Composite 4.49 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Does not clear the bar. The conduct composite sits below the support threshold, driven by low cross-aisle reach, institution-eroding conduct, recurring dehumanizing rhetoric, post-certification stolen-election amplification, and a disclosure appearance-concern. No capping flag attaches (not a Texas v. PA signatory; objection vote not scored as subversion; rhetoric short of incitement), so the verdict rests on composite, not on a severity cap. The documented independence from his own side is real and is credited, but it does not lift the record to support.
No record of U.S. military service. Prior career: business (insurance), athletic director at Liberty University, and Campbell County (VA) Board of Supervisors before Congress. Service to country is honored as context where present; it is not scored, and its absence is not penalized.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 5 | why?Oath-fidelity, scored on CONDUCT not votes. Good was seated January 3, 2021, AFTER the December 11, 2020
Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, so he is NOT a signatory of that brief; no Criterion-8 process-subversion via
that route. His January 6, 2021 floor objection to certifying Arizona/Pennsylvania electors is the
constitutional process operating and, per the framework, an objection VOTE alone is NOT scored against this
measure and is NOT Criterion 8. What remains is the documented appearance-concern of having amplified
stolen-election claims as a freshman, weighed as an appearance-concern rather than a finding, plus a
generally low institutional-fidelity posture. No conviction, no formal sanction on oath grounds. Held at the
middle.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 3 | why?Country/institution-over-party reach. Good consistently drew the fewest bipartisan cosponsors in the
Virginia delegation and built a record of near-uniform party-line, oppositional legislating (Heritage Action
98%). This measures cross-aisle WORK product, not ideology, and the work product shows minimal reaching
across the aisle. Low. (Scored on conduct of legislating, not on the direction of his policy views.)
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?Persons of Equal Worth. Good's floor and campaign rhetoric repeatedly framed whole categories of citizens
(LGBTQ Virginians, same-sex married couples) as the source of what 'plagues our society,' which presses on
the belonging standard. This is weighed as rhetorical conduct, not policy: the issue is the
personhood-diminishing framing, not the underlying position. It is sustained culture-war heat rather than the
capping Criterion-10 enemy-making-and-incitement pattern, so it drags the measure to the lower-middle without
triggering a severity flag. A real, documented anti-belonging tendency.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?Restraint from weaponizing state power against rivals. No documented instance of Good using official power
to target political opponents, and he is not a Texas v. PA signatory (seated after the brief). No
Criterion-8 conduct attaches. The record is neither an abuse nor an affirmative constraint on power; a
neutral middle.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?Rhetorical conduct. Documented pattern of hot, dehumanizing framings ('the party of death,' same-sex
marriage as the cause of societal decay). Weighed as conduct, not viewpoint. It is heated and recurrent but
stays in the register of partisan/policy combat rather than a documented incite-and-direct-confrontation
pattern, so it lowers the score without capping. Lower-middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety. Two weighed appearance-concerns, neither a conviction: (1) the 2020
financial-disclosure controversy in which Good filed amended disclosures back to 2018 after initially
reporting no assets, with reporting that as a Campbell County supervisor he had voted on matters touching
companies he held stock in (uncharged allegation, weighed, not a finding); (2) a 2021 House Ethics fine
under H.Res.38 for bypassing the floor security screening (a rules infraction he appealed and lost). Real
drags on the fiduciary standard; lower-middle.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 6 | why?Active-duty call-out of one's OWN side at cost, the higher bar. Good endorsed Ron DeSantis over the
dominant figure in his own party in 2023 and stood by it, and voted to remove his own party's Speaker
(McCarthy) on accountability grounds, owning the decision in his December 2024 exit interview even after it
plausibly cost him renomination. Whatever one thinks of the merits, this is documented willingness to break
from his own side at genuine personal political cost. Upper-middle.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?Discretion test, using or declining preferential advantage. No documented instance of Good seeking or
refusing special preferential treatment of the purity-test kind. Neutral middle on the available record.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?Public/private consistency. No documented gap between Good's off-camera conduct and his combative public
persona; the hardline posture appears consistent rather than a performance masking a different private
reality. Without affirmative evidence either way of a virtue beyond consistency, a neutral middle.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituent fidelity. Good represented a strongly Republican district and his record largely tracked his
base; no documented donor-capture pattern diverging from constituents. The countervailing note is a low
legislative-delivery record for the district by his own 'Congress should have done even less' philosophy.
Net middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?Office-attributable enrichment ONLY, not raw wealth. No documented evidence that Good's congressional
office produced self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue. The
stock-disclosure controversy concerns disclosure timeliness and pre-congressional county-board votes, not
enrichment FROM the federal office. Without office-driven enrichment, the measure sits above the middle; the
modest drag is only the appearance-hygiene lapse, not a federal-office breach.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 3 | why?Institutional decorum / office-over-officeholder. Good's tenure was defined by disruption of regular order:
a lead role in ousting a sitting Speaker of his own party, deliberately bypassing floor security screening
(drawing a formal Ethics fine), and an explicit philosophy that the institution 'should have done even
less.' These are conduct choices that subordinate institutional function to faction. Low.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 4 | why?Truth-telling / falsehood pattern. Documented amplification of 2020 stolen-election claims after the courts
and certification had resolved the question presses on this standard as recurring rather than a one-off.
Weighed as conduct on the record available, not as a criminal finding. Lower-middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Substance over performance. Good engaged on fiscal/appropriations matters with a coherent (if maximalist)
spending-restraint frame, but his legislative output skewed toward messaging and obstruction over enacted
substance, and his own exit framing prized doing 'less.' A neutral-to-modest middle on demonstrated
policy substance.
[source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M02 | Drew the fewest bipartisan cosponsors in the Virginia delegation; near-uniform party-line legislating (Heritage Action 98%) ↳ Country/institution-over-party reach, minimal cross-aisle work product | Scored on legislating conduct, not ideology; represented a safe-R district |
| M12 | Lead role ousting a sitting Speaker of his own party; bypassed House floor security screening (formal H.Res.38 Ethics fine); 'Congress should have done even less' philosophy ↳ Institutional decorum, subordinating institutional function to faction | The McCarthy vote was framed as accountability, not personal gain |
| M03 | Floor/campaign rhetoric framing LGBTQ citizens and same-sex couples as the source of what 'plagues our society' ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, personhood-diminishing framing | Sustained policy/culture-war heat, not a capping incite-and-direct pattern |
| M05 | 'The party of death' and recurring dehumanizing framings of opponents ↳ Rhetorical conduct drag | Stays in partisan-combat register; no documented incitement-to-confrontation |
| M06 | 2020 amended financial disclosures (initially reported no assets; County-board votes on companies he held stock in, uncharged) + 2021 H.Res.38 security-screening fine (appeal denied) ↳ Fiduciary appearance-of-impropriety | Uncharged allegation weighed as appearance-concern, not a finding; disclosures were amended |
| M13 | Amplified 2020 stolen-election claims after certification and court resolution ↳ Truth-telling, recurring falsehood-amplification | Weighed as conduct on available reporting, not a criminal finding |
| M01 | January 6, 2021 objection to certifying AZ/PA electors as a freshman + stolen-election amplification ↳ Oath-fidelity appearance-concern | Objection VOTE not scored against the measure; NOT a Texas v. PA signatory (seated after the brief); no Criterion-8 capping |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 6 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Courage in Conflict, Independence. The genuine evidence is the willingness to break from his own party's dominant figure (DeSantis endorsement) and leadership (McCarthy ouster) at real personal cost, owned afterward. Held to mid-range by a faction-first loyalty that repeatedly placed movement combat over institutional steadiness. |
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 5 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity. Good is authentic and consistent in his stated convictions, little gap between persona and conduct. Dragged toward the opposite by the stolen-election amplification (Love of Truth) and the disclosure appearance-concern (Consistency of standards). |
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Stewardship, Accountability. No documented exploitation of office for enrichment and no documented weaponization of state power; but minimal protective use of power for constituents and a record tilted to obstruction. A neutral middle. |
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes drag-dominant here: the personhood-diminishing rhetoric toward LGBTQ citizens, the post-certification stolen-election framing, and the institution-eroding posture form a legacy more of disruption than of durable institutional fidelity. The independence streak tempers but does not lift it above the lower band. |
| TOTAL: Weak | 20/40 |
Total 20/40, below-middle. The character pillars are held down by faction-first institutional conduct and documented rhetorical/ truth-telling drags; the lone real lift is documented independence from his own side.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“Nearly everything that plagues our society can be attributed to a failure to follow God's law and his rules for and definition of marriage and family.”
House floor, debate on the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act · Metro Weekly · CONTESTED · cite
“The Democrat Party has become the party of death.”
Campaign remarks · Cardinal News · CONTESTED · cite
“I don't regret voting to vacate the speaker.”
Roll Call exit interview, on the McCarthy ouster he says likely cost him reelection · Roll Call · ACCOUNTABILITY · cite
“Governor DeSantis has demonstrated strength in the face of adversity.”
Endorsing Ron DeSantis over the GOP front-runner in the 2024 primary · NBC News · PRINCIPLED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Robert George "Bob" Good (born 1965). U.S. Representative for Virginia's 5th congressional district, January 3, 2021 – January 3, 2025. Chair of the House Freedom Caucus, January–September 2024. Before Congress: insurance executive, Liberty University associate athletic director, and member of the Campbell County (VA) Board of Supervisors. Defeated incumbent Denver Riggleman in the 2020 GOP primary; lost the 2024 GOP primary to Trump-endorsed John McGuire by ~370 votes (confirmed on recount). Filed to run again in VA-05 for 2026, recently-departed member, in scope.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Among the least bipartisan members of the Virginia delegation by cosponsorship (Lugar/McCourt-style measures); Heritage Action scorecard 98% (118th). Hardline fiscal-restraint and immigration profile; signature posture was opposition rather than enacted authorship. Voted to vacate Speaker Kevin McCarthy (October 2023) and chaired the House Freedom Caucus from January 2024. Policy DIRECTION is not graded here in either direction; the legislative profile is recorded as conduct context (reach, decorum, substance), not as ideology scoring.
3. Constitutional Moments
Seated January 3, 2021, therefore NOT a signatory of the December 11, 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus (which closed before he took office). On January 6, 2021 he voted to sustain objections to certifying Arizona and Pennsylvania electors; under this framework an objection VOTE is the constitutional process operating and is not itself scored against oath-fidelity or treated as Criterion-8 process subversion. The weighed appearance-concern is his amplification of stolen-election claims after the question was legally resolved. Separately, his role in vacating a sitting Speaker of his own party is recorded as institutional-decorum conduct (M12), not as a policy verdict.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
Combative, identity-and-faith-framed rhetoric that recurrently cast opponents and whole categories of citizens in dehumanizing terms ('party of death'; same-sex marriage as the cause of what 'plagues our society'). Weighed as CONDUCT, not viewpoint: the concern is the personhood-diminishing framing. It is sustained culture-war and partisan heat rather than a documented pattern of inciting or directing physical confrontation, so it drags the rhetoric measures meaningfully but does not rise to a capping Criterion-10 flag.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Two weighed appearance-concerns, neither a conviction. (1) 2020 financial-disclosure controversy: Good initially reported no assets, then filed amended disclosures back to 2018 showing dozens of stockholdings; reporting alleged he had, as a county supervisor, voted on matters touching companies he held, an UNCHARGED allegation, weighed as an appearance-concern, not a finding. (2) 2021 House Ethics fine under H.Res.38 for bypassing the House floor security screening; his appeal was denied. No evidence of office-attributable enrichment from his federal seat (no self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, or foreign-government revenue documented), so M11 is not heavily penalized, the drag is disclosure-hygiene, not enrichment.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class (capping) conduct. Criterion 8 does NOT attach: Good was seated after the Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus and is not a signatory, and a bare January 6 objection vote is expressly not Criterion-8 conduct under this framework. Criterion 10 does NOT attach: his rhetoric, while recurrently dehumanizing toward opponents and LGBTQ citizens, is sustained partisan/culture-war heat rather than a documented pattern of inciting or directing confrontation. Flag count: zero. The record is dragged by ordinary (non-capping) conduct concerns, low bipartisan reach, institutional disruption, rhetorical and truth-telling drags, and disclosure-hygiene, not by criterion-class conduct.
7. What The Framework Says
Bob Good's conduct record is below the middle. The drags are real and documented: among the least bipartisan members of his delegation, a tenure defined by institutional disruption (ousting his own party's Speaker, bypassing floor security and drawing an Ethics fine, an explicit 'do even less' philosophy), recurring dehumanizing rhetoric toward opponents and LGBTQ citizens, amplification of stolen-election claims after they were legally resolved, and a financial-disclosure appearance-concern. The genuine lift is documented independence from his own side at personal cost, the DeSantis endorsement and the McCarthy ouster he owned even as they plausibly ended his House career. No capping flag attaches: he did not sign the Texas v. PA amicus (seated after it), an objection vote is not scored as subversion, and his rhetoric stays short of the incite-and-direct threshold. Honest middle-to-low, conduct-only.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House Committee on Ethics statement
Tier 2: GovTrack member profile · Ballotpedia
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack · House Ethics statement (H.Res.38 fine) · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.