Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category
 

Ray H. LaHood's Ratings and Endorsements on Issue: Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs

2008 Armenian National Committee of America - Positions on Armenian American Issues B-
2008 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score C-
2008 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 62%
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 35%
2007-2008 ACT! for America - Positions 80%
2007-2008 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -4
2007-2008 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions +2
2007 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score D
2007 Council for a Livable World - Positions 21%
2007 Latin America Working Group - Positions 22%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 38%
2007 Peace Action West - Positions 10%
2007 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -2
2007 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur B+
2007 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Iraq-Afghanistan Supplemental Spending Score 17%
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 50%
2006 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score D+
2006 Latin America Working Group - Positions 22%
2006 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 47%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 51%
2006 Peace Action - Positions 14%
2006 Peace Action West - Positions 14%
2006 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur D
2006 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 75%
2005-2006 ACT! for America - Positions 77%
2005-2006 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 27%
2005-2006 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 8%
2005-2006 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -2
2005 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score C-
2005 Council on American-Islamic Relations - Positions 0%
2005 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 48%
2005 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 52%
2005 Peace Action - Positions 25%
2005 PeacePAC - Positions 30%
2004 Center for International Policy - Positions 0%
2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0%
2004 Latin America Working Group - Positions 17%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 52%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 48%
2004 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 33%
2004 Peace Action - Positions 0%
2003-2004 ACT! for America - Positions 87.5%
2003-2004 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy +1
2003-2004 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 90%
2003-2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 20%
2003-2004 PeacePAC - Positions 27%
2003-2004 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights +2
2003-2004 USA Engage - Positions 80%
2003-2004 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 88%
2003 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 22%
2003 Latin America Working Group - Positions 44%
2003 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 58%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 40%
2003 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 0%
2003 Peace Action - Positions 11%
2003 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights +1
2002-2003 Citizens for Global Solutions - Positions 24%
2002 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 75%
2002 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 60%
2002 Peace Action - Positions 0%
2001-2002 American Foreign Service Association - Positions 81%
2001-2002 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy -6
2001-2002 Council for a Livable World - Positions 0%
2001-2002 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 7%
2001-2002 USA Engage - Positions 80%
2001 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 36%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 43%
2001 Peace Action - Positions 13%
2001 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 67%
2000 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 27%
2000 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 53%
2000 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 45%
2000 Peace Action - Positions 10%
1999-2000 PeacePAC - Positions 0%
1999 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 43%
1999 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 70%
1999 Peace Action - Positions 36%
1998-2002 Center for Security Policy - Positions 60%
1998 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 38%
1998 National Journal - Liberal on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 43%
1998 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 53%
1998 Peace Action - Positions 25%
1997-1998 PeacePAC - Positions 13%
1997 Center for Security Policy - Positions 85%
1997 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 27%
1997 Peace Action - Positions 8%
1996 Center for Security Policy - Positions 57%
1996 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 56%
1996 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign\Defense Policy 41%
1996 Peace Action - Positions 10%
1996 PeacePAC - Positions 30%
1995-1996 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Peace and Justice Score 33%
1995 Peace Action - Positions 0%

How to Interpret these Evaluations

Project Vote Smart displays all known interest group ratings for each candidate and official, regardless of issue or bias.

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups often do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns. Nevertheless, they can be invaluable in showing where an incumbent has stood on a series of votes in the past one or two years, especially when ratings by groups on all sides of an issue are compared. Website links, if available, and descriptions of the organizations offering performance evaluations are accessible by clicking on the name of the group.

Most performance evaluations are displayed in a percentage format. However, some organizations present their ratings in the form of a letter grade or endorsement based on voting records, interviews, survey results and/or sources of campaign funding. For consistency and ease in understanding, Project Vote Smart converts all scores into a percentage when possible. Please visit the group's website or call 1-888-VOTESMART for more specific information.

Skip to top
Back to top