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

Thomas 'Chet' Edwards's Ratings and Endorsements on Issue: Foreign Affairs

2010 Endorsements

Foreign Affairs

2010 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 40%
2010 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score A
2010 Latin America Working Group - Positions (House only) 25%
2010 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 52%
2010 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 46%
2010 Peace Action - Positions 38%
2010 Peace Action West - Positions 38%
2009-2010 ACT! for America - Positions 60%
2009-2010 Council for a Livable World - Positions 50%
2009-2010 PeacePAC - Positions (PeacePAC is sister organization of Council for a Livable World rating House Only) 50%
2009-2010 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -4%
2009-2010 USA Engage - Positions 40%
2009-2010 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 10%
2009 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 55%
2009 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 42%
2009 Latin America Working Group - Positions 0%
2009 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 38%
2009 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 61%
2009 NewPolicy.org - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy 0%
2009 Peace Action West - Positions 46%
2009 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -3%
2008 Armenian National Committee of America - Positions on Armenian American Issues F
2008 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score B+
2008 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50%
2008 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 43%
2008 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 55%
2008 Peace Action West - Positions 60%
2008 Resolve Uganda - Lifetime Score F
2007-2009 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score A
2007-2008 ACT! for America - Positions 50%
2007-2008 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 60%
2007-2008 Council for a Livable World - Positions 50%
2007-2008 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 50%
2007-2008 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 55%
2007-2008 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -4
2007-2008 USA Engage - Positions on Trade and Engagement B
2007-2008 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 0
2007 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score B+
2007 Council for a Livable World - Positions 64%
2007 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 55%
2007 Latin America Working Group - Positions 20%
2007 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 57%
2007 Peace Action West - Positions 36%
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 C
2007 Voices for Creative Nonviolence - Iraq-Afghanistan Supplemental Spending Score 83%
2006-2012 Global Exchange - Percent Loyalty to Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Lobby 75%
2006 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score B
2006 Latin America Working Group - Positions 20%
2006 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 48%
2006 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 51%
2006 Peace Action - Positions 29%
2006 Peace Action West - Positions 29%
2006 United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur C
2006 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 50%
2005-2006 ACT! for America - Positions 88%
2005-2006 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50%
2005-2006 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 67%
2005-2006 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 41%
2005-2006 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -6
2005 Citizens for Global Solutions - Global Issues Score B+
2005 Council on American-Islamic Relations - Positions 0%
2005 Latin America Working Group - Positions 50%
2005 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 63%
2005 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 36%
2005 Peace Action - Positions 42%
2005 PeacePAC - Positions 67%
2004 Center for International Policy - Positions 100%
2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 0%
2004 Latin America Working Group - Positions 43%
2004 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 42%
2004 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 57%
2004 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 33%
2004 Peace Action - Positions 20%
2003-2004 ACT! for America - Positions 87.5%
2003-2004 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy -6
2003-2004 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 90%
2003-2004 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 33%
2003-2004 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 50%
2003-2004 PeacePAC - Positions 64%
2003-2004 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -4
2003-2004 USA Engage - Positions 60%
2003-2004 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) - Positions 50%
2003 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 33%
2003 Latin America Working Group - Positions 33%
2003 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 37%
2003 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 61%
2003 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - Positions 0%
2003 Peace Action - Positions 67%
2003 United States Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation - Positions on International Middle East Human Rights -2
2002-2003 Citizens for Global Solutions - Positions 57%
2002 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 25%
2002 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 41%
2002 Peace Action - Positions 20%
2001-2002 American Foreign Service Association - Positions 78%
2001-2002 American Muslims for Jerusalem - Positions on International Middle East Policy Advocacy -6
2001-2002 Council for a Livable World - Positions 33%
2001-2002 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 23%
2001-2002 National Foreign Trade Council - Postions 33%
2001 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 50%
2001 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 61%
2001 Peace Action - Positions 0%
2000 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 64%
2000 National Foreign Trade Council - Positions 83%
2000 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy Score 69%
2000 National Journal - Conservative on Foreign Policy Score 28%
2000 Peace Action - Positions 10%
1999-2000 PeacePAC - Positions 29%
1999 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 69%
1999 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 30%
1999 Peace Action - Positions 27%
1998-2002 Center for Security Policy - Positions 60%
1998 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 76%
1998 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 11%
1998 National Journal - Liberal on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 84%
1998 Peace Action - Positions 50%
1997-1998 PeacePAC - Positions 63%
1997 Center for Security Policy - Positions 32%
1997 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Positions 64%
1997 Peace Action - Positions 25%
1996 Center for Security Policy - Positions 64%
1996 National Journal - Conservative on Defense/Foreign Policy Score 46%
1996 National Journal - Liberal on Foreign\Defense Policy 53%
1996 Peace Action - Positions 30%
1996 PeacePAC - Positions 30%
1995-1996 Friends Committee on National Legislation - Peace and Justice Score 36%
1995 Peace Action - Positions 58%
1993-1994 American Security Council Foundation - Positions 90%

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