The Hill: Survey of Senators ranked Kerry 5th most partisan Democrat

Not sure what to make of this article:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ranking-senate-partisans-2009-04-20.html



At the link, you can click into what Democrats and Republicans said, but only positive stuff. What makes it strange is that apparently being called partisan makes you "difficult", but not always. Kerry is called partisan, but nobody expounds on that. They just ranked him there, and left it at that.

Kerry does have a liberal voting record, but based on hundreds of articles I have read, I have never heard of him being "difficult" to work with. I also have seen him being quite bipartisan all the time. Lugar did give a shout out in his comments. Kerry mentioned Lindsay Graham, Olympia Snow, Bob Crocker (??!!), and Dick Lugar as people he likes to work with. Still, I feel like the slant of the article was that if you were bipartisan you were likeable, and if you were partisan you were unlikeable.

Even though he is incredibly successful working with Republicans, would Kennedy be listed as the easiest to work with if he wasn't suffering from cancer?

MOST BIPARTISAN

DEMOCRATS
1. Edward Kennedy (Mass.)
2. Tom Carper (Del.)
3. Chris Dodd (Conn.)
4. (tied) Evan Bayh (Ind.)
4. (tied) Tom Harkin (Iowa)

REPUBLICANS
1. Susan Collins (Maine)
2. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
3. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
4. (tied) Richard Lugar (Ind.)
4. (tied) John McCain (Ariz.)

LEAST BIPARTISAN

DEMOCRATS
1. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
2. Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
3. Chris Dodd (Conn.)
4. Dick Durbin (Ill.)
5. John Kerry (Mass.)

REPUBLICANS
1. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
2. David Vitter (La.)
3. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
4. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
5. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)

There is a role for bipartisanship to be sure but I think in the case of dens over the past decade there has been too
Much give and not enough take. Republicans band together to get whatever they want over the past eight years -- I think it perfectly appropriate to be partisan right back at them. (typing from iPod apologize terseness or typo)

Equating partisanship with being sort of an a**hole is really ridiculous and I assume is as offensive to conservatives as it is to me. Also, partisanship does not necessarily mean being a hack. It means having principles and sticking to them, even when it is difficult to do so.

I mean, have we gotten such ace legislation over the past few years that there's a legitimate argument for bipartisanship? Is there really any compelling reason to make things easier for GOP senators?

Granted, I'm a partisan hack. But that's largely because, for 8+ years, one party had SO much power, and did so much bad with it.

in the abysmal 109th Congress where there was no pretense of bipartisanship, just McCain regularly scowling that elections have consequences, often in response to Kerry.

if he could have anyone without political consideration. but Durbin was seen as too similar to Kerry, the biggest being he was from a blue state.

there are many reasons i view this as a positive. it shows Kerry is willing to continue fighting for his causes. not just get his name on a bill . the same with Durbin.

also, KErry has embarrassed many of these people by beating them in debates(on and off camera).

Kerry and Durbin are both good men and probably some of the cleanest politicians out there.

the reason Schumer is one there is for different reasons. he is a jerk and attention whore.

I thought when the Chicago Tribune wrote years ago that Durbin had really been Kerry's first choice that it was a shame that he didn't stand up to all the powerful people pushing Edwards. Durbin was far more accomplished and every bit as much a self made man as Edwards. He was better on the issues and he would have actually fought for Kerry, rather than worrying about his own image. In addition, there is no one in the Senate who seems more an everyman to this Hoosier native. He would have made the difference in Iowa and he likely would have been more help in Ohio.

Your point on debate is stunningly true. When last given much coverage, Kerry was shredding whatever person McCain placed against him with seeming ease. This label and the negative connotation really are a consequence of Kerry's willingness to lend his gravitas, stature and eloquence as an attack dog for Obama. (who I hope appreciates it and understands it came at a real cost for Kerry - both in his image and in gaining a huge amount of Clinton animousity.)