Question about these DLC members

[SaveElmer]

I posted this in response to another message, but that thread has died...so

Listed here are some of the 20 senators (and one congressman), that are listed as being DLC members...A reponse I got from another poster inidcated that he thought these were the worst of the lot (progressive wise). I have questions about them!

First, what do you think of the voters in the states that send these people to office year after year? Are they just ignorant of the DLC? Do they support them?

It does seem to put a lie to the notion that the DLC isn't capable of formulating a winning strategy...afer all nearly half of the Democrats in the Senate are members...as are a number of successful governors(Warner, Vilsack, Nepolitano etc)...how do you account for this seeming disparity? Is it just at the national level that their strategy falls apart?

Also, here are the lastest ADA Ratings for all the Senators and Congressman: (out of a perfect 100 liberal score)

Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN - 90 (70)
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE - 95 (80)
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY - 95 (95)
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA - 100 (80)
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN - 75 (70)
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA - 85 (85)
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT - 75 (70)
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR - 95 (70)
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL - 80 (70)
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE - 65 (50)
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR - 85 (not yet in Senate in 2002)


As you can see, the worst score on here is, as you might expect, Ben Nelson of Nebraska...(btw the ADA lists Senators with ratings between 40-60 moderate)...for comparison...I have also listed the 2002 rating...this of course is the year the Iraq war was authorized. This rating is in parens. So, in 2002 ratings for virtually every one of these individuals was lower than in 2004 (except Hillary who remained at 95), though all except Nelson were to the left of moderate as defined by the ADA.

My question is, does this indicate to you that the ADA is another non-progressive organization? Or is it possible that the folks listed here really aren't as conservative as most think they are? And, doesn't this also put the lie to the influence of the DLC on these Senators...after all, every one of them voted more progressive in 2004 than they did in 2002!!!

[stray cat]

1. Why do some people insist on looking at facts......

Labels and rhetoric is the way to go. If we're not careful the republicans won't even have to do battle with the dems. We fight ourselves so the repubs don't have to....

[Carolab]

2. What are Project Vote Smart's criteria?

I looked at their site and couldn't tell.

[SaveElmer]

5. They look at representative votes

That are of importance to liberals...some that I saw include dthe Iraq authorization obviosly, Estrada Cloture....others...

Go to www.adaction.org and click on publications...the votes are listed there

[Mairead]

61. They have only one criterion: liberal / not-liberal

They don't bother to rank by impact/importance.

[KoKo]

3. Thanks for your information.

I might be inclined to think that the blow back from the Dem Left caused them to wake up that they needed to be more watchful of their votes. Without a vibrant Left (and most of those of us who are considered very Left these days are really what used to be the Dem Center) the DLC members began to be worried about keeping their jobs. That's a cynical view. One would hope they had woken up to what DLC policies had done in collusion with the Repugs for all these years.

Either way, the DLC is too far to the right, imho, and its constant attacking of Party Reform makes them suspect. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

4. They'll just say that ADA is another non-progressive organization.

Because the more people you say are non-progressive, the more progressive that makes you. It's a natural fact.

[K-W]

6. Money money money mo--ney... MONEY

You seem to be ignoring the unequal influence the wealthy have on elections in this country. Candidates friendly to business interests have an advantage over populists.

[JDPriestly]

7. Some of them are from conservative states

and they are representing the views of the people of their states on some issues. We need to remind them that they are vulnerable to Republican attacks and that, if they want to keep their seats, they need to educate their voters on the issues and bring their voters to understand the Democratic view on them. I am convinced that people don't want to hear the usual "liberal" or "conservative" ideological babble. They want real answers to real issues that touch their lives. The Bankruptcy Bill is an example of a bill that was passed out of fear of "What will my voters think?" rather than "How can I educate my voters to understand what is really at stake here?"

[SaveElmer]

8. Excellent...

I think the same thing

[Carolab]

9. From what I read, it's not that they haven't been progressive

so much as they are now tacking more right, toward the center, per the DLC's positioning.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/12462/5624

{snip}

Three presidential contenders are trekking to the DLC's annual conference in Ohio, giving the organization a boost of legitimacy at a time when it faces increasing irrelevance in the political scene.

Evan Bayh, Hillary Clinton, and Tom Vilsack are all dutifully trecking to Ohio to worship at the altar of the "vital center" -- that elusive moving target that has conspired to rob Democrats of all conviction. Every time you hear a Democrat talk about how Democrats don't stand for anything? That's the DLC, as they urge Democrats to chase after a "center" that gets constantly redefined rightward by an ideologically principled Republican party.

As we strive to find our core convictions, and define who we are and what we stand for as a party, the DLC is one of the roadblocks -- a divisive, fundamentalist organization willing to sell any and all progressive ideals to the altar of big business. And anything that threatens their dominance has met with their ire -- be it Howard Dean, the netroots, or regular people suddenly interested in transforming and reforming the Democratic Party.

{snip}

It's those Democrats who are afraid of who or what they stand for that seem most drawn to the DLC. It's a shame that Hillary has thrown in with that lot, but it's clear that she's looking for the perfect positioning. She's not confident she can win on who she is and what she stands for, so she's what, looking for cover to the charges that she's "too liberal"? Is she looking to the DLC to help define that "vital center"?

The irony, of course, is that it's been DLC positions that have decimated Ohio and its Democratic Party.

{snip}

The netroots and grassroots both get it. The DLC doesn't. Instead of working as a team, they want to divide. They want to excommunicate certain Democrats from the party. They are as bad as the single-issue groups they love to decry. They are the enemy within. And Democrats that associate with them are telegraphing who they stand with.

[SaveElmer]

10. Well I guess we will have to wait for the 2005 rating...but

It seems to trend the other way according to these ratings!

[stray cat]

11. Thanks "SaveElmer for putting it together.

[Carolab]

12. Not quite.

Because it isn't even an issue of how they voted in 2005.

It's how they are positioning themselves NOW. See?

Robert Reich characterizes the battle within the party as between those who want to do whatever it takes to win, in order to stop the rising conservative tide, and those who want to create a viable political movement. This reveals the DLC for what it has always been, an engine for electoral dominance, not a governing philosophy. Furthermore, he nails precisely the problems of the Democrats: they have no ideological unity the way the Republicans do. Democrats are severely fractured by interest groups, they compete for resources and step on each other's toes, and have no world view to unite them, other than stop the conservatives. Reich is also factually correct that the biggest Democratic losses have occured not among suburbanite yuppies, but among the working class. Similarly, Bill Clinton's DLC provided him with a winning strategy for 1996, but no mandate or vision for governance. Reich's analysis is spot on here.

Dean and the DNC and progressives want to set a "governing philosophy" that will engage the base. The DLC only wants to do/say "whatever they think is necessary" to try to stop the conservative political tide. They think that the road to victory is to keep moving right toward the center, but they are WRONG. They need to speak to the base. That is what the Republicans did/do. We can't win by being "Republican-lite", and we certainly can't win unless the Democratic party wakes up and does something about stolen elections.

[SaveElmer]

13. I really think that is an overstatement...

I have spent some time looking at the numerous position papers published by the DLC...many are quite thoughtful and forward looking. Some relate to strategy...but to say all they are interested in is positioning I think is an overstatement

[Carolab]

14. So you think you know more about it than Robert Reich?

Hmmm, interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

"The Democrats are Dead"

http://ga.greens.org/pipermail/gpga-news/2001-March/000096.html

Have you read "Reason"?

[SaveElmer]

15. Didn;t say that...

Simply differ with him...he is expressing an opinion...as am I

If we went by the notion that one cannot have a difference of opinion with someone simply because they are perceived as knowing more...we wouldn't be having any discussion here.

Robert Reich, as much as I admire him, has an agenda. Just like everyone else...and will highlight facts, and make assertions to bolster his point. DOesn't mean he is right...just that he has an informed opinion

[Carolab]

16. Yes, SINCE HE WORKED WITH CLINTON

I'd say he has a VERY informed opinion

[LoZoccolo]

17. Actually, I'll tell you what I think it is (Al From - summer 2003)

In summer 2003, Al From put out some sort of statement that was percieved as a slam on Dean supporters. I think maybe he was afraid they might start going into weird territory (and even I, as a Dean supporter, eventually saw that people volunteering for the campaign were co-opting it and injecting their own signifigance into it) and wanted to step on it as fast as he could and move on.

I actually agree with his notion that we cannot rely on the activist left to win elections. There was a study by Pew Research that basically found that these progressive activist organizations had a lot of things on their agenda that didn't line up with the Democratic Party as a whole, things like election reform. I don't have anything against people believing in that, but they have to know that they'll have to gain more widespread support from the rank and file in the Democratic Party if they really want it (and it takes work), rather than just trying to work the system to force it. They want to complain and fight this thing with the DLC on activist turf while making almost no appeal to ordinary people, and that's dangerous to our electability.

Then another facet of the activist left is identity politics, which also has a tendency to go off the deep end. If people don't believe me, look at what Al Sharpton did when he attacked Dean. Look at how unreasonable his line of argument was. Then realize that one of the more effective ways to get ahead in identity politics is demagoguery. Part of the reason the DLC sought corporate funding is to get away from depending on identity politics groups who might push them into some possibly unreasonable positions which make it hard to get elected.

I think what Al From did was a huge mistake, though, and very tactless and arrogant, and basically turned the DLC into this inherently evil organization in a lot of peoples' eyes. I think he could have thought of a better way. But he's just one guy.

[Carolab]

19. Let me ask you this: WHY IN HELL DO WE NEED THE DLC?

Does the Republican party have a RLC?

What IN HELL does the DLC DO for us anyway?

We HAVE a leadership group. It's called the DNC.

[LoZoccolo]

21. I kind-of say so in my post.

If all it did was get us away from depending on identity politics activists and onto a more general message, that'd be good enough.

The Republican Party has several RLCs, if you want to call them that. American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, Project for a New America Century...they have an entire body of think-tanks to pre-fabricate policy that the elected officials can just rubber-stamp. It's a very efficient organization. Plus Grover Norquist (of Americans for Tax Reform, though I don't know if it's behind this) organizes two meetings per week to coordinate strategy, including the talking heads who appear on pundit shows. They agree to a consensus message for the next few days.

[Carolab]

22. Uh huh. And do those THINK TANKS fight the base?

OR do they support it? Do they exist just to collect corporate donations or to set policy?

"If all it did was get us away from depending on identity politics activists and onto a more general message, that'd be good enough."--

It seems to me that this is EXACTLY what DEAN is doing with the DNC.

[wyldwolf]

24. let's hear DU definition of "base" #972...

[LoZoccolo]

25. I think Dean's done a lot of good things, yeah.

It's these people who co-opted him, who I actually think contributed to the disingenuous media portrait of him as some hothead.

I think someone supressed the Republican base when you look at how little thier goals and ideas showed up at the last Republican convention. Scarcely any mention of abortion, for one.

[SaveElmer]

32. Republican have had groups that represented different wings...

They are not as relevent now...but the Log Cabin Republicans represent a more liberal wing of the party...

[Carolab]

47. Weak. The Log Cabin Republicans. Wow. n/t

[geek tragedy]

56. Because the libertarians will NEVER cross over and vote for the Dems.

RINO's are much more loyal than DINO's.

[SaveElmer]

31. Yeah I am NOT an Al From supporter...

I think he is a bad face to put out in public...not only for the DLC, but for the Democratic Party as well!!! He has a very bad tendency to attack other Democrats in a very condescending and arrogant way.

[bvar22]

18. Examining only the Voting Records is misleading.

Looking at voting records ONLY can be misleading.

What MATTERS is that ENOUGH DLC members vote FOR Corporate interests to ensure passage of legislation that INCREASES the POWER of Corporations and DECREASES the power of the Working Americans. After they have the votes to ensure passage, the votes are meaningless, and the individual DLC members are free to CYA and say, "SEE. I voted against CAFTA. I'm for the people".
What they won't tell you is that this vote was meaningless, and if the DLC had needed their vote, they would have sold it."
The WORTH of particular votes IS NOT reflected by looking at voting records. The DLC isn't stupid, and will spread the votes AGAINST the American People around so that no one particular member looks too bad.

The DLC doesn't care about Cultural and Social issues. Some DLC members are Socially Liberal, and vote that way. This will also not be reflected in looking at votes only. their Anti-LABOR votes will be camouflaged by their support for Choice, or Gun Control.

[SaveElmer]

33. Nice theory...anything to back it up?

Hillary has had a consistent 95% rating from the DLC for 3 years ( I didn't look at 2000 and 2001)...do you have anything you can point to that would back up your contention that her record is inflated by meaningless votes...with only 100 members that is alot harder to do in the Senate than in the house...

[Patty Diana]

20. Give me an Eisenhauer Republican and I'd for for him over anything the DLC

would have to offer. At least he'd be against this industrial military complex we have now AND he wouldn't be eliminating any social programs or unions....like the Democrats USED to be.

[Carolab]

28. But, but, but Clinton said the New Democrats ARE Eisenhower Republicans

What about that, then?

[wyldwolf]

23. SaveElmer - - - a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest

The ADA is one of the olders liberal organizations. I believe it was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt or she had much to do with it.

However (and this is going to get confusing), the ADA is the old left. Most of the anti-DLCers argue from the new left (60s flowerchild McGovern) perspective and think they're arguing from the old left position.

But if the ADA gives those DLCers high marks, the ADA must be in on "it." (whatever "it" is)

[SaveElmer]

34. Yeah I know that is probably going to be the case...

Actually was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith...and my personal political hero Hubert Humphrey...

We all know what sell outs they were!!!

[SaveElmer]

59. You my friend are a visionary!!!

Happened just as you said it would!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1964155&mesg_id=1964287

[greendog]

26. Perhaps the ADA doesn't give enough weight to certain votes.

Most of the "liberal" DLCers supported NAFTA, GATT/WTO, welfare reform, and telecom deregulation. Those were HORRIBLE votes.

Personally, I think any Democrat who supported those anti-democratic cheap labor scams should be automatically excluded from any list of liberal or progressive Democrats.

You can't be on both sides of the class war.

[SaveElmer]

35. Check out the site...

www.adaction.org

Click on publications and follow from there...2002 Iraq authorization was there...


Bankruptcy bill is 2005 I believe and probably will be included when the 2005 ratings come out...

Check it out!

[Mairead]

62. They don't give ANY weight to certain votes.

To them, all votes are equal in importance: 5 points.

[madfloridian]

27. Bill Nelson: NAFTA, CAFTA, Iraq, Bankruptcy bill, no response to us.

Those are just a few.

[SaveElmer]

36. Name the rest...

You say just a few...can you give me any others...

I do not agree with those votes...but there were quite a few other votes that he was with us on...

[Carolab]

29. Right. And Harold Ford is a "Blue Dog". Look it up.

The Blue Dog Democrats are a congressional grouping of fiscal and social conservatives and moderates, primarily southerners, willing to broker compromises with the Republican leadership. They have acted as a unified voting bloc in the past, giving its thirty members some ability to change legislation. The name appears to be both a reference to several well-known Louisiana paintings featuring blue dogs, as well as a reference to the old "yellow dog" Democrats having been "choked blue." Oddly, blue is the color chosen by the media to represent Democrats.

...from Wikipedia

[SaveElmer]

37. Yeah...why don;t you take a look at his ACTUAL record...

Instead of this kind of amorphous description...after all what he actually does is more important...if you have some more information other than this general description from Wikepedia that would be great!!!

[Carolab]

39. Okay.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2005/05/28/harold-ford-junior-scandal/

Read it and weep.

[SaveElmer]

42. Not much there...

Guilt by association with his Uncle...and then two votes...do you have more? Obviously given his score he is not going to be on the correct side of every vote...but his record, on balance, shows him to more left than right.

And if you are hanging your argument on only one of the DLC members listed, it doesn't really mean a whole lot.

[Carolab]

43. C'mon Elmer. Read the WHOLE THING. AND this too.

In spite of claims that Ford is a liberal, his voting record is fairly moderate by Democratic standards. Some suspect that Ford's record is more moderate than conventional wisdom would suggest for his district because of his ambitions for higher office. He supported the Iraq war, a ban on benefits for homosexual couples, and has told Democrats they should be more supportive of George W. Bush in some respects. However, Ford has opposed Bush's energy proposals (including oil drilling in ANWR), has demonstrated support for gay adoption, and indicates a willingness to implement a more lax illegal drug policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford,_Jr.

[SaveElmer]

44. I think I pointed out that he was more moderate...

Exactly what this blurb makes clear...

The simple fact is he is not a Right Winger...he is moderate, to slighly left...based on his voting pattern. In Tennessee that is about as good as it's gonna get!!!

[Carolab]

45. HUH? From the first link I gave you above is this:

5/28/2005

Give It Up, Harold Ford Jr.
Filed under: General, Democrats, Election 2006, Legislation, State and Local — jclifford @ 2:10 am
Things are smelling mighty dirty down in Tennessee, where several Democratic state legislators have been arrested on charges of corruption in relation to a federal sting operation. The politicians, including State Senator John Ford, have been recorded on audiotape and videotape, cooperating with undercover federal agents posing as corporate representatives offering bribes in exchange for pro-business legislation.

John Ford is the uncle and mentor of Congressman Harold Ford Jr., who represents Memphis in the U.S. House of Representatives. Just this week, Harold Ford Jr. announced that he would run to take the place of U.S. Senator Bill Frist when Frist steps down at the end of 2006 in order to prepare for the 2008 presidential election.

Harold Ford Jr. has not been a strong friend of progressives during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives. He's flipped and he's flopped, casting votes on issues depending on what way the favored political winds were blowing from. He's said that he supports gay rights, but voted against them on many occasions. Harold Ford Jr. has refused to support H.R. 952, legislation that would make it illegal for the U.S. government to send prisoners held in the United States to foreign countries to be tortured. Congressman Ford has also not supported H.R. 1157, a bill that would revoke sections of the Patriot Act that allow government agents to secretly search through the financial and library records of law-abiding American citizens.

In spite of the fact that he is a Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has often stood with George W. Bush. He's provided support to President Bush's attacks on separation of church and state, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Harold Ford Jr. has been a shameless self-promoter in the U.S. House of Representatives, trying to make a name for himself by criticizing Democrats for not being Republican enough. Harold Ford Jr. has quickly become the Joseph Lieberman of the U.S. House of Representatives.

[SaveElmer]

46. Again...

You give me two votes...some bullshit about his Uncle ... and amorphous charges such as...

"In spite of the fact that he is a Democrat, Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has often stood with George W. Bush. He's provided support to President Bush's attacks on separation of church and state, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Harold Ford Jr. has been a shameless self-promoter in the U.S. House of Representatives, trying to make a name for himself by criticizing Democrats for not being Republican enough. Harold Ford Jr. has quickly become the Joseph Lieberman of the U.S. House of Representatives."
Some back up for this please...otherwise just words!!!

These aren't facts...these are talking points!!!

Why don't we go through them 1 by 1

...
Give me some solid evidence for this charge..do you have speech or interview transcripts, or perhaps a vote or two showing this?

"He's provided support to President Bush's attacks on separation of church and state"

[Carolab]

48. He voted FOR the f'ing bankruptcy bill too!

How's that?

This guy INHERITED his seat...he hasn't earned it and he certainly isn't getting any props from progressives. Why should anyone support him?

[SaveElmer]

50. Are you saying he wasn't elected ?

There is no such thing as inheritance in a Congressional election. He used his name recognition probably to get elected the first time, but he has been a congressman for some time...long past where "inheritance" makes a difference

And as I pointed out on more than one occasion, his 70 ADA rating means that of the 14 votes the ADA used to evaluate a persons voting record, Ford voted with us on 10 of them...which means...he did not vote with us on 4...

[Carolab]

51. Who is "US"? You are clearly not a progressive.

On edit:

By "inherited" I mean he came onto the scene with no experience in his 20s, and profitted from his father's having been in congress before him and from the corrupt political machine of his uncle John Ford.

[SaveElmer]

53. Brother!!!

Because I point out the fact of someone's voting record I am not a progressive...clearly if I say someone did not vote with "us" 4 times, that means I disagreed with those votes...

That does not mean I do not believe they are Democrats...or that I could not support them if say they were to run for Senate. We are taking about Tennessee here...what...do you think they are gonna elect a Paul Wellstone type...for Tennessee DLC IS liberal!!!

I tell you what...why don't you tell me who you think is a good progressive Senator or Congressman, and I bet I can find a vote or two where they did not take the "progressive" side...

[Carolab]

54. How about giving me a vote or two that proves Hal Jr. IS progressive?

That seems more appropriate.

[SaveElmer]

55. CHeck here...

There ae 10 in 2004...

http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2004.pdf

[Carolab]

60. Which ones? This chart is too confusing to scroll through.

If you know there are 10 then perhaps you know what the 10 are?

[Carolab]

63. Did you know Harold Ford Jr. called Kelo "a GOOD thing"???

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/006592.html

[Don1]

30. I have seen this months ago.

Actually, one of Michael Moore's books recommends the site that gives scores. One thing that I noticed is that Lieberman got a score of 75 and Chris Shays a score of 70. As I live in Connecticut, I really gave this some consideration, especially when comparing Dean and Lieberman.

Note, however, there are a number of problems with this scoring.

(a) The scores come from 2004. Lieberman seems to have gone more right-wing in 2005, for example, and possibly other politicians have, too;
(b) The scores come from 20 hand-picked 'liberal' bills and could be biased according to the ADA's favorite picks;
(c) The scores come from 20 hand-picked 'liberal' bills and whether or not congressmen voted for them. They should also include 20 hand-picked conservative bills to check that these guys are not voting in favor of them, too.

If you really want a score, then I suggest an independent and objective analysis. I suggest that we on DU vote for our most important issues of 2005. Pick the 10 major progressive issues and 10 major conservative issues. We can vote on this.

Then, compare roll calls between Dem party and DLC.

I did this already for the Patriot Act in the House:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1961268&mesg_id=1961268

Can we do this project together, please???

[SaveElmer]

38. Sounds great to me...

Did you look at the votes ADA used for comparison? I know the Iraq vote was on there...as was the Estrada cloture!!!

I particularly think your idea to look at conservative bills for comparison is a good idea...

The ADA is a very well respected liberal organization...founded by Elaeanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Hubert Humphrey...they have proven pretty reliable in the past as far as I can tell...

But more information os always better!!!

[SaveElmer]

40. SOme have been asking what the votes used for this score were...2004

Here they are for 2004 (1st 7)

1. S 1805. Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act - Gun Liability - Gun Safety Devices Boxer (D-CA) amendment prohibiting the sale or transfer of handguns by a licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer
unless a secure gun storage or safety device is provided for
each handgun

2. S 1637. Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act - Exporting Dodd (D-CT) amendment prohibiting government contracting with firms that outsource U.S. jobs overseas.

3. S CON RES 95. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution - Discretionary Spending Byrd (D-WV) amendment creating a reserve fund that would allow up to $11.2 billion in additional spending in fiscal 2005 for law enforcement and first responder grants, education, veterans’ medical care, global HIV/AIDS, surface transportation, medical research, and Homeland Security Department programs.

4. HR 1997. Unborn Victims of Violence Act A bill making it a criminal
offense to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. Criminal penalties (not including the death penalty) for harm to a fetus would equal those applied if the pregnant woman were injured or killed, regardless of whether the perpetrator knew of the pregnancy. (N = +).

5. HR 4. Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act -
Child Care Funding Snowe (R-ME)amendment increasing funds for
childcare by $6 billion over five years.The spending would be offset byextending expiring Customs user fees. Adopted 78-20. March 30, 2004. (Y = +).

6. S 2207. Pregnancy and Traumacare Access Protection Act - Medical Malpractice - Motion invoking cloture (thus limiting debate) on a bill to curb damages against emergency and trauma center personnel, obstetricians and gynecologists. The bill caps punitive damages at $250,000, or twice the amount of economic compensation awarded, whichever is greater. Rejected 49-48. April 07, 2004. (N = +).

7. S 1737. Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act - Overtime Pay
Rules Harkin (D-IA) amendment blocking the Labor Department from
implementing new rules issued to change eligibility standards for
overtime pay. Adopted 52-47. May 04, 2004. (Y = +).

[SaveElmer]

41. ADA Votes used for rating (8-14)

8. S 1637. Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act - Trade
Adjustment Assistance Wyden (DOR) procedural motion seeking to
extend eligibility for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) to service workers, including government workers, who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade since Nov. 4, 2002. Rejected 54-45. May 04,
2004. (Y = +).

9. S. 1637. Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act - Corporate
Reimportation Tax - Exporting Jobs Grassley (R-IA) motion tabling thus
(killing) the Dorgan (D-ND) amendment requiring U.S. multinational companies to pay federal taxes on income from goods produced in foreign factories when the goods are shipped back into the United States. Adopted 60-39. May 5,
2005. (N = +).

10. S 1637. Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act - Unemployment Insurance Cantwell (D-WA) motion extending to Nov. 30, 2004 the federal program providing an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their state jobless benefits. Rejected 59-40. May 11, 2004. (Y = +).

11. S 2400. FY05 National Defense Authorization Act - Nuclear Waste
Cleanup Cantwell (D-WA) amendment blocking reclassification of nuclear waste that would allow the Defense Department to leave the waste in place. Rejected 48-48. June 03,2004. (Y = +).

12. S 2400. FY05 National Defense Authorization Act - Hate Crimes Smith (R-OR) amendment broadening the categories covered by hate crimes prosecuted in federal courts to include crimes motivated by the victim’s gender, sexual orientation or disability. Adopted 65-33. June 15, 2004. (Y = +).

13. S 2400. FY05 National Defense Authorization Act - Military Interrogations Warner (R-VA) motion to table (kill) the Dodd (D-CT)
amendment prohibiting the use of private contractors to conduct prisoner interrogations at U.S. military facilities.
Adopted 54-43. June 16, 2004. (N = +).

14. S 2400. FY05 National Defense Authorization Act - Nuclear Weapons
Kennedy (D-MA) amendment prohibiting use of $36.6 million authorized in the underlying bill for two Energy Department programs: a study
of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator(“bunker buster”) weapons and a
Stockpile Services Advanced Concepts Initiative, which includes
research into a “low yield” nuclear weapon. Rejected 42-55. June 15, 2004. (Y = +).

[shance]

49. Legislators can trade votes with other legislators to pad their record.

in order to appear to have a more progressive record.

That's nothing new.

Legislators can say they voted for something, which essentially matters little, especially if the outcome was with the Republicans or against mainstream Americans.

The question that needs to be asked is what was the END result? Were the Democrats cohesive enough to pass positive legislation or stop harmful legislation from being passed?

[SaveElmer]

52. I can stand on my head and call myself the Queen of England...

Too..do you have any evidence to suggest that is what happened here...I mean you are saying that 20 Senate Democrats, managed to convince enough fellow Senators to vote a certain way so they could cover their ass...

Not to plausible...isn;t it more likely that these Democrats are not as conservative as you thought they were?

[shance]

57. I'm impressed with your gymnastic capabilties. Wasnt what I was saying.

with regards to specifically one bill.

A legislator may vote on a few items which may make him/her appear to be progressive, however if the outcome was the bill was voted down, and their record is more conservative, what difference does it make?

He or she may appear to look good on certain votes, but whats the overall record of the person and what have they voted on which has actually passed that reflect the basic principles of the Democratic party?

It's difficult right now because we have a Republican majority. However, the individuals mentioned above have consistently voted on important legislation with the Republicans.

[SaveElmer]

58. Consistently?

Back that up...this clearly shows they have not!!!

I agree that once in a while Senators do as you suggested...but in the 56 votes used in the ratings since 2001, Hillary Clinton has voted the liberal position on about 52 of them...it's not reasonable to conclude that this manipulation was present in all, or even a significatnt number of them...you are making a charge for which you have no evidence...

Not only that, but if you will look at the votes they rate, they not only look at votes for liberal bills, but votes against conservative ones...

Sorry, but these scores clearly show that, in terms of the positions she takes as a Senator, she has taken a liberal position.