risch speaks during the GOP convention Friday, June 22, 2012 at the College of Southern Idaho campus in Twin Falls, Idaho. Credit: AP

A former Idaho governor, Sen. Risch was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2009 at the age of 65 and has not received much national attention during his tenure. However, when it comes to voting on conservative principles, he is a “true stalwart,” according to the National Journal.

Coming in second place is Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), followed by now retired Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. In third place is Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and in fourth Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.). Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rounds out the top five.

Full results will be published on Thursday, but here’s an incomplete list o the top 15 most conservative members of the Senate (Graphic by Peter Bell; Text by Ben Terris):

(National Journal)

The National Journal explains how the rankings are calculated:

For the past three decades, National Journal has rated members of Congress based on selected roll-call votes from the previous year to see how they compared with each other on an ideological scale. Unlike interest groups that rate lawmakers, National Journal does not attempt to say how members should have voted. Our goal is to describe how they voted in comparison with one another.

The ratings system was devised in 1981 under the direction of Bill Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal.

For the 2012 ratings, National Journal examined all of the roll-call votes in the second session of the 112th Congress—659 in the House and 251 in the Senate—and identified the ones that show ideological distinctions between members. Many votes did not make the cut—those that involve noncontroversial issues or that fall along regional lines, for instance. In the end, 116 votes in each chamber were selected and were categorized as economic, foreign, or social.

Do you agree with the list? Is there anyone you think should’ve made the top 15 but didn’t? Weigh in below.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (182)

pg3712
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:42pm
John Cornyn should not be number two…. Other than his voting record for the last several years smells like number two. The only good thing I have to say about his record is that now that Ted Cruz is on the scene Sen Cornyn has had to step up his game to keep up. Ted Cruz is the best think to happen to the state of Texas and to Sen. Cornyn this year.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- conservativecat
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:31pm
  And to the nation.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:41pm
  I do like how cruz supports amnesty for illegal immigrants! However I didn’t like when he was against it last year.. like his change of heart though! shows principle! a Texan sticking to his Guns! or whatever is popular at the time.
  
  Report this comment
- uncleherbert
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 7:36pm
  Total agreement!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Red Meat
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:05pm
  Anyone under a 92 should be fired. Period.
  
  Report this comment
- texanpatriot
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:47pm
  I could not agree more. It took us time to get rid of Kay Bailey (and to make sure she would not become our governor).
  
  Now that Ted Cruz is in place and if Cronyn is number 2 than there is something lopsided about this list. Maybe Ted can pull John to the right or many will work to get him a job with Kay Bailey.
  
  Let me just say that there is more to it than votes. Does your Senator speak out on the important issues? Does he take on the RINOs? Cronyn does not and rarely has. Ted is off to a good start.
  
  Report this comment
- darkknight91
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 9:36pm
  Isn’t that cute? Keaton is seeking attention. It’s way past your bedtime.
  
  Report this comment
- thomasJefferson27
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 9:54pm
  Cruz has the guts to stand up to the Dems…he is great
  
  Report this comment
- fschipani
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:30am
  Amen. Thank you Texas for Senator Cruz. Finally, a man who does what he promised he’d do and sticks to his principles. We need more like him.
  
  Report this comment
- dcatkin
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 7:52am
  I don’t care who is the most conservative, they all back down to Obama. The fact that we are over 16,000,000,000 in debt proves that none of them are conservative.
  
  We go a little deeper in debt every day, and every day another republican back down to the Obama horde, so there you have conservatism doesn’t matter if it’s never used.
  
  Free Our Country
  
  Report this comment
- jcldwl
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 8:34am
  DeMint needs to be taken off the list. He sold out for the big bucks.
  
  Report this comment
- Publius
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 9:12am
  As far a Cornyn goes, he’s a charlatan. I got blocked from his FB page because I kept asking the same question: What, sir, have you done recently to further the cause of freedom and liberty?
  
  I suppose he and his staff found it offensive and it didn’t fit his agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- Soulfire1975
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 10:06am
  I don’t believe a word any news outlet says anymore. Have to try and find the real records. Do your own homework, that is the only way to get the real answers.
  
  Report this comment
- Pearsontech
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 10:48am
  My guess is that this James guy that is number 1 in conservative votes is not known because he also hasn’t really fought for anything just voted for conservative bills and against non conservative bills. He probably has proposed much of anything. He doesn’t rock the boat. Now that isn’t a bad thing as long as he holds the line when it comes down to votes but to be honest we need a lot more boat rockers like Rand and Ted and others there are two few of those that will stand up and speak out. James isn’t a bad conservative because he isn’t known its fine and I am glad he is there but when you wont speak up you need more that will to do it for you.
  
  Report this comment
- KBARRANCH
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:42pm
  You nailed it! He is a lifer, and probably counts his buddies in the Senante amongst his best good friends. He is a softy and seems to have no sense of urgency on issues.
  
  Report this comment
- AnnoyedTX
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:32pm
  Sen. Cornyn is a minority party conservative. When his vote does not matter, he votes conservative. When it matters, he votes progressive. He supported Arlin Spector and Charlie Crist. These people really need to review what they call conservative. Anyone who voted for TARP a week after guaranteeing us he wouldn’t and Justice Sotomayor should never be considered conservative.
  
  Report this comment
Blazer58
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:40pm
The problem is we are in debt. 16-66 trillion. How can anyone associated with the government be consider good for the nation, laws and its people?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:22pm
  Kind of like saying that I have the nicest house in the ghetto.
  
  Report this comment
Billy Pilgrim
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:39pm
Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell in the top 15, ah come on, Who are you trying to fool?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- riseandshine
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:50pm
  According to Wikipedia….”National Journal is aimed at Washington insiders.[2] It is mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists.”
  
  Report this comment
- GB__The Holy Warmonger
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 10:40pm
  The only reason Hatch made the list was because last year he was up for re-election. And Utah was suckered once more. He is also being pressured by Senator Lee who is liberty minded (so far).
  
  Report this comment
- right field
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 10:25am
  Troll Alert – The directive has gone out to the website trolls who are controlled by the Dems to start a steady drumbeat that Cruz & Rubio are not conservatives and Rand Paul is a “nut job” Tea Party geek. Do not respond to their drivel. Ignore all their posts. Their comments are always directed at candidates and positions that are the most destructive to the Marxist agenda.
  Trolls are tools of the left -
  Ask The Blaze to add a “delete commet” option so you can just delete all the libs comments and not even see them on your screen.
  Their intent is to spread lies, instill confusion and invoke mistrust of anything conservative.
  BHO and the Marxist are using these Trolls on conservative web sites to plant the seeds of discontent. Do not be fooled. Every Republican is being targeted and especially those that might garner public support across party lines.
  Do not feed the trolls – ignore them completely and ask “The Blaze” to add a “delete comment” option so we can eliminate their ability to pollute this website with their political excrement.
  
  Report this comment
Keatonc333
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:28pm
Want to know something funny! All of these senators, except Crapo and Vitter, Voted against Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act! Voted AGAINST! Oh conservative values!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00087

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:01pm
  Ya… I dont think opposing the added protection of Native Americans, LGTB and immigrants is near enough justification to vote against this act.. Why you think including these people in the act makes it ok to vote against is beyond me.
  
  Report this comment
- MikeNelson
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:11pm
  At least there are a few men in the Senate who don’t spend their time on their knees servicing the radical feminists who receive much of the money authorized in this bill. About 40% of all domestic violence victims are men, but this very flawed bill assumes that 100% are women. The man is always in the wrong. What happened to the 14th Amendment, which not only guarantees “equal protection of the laws,” but “full and equal benefit of all laws.”
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:19pm
  Keaton-Firman’s right happens all the time.
  
  Mike- I want stats
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:22pm
  Mike… first its not a flawed bill… domestic violence has reduced ever since it was signed into Law in 1994.. secondly do men need help.. sure probably.. But why is that justification to vote against a law that helps battered women and children? Yes, children in violent house holds also benefit from this act. You wouldn’t vote against a law to ban arsenic in food just because Anthrax is also poisonous would you? The votes against this are completely inexcusable! and sadly the votes against this represent conservative values.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:26pm
  DLV I know! however these are the details that firman is talking about.
  
  Adding protection to Native American women and their children, Gay women and their children and immigrant women and their children… The fact that the new proposal also adds protection to these people is the reason they voted against it… That is inexcusable!
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:27pm
  “Ya… I dont think opposing the added protection of Native Americans, LGTB and immigrants is near enough justification to vote against this act.. Why you think including these people in the act makes it ok to vote against is beyond me.”
  ___________________________________
  Clearly the drafters of the bill were looking to feed the Left a talking point — you are doing what they expected. If the drafters of the bill really wanted to provide more protection for WOMEN, then they would not have put homosexuals into the bill. When are you going to wise up and see how you are being duped? I’m not holding my breath, BTW.
  
  Report this comment
- NavET-SS
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:27pm
  Anything that supports LGBT should be voted against.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:34pm
  Chuck… do me a favor! explain to me why it would be ok to stop the following for women, just because lesbians are included in those women…
  
  Community violence prevention programs
  Protections for female victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking
  Funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines
  Programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities
  Programs and services for female victims with disabilities
  Legal aid for female survivors of violence
  
  Please! please tell me!
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:34pm
  Also.. i’m not being duped.. I think every American should have protection against an abusive relationship regardless of sexual orientation.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:36pm
  I honestly can not believe there are people defending these votes.
  
  Report this comment
- MikeNelson
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 7:15pm
  According to a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice “in the last 12 months more men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence and more than 40 percent of severe physical violence was directed at men. Men were also more often the victim of psychological aggression and control over sexual reproductive health.”
  
  A meta-analysis of over 200 studies on the subject found that men were subject to physical injury in 38% of the cases and women “were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. See: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651
  
  VAWA is seriously flawed bill that has no place in a society which professes democratic ideals. Legislation that addresses only half of the problem is flawed in conception and should never escape committee.
  
  Perpetrators of any crime, be they man or woman, should be dealt a harsh sentence — I certainly would have no problem with a 10 year minimum sentence for serious domestic batterers. Would you?
  
  We just don’t need some man-hating bulls giving federally-sponsored sensitivity training as part of a man’s “rehabilitation.” What happened to the concept of “America?”
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 7:33pm
  MikeNelson. I know what you are saying and it is a good point. however not including men in the violence against women act is not reason to vote against it! nor was it the reason any of these senators gave.. Look do men need protection too.. sure! However just because they were not included in this bill does not mean that we should vote against protection for women.. Hopefully a similar act aimed toward men will come about very soon.
  
  Secondly, yes I agree ten years for domestic abusers sounds perfect!
  
  Report this comment
- ejbishop
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 7:51pm
  Add, did you ever thinks that maybe conservatives vote against things not cause they are against the “causes” that they are meant for, but that they believe (in this case) that violence is violence? That why do we need more laws on the books that say “oh well violence against this person is worse then violence against that one” all laws like that do is divide us into groups that are pitted against each other.
  
  And just give the other side the narrative, “well your against woman cause you voted against the “Violence against woman act!” No, I voted against it cause we already have laws against assault, rape, etc. Why do we need another, and oh right there was details in the law that had nothing to do with “Violence against woman” in the bill that I was against. Pull your head out of the sand Keaton.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 7:56pm
  Mike is right. Keaton is just following the propoganda. He says “secondly do men need help.. sure probably.. But…” Yeah BUT who cares right? It doesn’t fit the feminist agenda right? He acts like women have no support. Really? Women have no support? They have endless support. They support each other whereas most men do not. They also have the support of men because it is natural for men to be protective of women. They have endless organizations for support, including all those in his list. They have support everywhere you look. Men, on the other hand, are stigmatized and stay silent about it.
  
  Mike says “About 40% of all domestic violence victims are men…”. I think Mike is reflecting on a report showing 40 percent of all “severe physical violence” victims are men? DLV says he wants stats so here you go. A 2010 survey by the CDC and USDOJ showed that either more men are speaking out or more women than men are committing physical violence in relationships (http://batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm & http://goo.gl/KJWiw). In the 12 months prior to the survey 53 percent of men reported being victims of physical violence compared to 47 percent of women. If you think the source is biased, read the survey and references yourself. In 2006, a 32 nation study showed that men were more likely to be victims in dating violence (http://goo.gl/aZva). Another study by the University of Florida showed more women were perpetrators in college (http://goo.gl/LrLQ).
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:20pm
  EJBISHOP… well there arn’t more laws.. these laws have been on the books for 20 years.. this was just a vote to continue them.. and secondly yes, violence is violence.. However domestic violence often goes unreported out of fear. this act gives the victims easier access to programs to help them through it and feel comfort instead of continuing the abuse cycle. If you would read the VAWA you would see that it does not include a new set of laws or punishes this crime any differently from others.. It allows battered women more access to helpful programs to get out of their abusive relationship and be able to easier start a new.. Thats all!! Its about helping battered women, has nothing to do with legal charges.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:22pm
  However EJ I do agree if Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or any of the other republicans who voted against the bill do run for president they will have a hard time wining the women vote! You know the democrats are going to bring this up as much as possible! along with their votes against the sandy relief fund.. already a bit of a mountain to climb in the publics eye.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:24pm
  Keaton: Did you even read the article I highlited? The main sticking point was the prosecution of non native americans on tribal lands. You ASSUME I am against the bill because I pointed out that you were being dishonest. I never stated whether I was or wasn’t. You also make it sound like all who voted against it hate women. You know that’s not true. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should not be misleading.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 8:39pm
  Firman. Ya I read it.. Its still seems very trivial.. first off the Native American courts really are not that different.. and being as they only exist in 4 states I don’t see this a near a good enough reason to vote against this bill. Native American women make up between .4 to .5% of the population. The fact that if they marry a non native american and he abuses them he may have to be tried in an Native American court is NOT a solid reason to vote against this bill… essentially these senators voted against providing help for battered women because an incredibly small amount of spousal abusers may have to face trial in a native american court.. I am not saying they hate women.. But Voting against protection for battered women to help protect the men who beat them doesn’t help their cause.
  
  Report this comment
- Follower of the Truth
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 12:07am
  I’ll just leave this here:
  http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWAIsBadForWomen-flyer.pdf
  
  Report this comment
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 2:14am
  Aww put a lid on it! All you bleeding heart libs are constantly in pursuit of this perfect utopian society where we all hold hands and sing kumbaya, and you think that pork laiden stacks of legislation is the only way to get there. Percieved injustice in the world? Pass new legislation and throw money at it. Inequality and injustice still exist? Pile on more legislation and throw more money at it. If anyone disagrees with your perception of the world around you or challenges your approach to a problem then they become greedy, heartless, child hating, sexist, racist, homophobic goblins.
  
  1-The world is full of injustice get used to it. I don’t run around crying and blaming everyone else for my problems and expecting government or some yuppy lawyer to swoop in and save me.
  2-Government beaurocracy over complicates EVERYTHING it adds unnecessary layers of red tape and strips away our freedom and prosperity.
  
  I would vote this junk down so fast. Classic lib always using women, children, queers, the impoverished and elderly as human shields. Men across this nation (especially white men) have been systematically neutered for the last 70years and they always use deceptive legislation like his to do it. You want to heal this land? 2 Chronicles7:14. Then start reading you Bibles. The men won’t beat their women and the women will be more submissive, manageable and pleasant. It’s past your bed time Keaton go get your jams on!
  
  Report this comment
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 2:43am
  This is what liberals do, (the sniveling yellow bellied cowards they are) they hide behind the weak so they constantly use women, children, the elderly, homosexuals, lower income groups, minorities, criminals etc as human shields, so that if you attempt to confront them on their flawed logic and ideology they can instantly vilify you. The topics at hand are often difficult to understand and low information individuals buy into the false characterizations libs whip up. The liberal/progressive doctrine hurts EVERYONE and this President is clear demonstration of that! You can bet that if enough representatives voted against the legislation, something was arye in it. Keep walking in lock step with the feminist tyrants tearing one household apart at a time. Isn’t it interesting that before we starting achieving all these great ‘victories’ for women, marriages were actually remaining intact? Hmm Maybe our grandparent’s acceptance of traditional roles for men and women weren’t such a radical idea.
  
  Report this comment
- devildogger
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 2:48am
  Kinda like the CO state legislature denying women the opportunity to defend themselves against rape. Pee your pants they say, that’ll scare em off !! MORE evidence of the left wing war on women.
  
  Report this comment
- FROTHYDISCHARGE
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 5:55am
  Hey Slappy do you know what the bill says and why someone might vote against it but Shazam Holy Smokes they don’t want violence against women????? Did think so. Your the type the would give away liberties to a bill as long as it was called “Fuzzy Cuddly Nice time Puppy Law” who would vote against that.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 9:35am
  Mysteriously my initial response to keaton highlighting a washington post article has disappeared. What’s up with that?
  
  Report this comment
- Tigress1
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 9:50am
  Why would anyone want to duplicate a law? Violence against ANYONE is already illegal. Keep things simple.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 10:55am
  Firman.. ya I noticed that… I honestly have no idea why it was taken down… but do you not agree that the reason these conservative senators voted against the access to safe protection for battered women and children was to protect the incredibly small percentage of abusers of native american women and children from being tried in Native American courts? and Again.. I have yet to hear a reason why this is ok.
  
  As for everyone else. Read the act!! you all have no idea what you are talking about! there are no new laws! there are no additional laws against violence, violence is still violence. This act just gives battered women and children easier access to help them out of their abusive relationships.
  and Capncrumbles.. “The topics at hand are often difficult to understand and low information individuals buy into the false characterizations libs whip up.” The topics are not at all difficult to understand.. They are actually incredibly easy to understand! You know the benefits of the act. Firman posted a link saying why people oppose it, in addition to also providing benefits to gay women and immigrant women.. Its not a difficult act to understand at all!
  I think this was the link Firmen posted earlier explaining why these conservative senators voted against it… to protect the abuser from native american court..
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/republicans-offer-deal-on-american-indian-courts-key-obstacle-to-violence-against-women-act
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 11:01am
  ALSO!!!! everyone saying this bill is unfair because it doesn’t address abused men.. Guess what! it does!! it also provides protection for men who are abused! so there goes that argument…
  http://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQ_VAWA%20and%20Gender.pdf
  “VAWA funds continue to be available for services provided to victims regardless of gender,
  and male victims frequently receive help from VAWA-funded programs.”
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 11:04am
  So one more time captain crumbles.. It is hard to say I am hiding behind women, gays, elderly, minorities etc etc while ignoring white men when this bill HELPS white men as much as they do women….
  
  Report this comment
- Oldtimer2
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 11:27am
  Ketonc, Where does it say in the Constitution that women, GLBT, certain ethnic women, etc, are more equal than others? That’s why it’s a bad bill. The “war on women” is hooey! Get over it.
  
  Report this comment
- bumfuzeled
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 12:53pm
  Ke Ke you said it yourself, “all Americans deserve protection from an abusive relationship”. making this bill about women and children is as misogynistic and degrading to women as telling them how to defend themselves. Maybe you should read your own posts once in a while or are there several of you posting at the same time. Take a minute and listen to the other voices in your head please. Bless your heart!
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 5:23pm
  Keaton,
  
  I realize this conversation is off-topic from the news article, but it is one important to me. You say the bill addresses men. Do you really think that is the case? You tell everyone to read, but it seems you don’t do any research yourself. Did you read any of the information people have posted? As someone who went through this myself, I can tell you the stuff you are claiming is all BS. A woman can simply walk into a courthouse, make up a completely bogus story, acquire an ex-parte, and suddenly you don’t get to see your kids for weeks just because she can use the system to get her way and doesn’t have to prove anything. The same woman can be a completely unfit mother, but the man is the first person everyone blames. As the flyer that Follower posted points out “Half of all restraining orders are issued without even an allegation of physical abuse. Our legal system has become flooded with trivial and even false allegations of abuse.” In the article I posted a link to above it states “A large proportion of those [men] who sought help from DV agencies (49.9%), DV hotlines (63.9%), or online resources (42.9%) were told, “We only help women.” The DV of course refers to domestic violence. A woman can find a women’s group or organization in every single town and city in this country to help her with everything from domestic violence and health issues to getting a job. If you’re a man, especially a white man, you’re on your own.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 6:38pm
  WISDOM: Thank you! You nailed it!
  
  Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:20pm
Not one of them belongs on that list unless they spend every day revoking the funding that is going to Islamic nations supporting the religion of Islam, violating the 1st amendment rights of Americans?

US members of Congress don’t even demonstrate an ability to advocate the interests of the US Constitution, let alone make foreign decisions that only used to affect local elections regardless of the outcomes of foreign populations?

We tried helping Afghans, now we are fighting them? We tried helping Iran, we had to ground their fighters? Now we are sending more weapons? Not with our approval? Let them buy inferior weapons of other countries?

It’s obvious as night and day, they look at Iran and say, hey, we’ll just do what we want and manipulate you around our little fingers?

Why bother?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Twinspeedr
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:33pm
  Given the current state of things right now, any score below a 90% these days is useless to the Republic of the United States of America…
  
  Report this comment
high school drop out
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:16pm
Love the “Ann Veal’ reference! I wonder how many “Get it’

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:12pm
  Arrested Development is HILARIOUS!
  
  Report this comment
- Oldtimer2
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 1:13pm
  That’s the problem with you libs in a nutshell. You confuse reality with TV acting. Arrested development, yep, pretty much sums you guys up.
  
  Report this comment
Navyguy62
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:14pm
When the media brings up any of these names it is usually in a very condensending manner yet Senators like John McCain are like rock-stars in comparison.
I think it is time for these conservative men to come together and make an united front in how they will deal with the media and the less conservative part of their party.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- aproudinfidel
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:26pm
  Look at the states they are from…all states I would love to live in instead of the PR of CA.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:39pm
  All states also take more from the government than they give back! Twice as much actually.. except Texas and Pennsylvania.
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:53pm
  My Senators are #1 an #9
  Love it.
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:05pm
  Also Risch had to beat out 5 or 6 Moderate Republicans in the Primary
  to get that Seat !
  He was Difinitely not the Establishment Republican’s first Choice.
  Same with Raul Labrador Congressman from my District.
  
  Report this comment
forensicpsych
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:07pm
You’ll never see a Michigan senator on the list.

My home state, which has the employment rate of Death Valley, lives and breathes socialism in spite of the best efforts of our new Republican governor. Uber-liberal senators Stabenow and Levin, socialists to the bone, are senators for life in The Great Lake State.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 7:36pm
  I don’t think you know what socialism is.
  
  Report this comment
bornbitter
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:00pm
Hatch should not be on the list. This makes me really question the methodology. Anyone who doesn’t even want to face a vote of the people to keep their job is not conservative, nor do they respect the constitution.
He shouldn’t be there.
Period.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Mike76
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:52pm
Did you ever stop to think that the rankings are RELATIVE to 99 OTHER people – i.e, Orrin Hatch is more conservative than say, Harry Reid? Nope? Didn’t think you did….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SocialistSlayer
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:30pm
  Really you want to compare them to Harry Reid ???? A liberal Communist is a Liberal Communist ! Get real ! It’s that type of thinking that allow Rhinos to get elected !
  
  Report this comment
- Mike76
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:00pm
  I get that Slayer – I was just pointing out that the list has to be judged in CONTEXT.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:22pm
  Mike- no one is comparing them to other senators. The list compares them to conservative principles.
  
  Report this comment
- GB__The Holy Warmonger
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 10:42pm
  Hatch is an election year conservative only.
  
  Report this comment
DagneyT
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:52pm
When the list comes out next year, Ted Cruz and hopefully Marco Rubio will be in top five. Thank you, fellow Texans for voting in two of the top conservatives!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:20pm
  Last I checks amnesty for immigrants wasn’t too conservative.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:30pm
  “Last I checks” ???
  
  Ebonics is dead. And spelling is fundamental, Dork
  
  Report this comment
- ONLY4UANDME
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:34pm
  I sure hope you are right but I am starting to get a funny feeling about Rubio.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:40pm
  really man… a typo?
  
  Report this comment
- chazmo
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 10:29pm
  Keaton that post is exactly why we can’t stand you and you leftist buddies. As Joe famously said, “YOU LIE” Conservatives love immigrants. But, we want illegal immigrants deported. They broke the law. But you twisted it by saying immigrants. See how you roll. Just like your god Obama.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 11:06am
  CHAZMO.. Sorry I assumed when I said “amnesty for immigrants” you would know i wasn’t talking about the ones who already have amnesty… but if you hate us liberals because we don’t spell everything out for you i can understand that.. ; )
  
  Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:44pm
I agree – Orin Hatch & McConnell are Commie Liberals !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Vision Harry
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:05pm
  I know Orrin Hatch and have since I was about eight years old, played basketball with him and his sons, who are fine men and so was Orrin. That was early in his political career. Now he’s part of the system and beholden to so many special interest groups even he doesn’t remember them all, or the little people who put him where he is today. 40 some years later he’s part of the problem not part of the solution. I thought Utah had figured that out last election but the rino status quo is apparently too stout.
  
  Report this comment
- MeteoricLimbo
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:21pm
  That about sums it up Vision. It just takes longer with some.
  
  Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:43pm
Mitch McConnell ?? Really ?? This Communist sell out is only slightly more Conservative than obama ! This list is a bunch of Bull !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DLV
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:25pm
  Socalistslayer- not really. Show me Mitch’s voting records. I bet they’re mostly conservative with the liberal part coming in on the fiscal stuff. Believe me, I’m no fan of him but he ain’t a commie.
  
  Report this comment
CapnCrumbles32
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:40pm
My Senator Pat Toomey is amazing! I really like him. I invite everyone to check out his site and to look him up on youtube. Very conservative guy, level headed humble guy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KGray
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:49pm
  Pat Toomey just voted yes on sending the Muslim Brotherhood F15′s. Prove me wrong.
  
  Report this comment
- Mike76
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:55pm
  @KGRAY
  
  Toomey voted “yes” to sending planes to the Egyptian Military, which remains largely independent of Muhammed Morsi and the Mu-slime Brutha’hood. Semantics, perhaps, but a difference nonetheless.
  
  Report this comment
- bpodlesnik
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:56pm
  Yeah, I used to think a little bit higher of him until this incident.
  
  http://conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com/2013/02/here-are-25-senators-who-voted-to-give.html?m=1
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:02pm
  Anyone who would vote against the violence against womens act is no friend to Americans
  
  Report this comment
- loneindividual
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:16pm
  The Muslim Brotherhood is a Masonic ploy. They will never actually go after Israel & they are allied with various non-Jewish Zionists.
  
  I honestly am sick & tired of fake Muslims making actual Muslims more paranoid & thus more violence…which really isn’t that much considering the nature of Islam.
  
  Don’t get me wrong, the Muslim Brotherhood is evil….
  
  I just don’t see how the Muslim Mob is any better.
  
  They lie, rape, & murder one another like there is no tommorrow except suicide & then 72 virgins. They’re like rabid dogs that pay no heed to their master.
  
  Report this comment
jackact
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:39pm
Everyone ok except McConnell.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:38pm
.
I think I’m gonna be sick……

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Robert-CA
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:24pm
  oh yes you are .
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:26pm
  spank- why?
  
  Report this comment
andreanc
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:38pm
As a former intern of Senator Mike Lee, I was thrilled but not altogether surprised to see he made the list. Way to go Senator!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Comeandtakeit
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:36pm
Where is Senator Ted Cruz? Is he too new to be ranked, yet? I would think he would be way up on the list.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CapnCrumbles32
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:41pm
  Agreed
  
  Report this comment
- doubletap
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:43pm
  This is based on voting record, Cruz doesn’t have much of one yet.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:43pm
  Yep. Too new.
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:07pm
  Rubio does not have a conservative record, but, don’t see McConell as beating him. Not that Rubio should be there.
  
  Report this comment
jmeister8
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:36pm
Way to go guys. At a time when you… S H O U L D B E S H O U T I N G F R O M T H E H I L L S most of you are as quiet as mice. Let it be recorded that at a time when courage counts more than ever, and the call goes out for you to take one step forward, most of you took one giant step back into the shadows. But the perks are great arent they.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RedWhiteandBlueUniverse
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:35pm
What? McCain “the Pink Rino” didn’t make the cut?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AZfreeman
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 10:30am
  I’m ashamed to have to call McCain my Senator. I’ve watched him closely for years and voted against him every time. He truly believes in his heart that the most important thing is to get something done….anything ….even if Conservative principles have to be compromised!! He fails to see that his constituents want a freedom fighter, not a RINO – as evidenced by his last town hall fiasco. ..rf
  
  Report this comment
ElChupaCabraDeUSA
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:31pm
This list doesn’t take into account the glad handing, earmarking and general corruption associated these senators. The bottom of the list would look quite different if it did. Because they vote conservative doesn’t mean their hand isn’t in the cookie jar.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Calamity Jane
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:30pm
The good news here in Pennsylvania is that our Senator Toomey made the top 5 most conservative…….The bad news is that Senator Casey is among the top 5 most liberal……I guess we have a wash in PA.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KGray
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:51pm
  Pat Toomey just voted in favore of sending teh Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt F16′s.
  
  Report this comment
- Mustanger
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 5:01pm
  I feel your pain. Here in NV we have Sen Dean Heller, good man & prince Harold (Reid). So NV is also a non-state.
  Repeal the 17th amendment!
  
  Report this comment
lid.smoker
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:27pm
Idaho huh? Is he any relation to the guy on the plane slapping the 2 year old and calling him the N word?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PoliticallyRightUs.Com
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:34pm
  No, Conservatives like children… It’s the pot smoking liberals who abuse children and murder unborn babies “aka abortion”!
  oh wait… “Lid.Smoker” I get it
  
  Report this comment
- EgbertThrockmorton
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:36pm
  Ah, you are “very well uninformed”. Your post reeks of the innate intolerance and bigotry of which you accuse others of-perhaps if you dialed back a bit on the weed, and paid attention more often, you could see the error in your attempt at humor.
  
  Report this comment
- Brian
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:47pm
  FYI – you will find far more hate groups and bigots in New York and California then you will in Idaho. And the ones that are in Idaho are usually weekend bigots that drive over from Spokane Washington.
  
  Report this comment
- Vision Harry
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:11pm
  Listen Bucko! The only thing wrong with Idaho is we didn’t shut the gate fast enough and let too many Californicators in. Yee Haw, and all that Jazz
  
  Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:26pm
Great Article. Our Kountry should be back in great shape in no time.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fubared
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Any minute now.
  
  Report this comment
3monkeysmomma
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:24pm
Let’s get our next presidential ticket off this list, what’s say?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:35pm
  Senators make horrid presidents.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:41pm
  How bout we do what the dems did in ’08? Pick a freshman senator, like say, oh, Ted Cruz?
  
  Report this comment
- Mike76
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:42pm
  You have the beginnings of a great point there. I’d go further and say that we should, as Conservatives and Libertarians and Constitutionalists begin deciding NOW who OUR candidate will be in 2016, long before the GOP establishment starts parading their merry band of Progressives in front of us and telling us who our candidate will be. Let’s get together, identify OUR guy, and throw our support behind him NOW and for the next four years, and put an end to Karl Rove and the RNC losing elections or giving us Democrat-Lite candidates. The campaign for the next Conservative POTUS should begin at the grass-roots level TODAY if we want to beat the Dems tomorrow.
  
  Report this comment
- firman
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 4:53pm
  Mike76: I totally agree! It’s gonna take alot of money to win in 2016. We need a candidate to get behind ASAP.
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:14pm
  What’s all this “Our Guy an Him” stuff
  I’m still routing for a Girl.
  My Morning Prayer;
  If America in Her Infinite Wisdom Decides
  That it’s Time for a Female President in 2016
  Please GOD, let it be Sarah Palin
  Not Hillary Clinton.
  AMEN
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 6:21pm
  You must really like losing.
  These guys are extremists. They might get elected President of the Blaze, or talk radio, but in a general election? You don’t see Democrats running Bernie Sanders or Chuck Schumer do you?
  Middle-right to middle left. Every President has come from that range on the political spectrum. Radicals and Reactionaries like these guys need not apply.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.