Padme Amidala
(401 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:21 PM
Original message |
Chart shows Boxer's the best and that certain Democrats are Republicrats. |
|
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-scores.htmlThere's a list of the best Senators on the front page at patrickhenrythinktank.org
|
Oreo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm sorry but the chart sucks. No way is Mark Dayton a 0 after how much he spoke up against both Condi and the Torturer. I would think they would at least outweigh him not standing to contest the election.
|
Padme Amidala
(401 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. He spoke out against Boxer on 1/6. But he has one of the higher scores. |
|
The scores go down to -40. He needs to do better.
|
Oreo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
41. This is the best chart for 2005 votes on the net. Good job Patrick Henry. |
|
If all our Senators see this before they vote on Chertoff, maybe they'll do the right thing. The guy financed 9/11 and they are going to put him in a position to finance the next 9/11 and to use taxpayers money to do so. Byrd and the others who have the courage to filibuster or vote against him will probably go way up on this chart after the vote and they should. I bet by the end of the year Byrd's totals are up to 100.
I wonder if the issues with some people here is that everyone got a clean slate (0) at the start and some people cannot grasp the idea the chart didn't give everyone (including the Republicans) 100 to start. If everyone started off the year with 100, the Republicans would all be at 60 and Boxer would be at 120, based on the additions and subtractions. I like the idea that it started at 0. By the end of the year the good Democrats will look really great and the Republicans will look really bad.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
25. This chart is the best I've seen. Accurate. Good to sed to Senators |
|
It will let them know they can't get away with pretending to be on our side and then voting against us. I like the idea of keeping them accountable.
|
sabra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Nelson (D-FL) and Lieberman... |
Synnical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I'll be sending him a testy letter later today. Our new Republican Senator, Martinez, scored better than Nelson!
|
Synnical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
46. Found the letter Nelson sent me |
|
Regarding Gonzales after I wrote to him opposing the nomination.
January 18, 2005
Dear Ms XXXXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on the nomination of Judge Gonzales. During the hearing, he answered questions concerning his role as White House Counsel. Further, the committee will examine pertinent documents as part of the review process. I also will conduct a thorough review and inquiry into Judge Gonzales' qualifications, integrity, and record. During these trying times, the Attorney General has the enormous responsibility of enforcing our nation's laws and combating enemies at home and abroad without diminishing our precious civil liberties.
Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as his nomination proceeds through the Senate. Your communication helps me better serve the people of Florida.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I'm about to let him know my thoughts again, such as the fact that he will not get my vote for re-election. He also voted for the invasion of Iraq. I miss Bob Graham already!
|
ChiciB1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
50. He's My Senator Too And |
|
I've been saying for weeks & weeks that he's not better than having a REPUKE! I've written him many many times and I'm on his update list, however I don't think it does much good!
He got real buddy-buddy with Martinez right after the election and it's been that way ever since!!
He's up for re-election and he's CYA-ing! Pisses me off but GOOD!
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
4. the 2/1/05 column is illegitimate |
|
A unanimous consent agreement should not be taken into account on this. sorry.
The other thre columns are spot on, though. All votes should be watched and dogged this way in both houses.
|
Padme Amidala
(401 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. That was the last chance to stop Gonzales. They all blew it that day. |
|
All Senators have to unanimously agree to calender an event. One Senator can put a hold on anything. The Republicans would have done it if they had been in the minority. They they would have pushed until they had their 41. They all agreed not to filibuster on 2/1. The rest was hot air. It was nothing more than a nice show.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. You can't really say that because no nominee for a cabinet post has |
|
ever been filibustered.
Not a single Clinton nomination was filibustered when the Republicans had control of the Senate!
Only six nominees for cabinet posts have been voted down in history.
So your accusation about the Republicans doing it is spurious at best
|
Padme Amidala
(401 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. This time it needed to happen. People will probably die as a result |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 04:53 PM by Padme Amidala
of what happened on 2/1. Others may get tortured. And the upshot is that that Gonzales has been given the go ahead to break the law any time he wants. And, if other nominees were turned down, then we needed to send this one packing.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. I agree about the grave consequences of the Gonzales confirmation |
|
however, going against this unanimous consent decree would have meant the Democratic Party would have had to evolve a fully functional spine wihtin a month! It just wasn't going to happen! I would have been happy with a vote of 43 nays on it with no filibuster, making him out to be worse than Ashcroft which he is!
Our Democrats are in the very rudimentary phases of chordate evolution. At the present time, they are merely cartiligous chordates. When that moves to actual bone in the spine, maybe we can expect more.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
35. It was equalized out. Everyone lost for it so no one person was penalized |
meegbear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |
5. One part I don't get ... |
|
AWOL: This Senator was AWOL when the American people needed him/her to take a stand. – 7.5 points
Strike: This Senator voted or agreed to an outcome harmful to the American people, freedom and/or democracy.-10 points
Why is AWOL less? The definition assumes they weren't there becuase they didn't care. That's the same as a strike to me.
|
Padme Amidala
(401 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
But then there's also the idea that at least they didn't vote the wrong way. It's being treated as 3/4ths of a bad vote. It's a hard judgment call. I think it was a good choice to treat it that way.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:33 PM
Response to Original message |
|
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htmI prefer a resource that doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to think and consider important.
|
Padme Amidala
(401 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. It's an unwildy site. This puts everything up front and its done by Dems. |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 04:41 PM by Padme Amidala
That means that it treats everything from the aspect of Democratic values. There will be tons of votes this next year. It looks like the PHDC has cut through all the garbage and is putting the relevant decisions/votes together to form a clearer picture.
Of course, a Republican would not prefer the PHDC site.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
16. I'm not a Democrat sheep |
|
I don't need someone to cut through the garbage. I don't need to be told what Democratic values I should consider important. I don't need to be told what is relevant and how I should think of it.
Thinking people will not prefer the PHDC site either.
|
Walt Starr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
18. Thanks for the link! Much better site! |
genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
45. I prefer Democratic sites, like Patrick Henry.. It's the best of the best |
|
They sort through the issues and the group has the strongest history of any club at fighting the Republicans. The Counter-Inaugural they threw was great. They have done so much to move the California Democratic Party in a progressive direction. I like a club that works hard for us and produces such great results.
|
fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 05:36 PM by fujiyama
is a great site. I've been using it for a while.
It makes more sense to look at a rep's/senator's ENTIRE record.
For example, if you look at the other site you get the impression that Stabenaw and Feingold are DINOs, and that Bayh actually is a very progressive/ liberal Democrat.
That's just a bunch of crap. As much as I would have liked every Dem voting No on Condi, that wasn't likely to happen. Cabinet members are rarely voted down.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
27. Nah. The one Padme put shows whose on the Democrats' side. |
|
Good work PHDC. I'm glad you went to the trouble. The Gonzales-lovers won't like your chart. Us, Democrats love it.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
29. What you mean "we" Kemosabi |
|
I am a Dem.
However, I am not included in your "us". Sorry 'bout that.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
33. The chart is clealy drawn from "Did they vote Democrat or Republican?" |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 06:23 PM by Constitution
A simple formula is used. Yhose who voted Democrat got plusses and those who supported Bush got minuses. There was an absolute standard and clearly, the people who drafted it did so mathematically. Those who prefer Bush's point of view have lots of reason not to like it - votes for Bush were a negative.
|
fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 08:46 PM by fujiyama
4 votes are what determine whether someone is good Dem or a bad Dem.
:eyes:
Vote Smart also has ratings given by numerous interest groups and individual voting records as well.
Then again, maybe I'm willing to spend some time looking up LEGISTLATIVE votes....and are you implying those that think the site is way too simplistic are Gonzales lovers?
|
ralps
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
14. From that site the Democratic Senators that get a score of -37.5 or -40 |
|
so far are Baucus (D-MT) -37.5 Conrad (D-ND) -37.5 Inouye (D-HI) -37.5 Landrieu (D-LA) -37.5 Lieberman (D-CT) -40 Nelson (D- FL) -40 Nelson (D-NE) -40 Pryor (D-AR) -40 Salazar (D-CO) -40
|
cestpaspossible
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Akaka, Bayh, Boxer and Kerry |
|
Are the only Senators that get a positive rating according to this narrow criteria.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
32. Only Boxer got off to a good start. Others, like Byrd, are at the top too. |
|
After the Chertoff vote, those who support Bush will go up and those who oppose him will go down. Or don't you think they should oppose the guy who financed 9/11.
It's really stupid that anyone would argue with an objective chart of four votes. If their Senator could be higher, they should send him/her a copy and tell them to do better.
|
paulk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
19. patrickhenrythinktank |
|
waste of bandwidth
and I'll judge Senators on legislative votes, not nominations.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
31. It's the most progressive group out there. It's got courage. |
|
The Republicans hate them though. The PHDC is doing the work that lazy Dinos and others who hate standing up for their beliefs would never do.
Keep up the good work, PHDC.
|
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
|
;)
I totally disagree. There are many progressive groups "out there" this is not even a pimple on the bunz of many.
|
genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
44. They led to fight to filibuster Condi and Gonzales and to contest on 1/6. |
|
They got resolutions through Democratic groups and got tons of people to fax and call their Senators. This group also threw one of the Counter-Inaugurals to protest Bush. They got the California Democratic Party to officially back the Department of Peace legislation and they got a resolution calling for a legislated moratorium on the death penalty to be adopted by the California Democratic Party. They are also leading the fight to keep Kevin Shelley in office. The youth group is working to plan an Iraqi Children's War Memorial. The group also did a great deal of flyering before the general election and got a great many declines to state to vote for Kerry. They have got the best credentials I've seen.
|
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
53. This is what they "claim" |
|
I don't think they are soley responsible for all these things.
:shrug:
|
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
John_H
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
20. What this chart proves beyond doubt is |
|
that it was devised by people so laughably dense that they will lable a Senator a Rethug on the basis of one or two votes.
Anyone else notice that this lack of think tank's website is continually cited by low post count DUers almost invariably to attack dems?
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. Democratic Freeper wingnuts |
|
I'm in a cantankerous mood today, it seems.
Only one step above Counterpunch in the "objectivity" sweepstakes.
|
MattG
(107 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
this website kinda sucks. One thing I did notice was that all the Republicans striked out on everything.
So this poses this new question and discussion (because I don't know how to start a new thread)
Are all republicans bad?
Please answer...
|
Obviousman
(927 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. Took the words out of my mouth |
|
It's a very shallow way to rank senators
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
|
Some of us are taking definite offense of the simplemindedness of this chart. Some of us see the blatant non-objectivity of it. And most of those doing so are decidedly not Bush fans.
You're not helping matters by calling us Republicans.
|
Constitution
(313 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
34. The chart gives plusses to those who vote Dem and minuses to Bush votes. |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 06:26 PM by Constitution
A standard was set up and it was done mathematically. The only possible objection would be that it doesn't reward Bush supporters. There is no other reason anyone could object to a chart that was mathematically done to reward Democratic votes and penalize Bush votes.
|
paulk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
42. I've kinda noticed that, too |
|
then again, maybe I'm being too subjective...
|
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
Blue_In_AK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 06:26 PM by Blue_In_AK
My senators are -37.5 and -40. Great........
Ed. -- they didn't do so great in the Vote-Smart stuff either. The NRA loves them both, though.
|
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message |
36. What a load of crud. These Senators have a long record of |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 06:31 PM by mzmolly
service, I won't judge them on 4 votes and the lack of a fillibuster.
Harkin is a zero? :eyes:
Screw the purity contests, look at the issues.
Thanks for posting though, I do like the idea. :)
|
genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
40. The chart accurately portrays their votes for 2005. It's a great chart. |
|
I cannot believe the number of people who don't want anyone to know that their Senator started off the year voting with Bush. Or perhaps some of the people think Senators should vote with Bush and don't want them penalized for doing so.
|
cestpaspossible
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
43. Akaka, Bayh, Boxer and Kerry are the heroes according to this. |
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
55. I can't believe the number of people who want to look at FOUR votes and |
|
call it a record?
Many of these Senators have decades in office, these types of boxes don't do much good.
Tom Harkin is considered a wash, sorry I know his history and I don't buy it.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 06:39 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Rowdyboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 08:10 PM
Response to Original message |
47. Total crock of shit.....-20 votes for Feingold, Corzine, Dodd, Mikulski, |
|
Stabenow, Wyden, Obama, Leahy and Inouye. These are the most decidedly liberal members of the Senate yet this site considers them "Republicrats". Screw PatrickHenry and this ridiculous focus on cabinet nominations.
What a waste of time to come to DU to see the trash spread about the Democratic party.
|
genius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
48. Guess they should have voted against Bush and against Condi. |
|
It was their decision to vote for Bush and Condi. Don't blame truth-tellers.
|
fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #48 |
52. So does Stabenaw's vote |
|
against IWR mean Or Feingold's vote against the PATRIOT Act mean nothing now?
If the same website were to evaluate a few years worth of voting records, I wouldn't be complaining, but don't peddle some bullshit site with 4 votes giving misleading impressions.
|
mzmolly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
56. TOTALLY AGREE! Waste - of - time! |
sarahlee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-04-05 08:50 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:26 AM
Response to Original message |