Chart shows Boxer's the best and that certain Democrats are Republicrats.

http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-scores.html

There's a list of the best Senators on the front page at patrickhenrythinktank.org

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.

The scores go down to -40. He needs to do better.

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.

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.

I'll be sending him a testy letter later today. Our new Republican Senator, Martinez, scored better than Nelson!

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!

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

I prefer a resource that doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to think and consider important.

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.

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.

I appreciate it.

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.

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.

Good work PHDC. I'm glad you went to the trouble. The Gonzales-lovers won't like your chart. Us, Democrats love it.

I am a Dem.

However, I am not included in your "us". Sorry 'bout that.

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.

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?

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

Are the only Senators that get a positive rating according to this narrow criteria.

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.

waste of bandwidth


and I'll judge Senators on legislative votes, not nominations.

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.

;)

I totally disagree. There are many progressive groups "out there" this is not even a pimple on the bunz of many.

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.

I don't think they are soley responsible for all these things.

:shrug:

:hi:

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?

I'm in a cantankerous mood today, it seems.

Only one step above Counterpunch in the "objectivity" sweepstakes.

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...

It's a very shallow way to rank senators

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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.

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.

then again, maybe I'm being too subjective...

Yep, I noticed. :hi:

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.

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. :)

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.

Interesting mix.

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.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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.

It was their decision to vote for Bush and Condi. Don't blame truth-tellers.

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.

:hi:

Thanks!