New Senator Scores Finished - Is your Dem Senator a DINO?

[Zodiak]

Well, this is the third quarterly calculation of the "liberal" index for all of our Democratic Senators according to my "rubber meets the road" system. For those not familiar with the method, I found that ADA ratings are rather arbitrary and rarely concern issues that affect the American people directly. What's more is the ADA only puts out ratings once a year based on a backroom decision as to which 20 votes to count. In the end, ADA gave Boxer a lower rating than Feinstein in "progressivism".

So I went back and recalculated all of the Senators votes on partisan issues when it only comes to bill passage and appointment confirmations. I have been posting my numbers here on the net for a short while, but this post contains the full list as well as the methodology.

I do not ask that you take my scoring system as a "be all and end all" index. It is not. I did this for myself because there is so much rhetoric on the net concerning the DLC wars without any substance. Who are the DINO's? Who should be forgiven for the occasional trespass in the interest of big business? These numbers should at least give you a guide, or better yet, inspire you to score them on your own.

So here is the complete list of numbers, decide for yourself:

Harkin (IO) 88.9
Lautenberg (NJ) 83.3
Boxer (CA) 83.3
Kerry (MA) -DLC 77.8
Kennedy (MA) 77.8
Feingold (WI) 77.8
Durbin (IL) 77.8
Sarbanes (MD) 72.2
Reed (RI) 72.2
Mikulski (MD) 72.2
Levin (MI) 72.2
Akaka (haw) 72.2
Obama (IL) 69.4
Wyden (OR) 66.7
Leahy (VT) 66.7
Dodd (conn) -DLC 66.7
Dayton (MN) 66.7
Biden (DE) 66.7
Bayh (IN) 66.7
Shumer (NY) -DLC 61.1
Reid (NV) 61.1
Inouye (haw) -DLC 61.1
Clinton (NY) -DLC 58.3
Stabenow (MI) -DLC 55.6
Murray (WA) 55.6
Dorgan (ND) -DLC 55.6
Byrd (WV) 50.0
Menendez (NJ)- DLC 50.0
Rockefeller (WV) 44.4
Kohl (WI) -DLC 44.4
Feinstein (CA) 41.7
Leiberman (CT) -DLC 38.9
Cantwell (WA) -DLC 38.9
Bingaman (NM) -DLC 38.9
Baucus (MT) -DLC 36.1
Johnson (SD) -DLC 33.3
Conrad (ND) -DLC 30.6
Carper (DE) -DLC 27.8
Salazar (CO) -DLC 22.2
Nelson (FL) -DLC 22.2
Lincoln(AR) -DLC 22.2
Pryor (AR) -DLC 19.4
Landrieu (LA)- DLC 16.7
Nelson (NE)- DLC 0.0

These scores are all percentages of a total possible score of 180 (so far, in this session, there have been 14 controversial bills and confirmations). A senator gets a score of "10" for voting against Bush's agenda on an issue, a "5" for abstaining, and a "0" for voting with the Republicans.

Here are the eighteen issues:

1. Rice confirmation (inept) 2.7
2. Gonzales confirmation (torturer) 8.3
3. Class action lawsuit bill 5.91
4. Bankruptcy bill 5.7
5. Negroponte confirmation (criminal and murderer) (0.5)
6. Cheney's Energy Bill (1.6)
7. CAFTA I (7.8)
8. CAFTA II (two votes for it (votes changed), + important issue) (7.5)
9. Election Reform (object to Ohio vote, 5 pts for speaking out, 10 for voting with a conscious) (0.6)
10. Confirmation of radical RW judges (0 pts for voting for one of the three judges, 5 pts for being one of the 7 senators in the compromise, -10 pts for voting for TWO of these judges) (8.5)
11. Firearm manufacturer immunity from legal liability (6.7)
12. Cutting Medicaid (6.7)
13. More tax cuts for the rich (9.4)
14. Roberts Confirmation (5)
15. Alito cloture (requested by DUers)
16. Alito confirmation
17. More tax cuts for the rich (do these people ever stop?)
18. PATRIOT act passage

The number that follows the issue is an indication of how much the Democratic Senate as a whole agrees with liberal bloggers, basically. A 10 is total Democratic unity. A lower number indicates disunity (haven't calculated the new numbers yet).

I flagged the DLC members because it clearly shows that there are a few DLCers who are "okay", but the majority of them are the worst betrayers of the party.

Speaking of which, here are how the Republicans score. These are ALL of the defections on the Republican side, according to my system.

chafee 27.7%
snowe 16.6%
deWine 16.6%
voinovich 16.6%
sununu 11.1%
colins 11.1%
craig 11.1%
burr = 11.1%
kyl 5.5%
mccain 5.5%%
martinez 5.5%
gregg 5.5%
burr 5.5%
Murkowski 5.5%
frist 5.5%
hagel 5.5%

I did not give Repukes credit for abstaining....these are all true defections, but they serve to compare the Democratic scores.

So everyone enjoy the numbers and decide who the DINOs are, if any. At least this way we can easily define what a DINO is by setting a standard, not deciding issue-by-issue.

[IsIt1984Yet]

1. I'm batting .500. But, Feingold offsets the DINO factor of Kohl.

He rawks!

[Zodiak]

2. When I can figure out how to do it

I will post a chart showing the distribution of ideology in our Senate. One can see from the numbers that 100% anti-Bush doesn;t exist in the Senate, but 100% FOR Bush is about 40 members of Congress, and they are ALL Repukes.

We cannot let them slither away from Bush just before the elections. They are 100% Bush 100% of the time, and we should remind the American people of that fact every minute up to the election this year.

[Zodiak]

59. OK...I figured it out

Wow....the Dems are all over the place, but the pukes are all in one sopt...right up Bush's rump. Please...no one forget how behind the Bush agenda our Senators have been. Thy are going to try to run away from it, but the record is clear...this is how they voted in the Congressional session when his popularity is the lowest.

[Zodiak]

112. Final calculations

Man this is sad, but I calculated the average score for the whole Congress. Remember, this is according to the Bush agenda on these 18 votes.

The average US Senator votes with Bush 85.25% of the time.

The median US Senator votes with Bush 94.5% of the time.

The average Democrat votes with Bush 46.9% of the time.

The average DLCer votes with Bush 61.75% of the time.

Well, that is enough fun for one night. Thanks to everyone.

[nannah]

128. i think unauthorized wire tapping leads to managed voting

wasn't it J edgar hoover who "managed" his world by collecting "embarassing secrets" about many people?

on edit added body to message.

[flpoljunkie]

3. You "flagged" the DLC members?

"I flagged the DLC members because it clearly shows that there are a few DLCers who are "okay", but the majority of them are the worst betrayers of the party."

[Zodiak]

5. yes I did

You would be surprised to know how few people on the DU really know who the DLC memebrs are. Most hear about some right-wing thing a Dem does and assume that person is a DLCer....Feinstein comes to mind.

This shows clearly who are the good ones and the bad ones. The bottom of the list is awfully heavy with DLC members, is it not?

[flpoljunkie]

8. Flagged but not designated in any way, like with an * or something?

Not everyone knows which Dems are DLC members.

[Zodiak]

13. ahhh....

My Excel file where I keep the scores has an asterisk by thr DLC members, but I wrote it out for this list because exporting the data from Excel isn't friendly with web formatting.

[Critters2]

19. Thanks for doing that

I honestly didn't know that one of my Senators--Durbin--is DLC.

But this confirms one thing--I wish I still lived where Harkin were representing me!

[Zodiak]

24. he's not

its corrected downthread (I know you know this, just posting this for clarity for those that do not read the whole thread)

[Iowa]

88. Great job Zodiak Ironfist!! Take a look at Bayh...

It's my understanding that he is a card carrying DLC member. He was chair at one time.

It's interesting that there are repub senators with better records than some of the DLCers. I'm not surprised. Thanks for the work.

[KoKo]

4. When you say Republican "defections" do you mean the times they

vote with Dems? :shrug: Hagel coming in that low was a surprise..

[flpoljunkie]

6. Hagel reliable conservative, only questions Bush prosecution of Iraq War.

[cascadiance]

38. He rates higher than the Dem senator from his state!

Ben Nelson has GOT to go!

[LiberalAndProud]

90. rant deleted

never mind

[Zodiak]

7. yes...that is what I mean

Remember, these are votes for bill passage, not a half-assed stand in a committee or lip service followed by capitulation. This is the number of times they stood up to Bush when it mattered, and only the issues that were partisan.

The recent budget fight almost made this list, but the Dems all voted the same way (so the score would not serve to differentiate any Dem Senators...rule of parsimony...I am a biolgist, so forgive me).

The Republican scores are an afterthought. The real purpose of my scoring system is to differentiate "good" Dems from "bush-supporting Dems".

[Mass]

9. My two senators are tied in fourth place with Durbin and Feingold

Not bad.

Thanks for the update.

[flpoljunkie]

12. And four of my favorite senators, to boot!

[cali]

10. I don't take this as the be all and end all

and although I appreciate your hard work, I think this is as arbitrary as other rating systems. At best they're snapshots. BTW, Did I miss Jeffords, or did you not score him?

[Zodiak]

17. I did not score him

Oversight on my part....I noticed his name a few time doing these scores today and went "oh crap", He'll get on here soon enough.

As far as arbitrary, I make a set of rules and follow them. Then I come to DU when big issues come up and ask people what they would like for me to do with issues like Alito. The purpose of this exercise is to see the votes, and only the votes. It is not arbitrary in as much as it is restrictive. It is the snapshjot I want to see...and I post it. It is definitely not the be all and end all, but it is a lot better than Feinstein 100% Boxer 95% from ADA.

No one here can agree that the ADA metric stands up to scrutiny if that is how those two senators are scored.

[Coexist]

11. k 'n r

[SaveElmer]

14. Unfortunately do not have a Dem Senator...

Not even a Repub defector!!!

I'd take a DINO here! WOuld still be a huge improvement!

[MH1]

25. Yeah, me too.

Some say that is what we will be getting here in PA. We'll see. But Casey will be far, far better than the weenies we currently have. And I suspect he'll at least be in the middle of the rating list, if not a little closer to the top. He surely won't be a Boxer, Kerry, or Kennedy. But this is PA, not CA or MA. Sigh.

[mdmc]

124. move to NY

the DLC state

[Mass]

15. Durbin is not DLC. You may be confusing with Dorgan who is DLC.

[Zodiak]

18. by jove

you are right...corrected.

[Critters2]

21. Hey thanks!

I'm new enough to Illinois that I didn't know to doubt that Durbin was DLC. I appreciate the correction!

[Zodiak]

23. a good reason I post

is that DUers collectively are smarter than any one person can be...I welcome corrections, and should be thanking you.

[blm]

65. Zodiak, it's one of the things I really appreciate about you and your

threads - You are a person of high integrity and will correct a mistake or try to see all sides before you judge.

It's a shame that media has turned governance into a black and white world with labels for everything, it tends to make knee-jerking fashionable on the right and the left.

Your threads are a way to stay informed and for wise Dems to maintain perspective.

[Dr.Phool]

16. My two Senators have a combined score of 27.7

When added together.

Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez.

[Zodiak]

22. I am sorry

Ben Nelson really needs to just join the Repuke party. He is doing no one any favors, regardless with whome he caucuses. The only good thing I could pull out of Nelson's record is that he stood with the Dems to try to stop the latest Bush budget. We lost that vote by only two senators.

It was an interesting exercise for a Saturday morning, and I'll be doing it again in three months. (it will be my one year anniversary for doing this).

Whoops...you said Bill Nelson. Well, he is better than cruella, at least.

[Patsy Stone]

20. Thanks for the post

I knew I had a DLC DINO and now I can see it quantified. Combined with Martinez' sycophancy, Florida's in trouble. I think, however, if a Dem governor is elected in November, and he wins against Cruella, Nelson may start voting a bit more liberally. At least I hope so.

K&R

[Zodiak]

26. Thanks to all who recommended this thread

I have never made 5 recommendations before. Makes this exercise worth doing.

[corkhead]

30. excellent analysis and further defense and explanation

K&R and appreciated.

didn't realize so many of the DLCers are as bad or worse than LIEberman

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Found her

color me surprised, bottom third, NOT

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Thank you

Back in the seventies, when it was a good liberal publication that actually opposed unnecessary wars and crooked presidents, The New Republic would score all members of the House and Senate on key votes like this in election years. It would also break out the votes of each so that TNR's readers would know exactly who voted how. Later, TNR would make its campaign recommendations. In the state of Washington, it made no recommendation when Scoop Jackson, a cold war liberal who thought the Vietnam War was just peachy, was running for re-election.

If The New Republic still had that kind of standard, one could imagine that there would be several Senate Democrats who would not be recommended for re-election.

I would add to the objections to confirming Dr. Rice as Secretary of State that she is not only inept, but a world class liar.

For the record, I have a Democratic Senator running for re-election this year who ranks just ahead of Lieberman; she's been behaving herself lately. My other Democratic Senator ranks ahead of Kerry and Kennedy.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Great resource.

I have a program called D-PAD (way old, runs under MS-DOS). It evaluates multiple choices (ie Senators) in terms of multiple citeria (ie votes). It allows weighting for different criteria (in this case votes). Everyone would probably put more/less value on each vote, depending on their personal issues. So that would change your results slightly, depending on the weighting. Maybe Excel has this weighting function built in?

Very good work, though. Interesting that Nelson scores a "0". You can't get much more pro-Republican than that. Also, it seems to put to rest any pretense that Lieberman is a progressive. I'm delighted to see Kerry/Feingold at the top of the pack.

[bvar22]

31. Great Work.

How are you determining DLC membership?

The DLC used to proudly post their membership roster, and had a "search" for members on the Front Page of their website.
These tools now appear to be missing.

I agree with you that the ADA ratings ARE misleading.
Non weighted voting records are worthless.

Keep up the good work!
:patriot:

[Zodiak]

33. Well, I made a mistake earlier upthread

So I do allow for the fact that I could be wrong about membership.

But I went off of the premise that there are 19 Democratic senators, as has been published in numerous places.

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cap_st26.html

Then I went to the DLC website and started picking off senators off of their "New Democrat of the Week" articles until I got all nineteen. When they mean "new democrat", they mean new-democrat, not new democrat.

Obama is mentioned on the DLC website, as well, but I know from being a DU member that he backed out of becoming DLC. The "DLC/DINO/how the hell are we going to stop Bush without Democrats on board?" issue is important on this website, and every time it comes up, people on both sides bring up crappy arguments that are not based on fact or voting history (Leiberman is a progressive whose only sin is the war, Feinstein is a dirty DLC-er, you don't like Clintont because is disagrees with us 5% of the time!, Kerry is a pro-corporate turncoat!). These bad arguments are frustrating and curtail any meaningful debate. I started this exercise so I could make sense of the debate for myself....once I got the numbers, I published them here in case anyone cared.

A few people cared, so I keep publishing them.

[bvar22]

39. Obama demanded...

Obama demanded that his name be taken off their public membership list. I'm not sure he has cut his ties to the Corporate Money, Agenda Subservience, and Primary Elections Control that is funnelled through the DLC.

I thought it was significant that shortly after the Obama incident, the DLC decided to "hide" their membership roster.
So they are now aware that public ties to their organization are not helpful to Democrats. They are not so PROUD anymore.

Searching for the "New-Democrat of the Week" is hit or miss in determining financial ties to this Corporate funded lobbying group (DLC).
What the hell was wrong with "Old Democrats" (FDR, LBJ, JFK)?
They presided over a Middle Class Explosion and the greatest economic expansion the World has ever seen.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[glitch]

32. Cantwell sucks. Murray slightly less so. WA State can do better. :( nt

[Zodiak]

34. I agree

Connecticut has a real problem, too. Carper and Leiberman seem to compete for who is the bigger tool.

California can do a lot better than Feinstein, as well.

[Zodiak]

35. Oh, and thanks, Skinner

The journal thing is great! I no longer have to post this list on KOS. I don;t use KOS for anything else, really.

[cascadiance]

36. I find it interesting abouot Kerry and DiFi

Senator Kerry is the highest rated DLC pol here. He also happens to probably be the wealthiest too of any of the senators here too. Could it be that he's independently wealthy allows him more courage to stand up to the copporate agenda of the DLC if they try to force certain vote recipes on him, since he perhaps feels that if necessary, he can fund his own campaign. Not sure why he associates witht hem to start with (perhaps it was to get their blessing on things like running for President, etc.)

Also noting that Dianne Feinstein is the lowest rated non-DLC Democrat. Also note that she and her husband have quite a few potentially conflict of interest ties to the corporate world themselves, which even though she doesn't necessarily get support from the DLC, she probably does make sure she helps "take care" of her family and friends' "investments". And in a state like California, she doesn't NEED to be perceived as "moderate" to win elections there with its constituency like she might in other more battleground states. My guess is that the Republicans themselves are happy to let her continue to be senator, knowing full well that if they had her challenged (either by themselves or by other Dems challenging her like Cindy Sheehan recently threatened to do), they'd force a more liberal voting record from that senate position (through either a newer Democrat replacing her or through them forcing her to be more liberal to keep her constituents' votes. Evidence of this was the mere threat of Sheehan running forcing her to backtrack on her earlier comments of "fillibustering Alito is a bad idea" and subsequently voting for the fillibuster.

The DLC probably knows that they might do more harm to her than good by hanging a DLC label on her, so they let her go the way she's going now. If the Dems really got serious about going after her slot (like they now are with Liebermann), I think we could get a better senator here in California. I REALLY do!

[karynnj]

43. Kerry can't fund his own campaign

If he were ranked based on his own wealth, he wouldn't be the wealthiest. Teresa is incredibly wealthy but as seen in 2004, she is limited to the same amount as anyone in terms of contributions.

In fact, even in the Senate, he had to report that he has accepted plane trips on Teresa's jet. If trips are for political purposes he needs to pay her the cost of a first class ticket - otherwise it's an illegal contribution. (The Boston Globe actually reported this in the list of politicians getting trips from corporations.

[cascadiance]

67. Point taken, but he can retire a lot easier than other senators

So, he still probably can fend off those that would "threaten his job" that much more, since he can retire easily on what they have now. Other senators might be more concerned about what happens if and when they were to lose their job and be more subject to arm twisting.

[karynnj]

76. He's also a Massachusetts Senator

who, if he decided to rerun as a Senator in 2008, is not going to be threathened successfully for liberal votes. He got 81% of the vote in 2002 when the Republicans couldn't find anyone willing to run against him. (so he had a LW and a libertarian opponents)

As to money, he could easily make more money in private life than as a Senator, as could most Senators. I agree that it's pretty obvious that he and Teresa will have all the money they need.

[Zodiak]

110. for the record

I like Kerry very much. He is a stand-up guy, and this list really has warmed me up to him ten-fold.

[flpoljunkie]

52. Diane Feinstein is DLC, according to the recent DU post linked below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x3027

This DU post evidently came from a dailykos link.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/14509/566

[Zodiak]

56. hrmmm....well, I sure wish the KOS link was sourced

anyone else have another source because I do want this to be accurate?

If we can find another source for her DLC membership, then she will be added. It will complete the set .

[flpoljunkie]

74. Altho link not working, here is the cached version. Feinstein DLC member.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cpXUDK0EPnYJ:www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm%3FviewAll%3D1+Diane+Feinstein+member+of+the+DLC&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari

One has to wonder why they are hiding this membership list.

[EFerrari]

78. They hide it because the DLC is not a democratic organization. nt

[Tyranny of Evil Men]

37. Not to Disagree With Rankings But...

When the only options for scoring are 10, 5 and 0 and this was done on a maximum of 18 votes?

How are you really ensuring accuracy? The amount of "5's" that can be earned in incredibly small. How many times do Senators actually abstain from voting?

Would you have score "0" points for someone back when NAFTA was passed? Clinton hailed it as one of his greatest achievements.

6 of your votes were on confirmations or confirmation issues. This seems terribly weighted for a single legislative priority. I wouldn't give confirming any nominee equal weight with major issues like tax cuts, energy policy, bankruptcy law. Seems to me those issues should have a higher weighting.

For example if * nominated someone like James Watt for Secretary of the Interior and a Senator voted against that they get a 10. However if they vote to lower taxes they get a 0. Yet they score a 10 out of 20. The weighting of one issue matters a hell of a lot more than the other.

[Zodiak]

41. Confirmations are important

Alito, Roberts, Negroponte, Condi, Chertoff....all of these buffoons have a pronounced impact on the American people. so do laws. that was the criteria I made.

I do not like amendment votes because any Senator can vote ideologically on amendments knowing that it has no hope of becoming part of the bill. The same goes for resolutions...who cares? Committee votes can be bargained, suppressed, kept in the dark. I only wanted what affected the American people directly...bills and confirmations.

It is not my fault that this has been the business of the 109th Congress. Confirmations are weighted exactly as they appear. If there were 6 controversial confirmations, then 6 it will be. The Senate determines the weight, not me. The votes that are counted twice have been chosen to be represented twice by consensus, not by my decision alone.

Alito was very important to DU...to this country. It got two votes...cloture/nomination. CAFTA actually came up for two votes, but it was also considered an important, important issue, so both votes were counted.

If you would score it differently...that is fine, we all would put our own personal tweaks if we were doing it ourselves (why don't you?...that way you know your personal metric). However, I made the rules early and I have been sticking to them. I think in the end, the general order of senators will become clear. After 18 votes in this 109th Congress and nine months of tracking these scores, the order has changed very little.

Here are my previous lists...and there is a lot more juicy arguments to read, as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Zodiak%20Ironfist


I am, of course, erroneously judging my methods by my results.

[Nutmegger]

40. Leiberman (CT) -DLC 38.9

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Zodiak]

42. Worst than most, but not as bad as some

The ones at the bottom of the list below Leiberman are seldom mentioned here. Nelson gets some negative attention here, and perhaps Landrieu is starting to get a bad name, but what about Carper, Lincoln, Conrad?

These low=profile Senators are not the cult of peronality that Di-Fi and Leiberman are...they are more vulnerable to a real Democrat of character and charisma in the primary. But that is only a hypothesis of mine.

[radio4progressives]

44. Thanks for posting this.. (question)

i'm a little confused on the second grouping, i don't understand the scoring system, even though you tried to explain it, i'm just not getting it..

Is the percentage essentially representing the totality of the number of Dems who voted in favor of the issues/confirmations?

if so, please explain the numbers to the right of the decimal.. sorry for not getting this, i never studied statistics..

[Zodiak]

46. Sorry about that confusion

The number to the right of the decimel is just another level of precision. 67.7 means 67.7%

When I list the issues, I give a democratic unity index. that is the number that represents how many Dems united on that particular issue. The higher that number is, the more unity. I think I scored those from one to ten., but I should convert those to percentages, as well (to the nearest tenth of a percent).

I will make those adjustments next time I post these numbers...both will be on the same scale and I will include the "%" symbol after every number to avoid confusion.

Thanks for asking...it improves my reporting methods to be more clear.

[ruggerson]

45. So Hillary is more progressive than Patty Murray

Fascinating.

And here I thought Hillary was a Republican, based on what I've read here.

;-)

Thanks for the great work!

[Zodiak]

48. That is what the score is for

It shoots down a lot of knee-jerk arguments I've seen.

[Neil Lisst]

47. senators from conservative states have voting records to prove it

It's the states and their constituencies which result in the votes you have used. It's not surprising that Dems from Louisiana and Nebraska vote the way their constituents do.

It's a representative democracy, and expecting a senator from Arkansas to vote the same as one from Massachusetts is unrealistic.

There are a few exceptions, but senators overwhelmingly vote their constituencies on hot button issues.

[Zodiak]

49. I draw my own conclusions

As you should draw your own. But this post isn't about me and my beliefs...it is about Democrats and how much like Democrats that our Democrats vote. Nothing more. And it is clearly stated that this is the metric which I wished to measure. I measured it according to the criteria posted here, and I did it in good faith.

I personally draw the line at 50% and stanchly believe that populist would do better in the South than most people here give Southerners credit for, but that is me. I included the states with the senator, so you can make red state excuses for the ones you wish to make based on the score and the state, if you wish. Whatever floats your boat.

If you would like to add some number to conservative senators because they come from a red state, then take my numbers and do so. That is not how I score them, so I am not about to start.

You can even call it the Neil Lisst method.

And my "preferences" are posted here. Do you disagree with any of them? You for CAFTA? You for Condi? You for the PATRIOT Act? How about Alito...should a Dem be voting for Alito? I know that about 80% of DU has the exact same criteria as I do for how they want a Dem to vote (many polls on DU say the same), so that is the criteria I used. However, if you disagree with what a progressive Democrat would vote for for any of these issues, feel free to post them and why I am wrong.

That's why I listed the issues in the first place. I didn;t want this to be some shadowy claculation the formula for which only I am privy to.

on edit: you edited your post...sorry if my response does not reflect your post as it reads now

[Neil Lisst]

55. I don't quarrel with your methodology or its soundness.

I think you did a good job of setting out some key issues, designed to give a broad brush view of what these senators are doing.

You pointed out the DLC connection to the half of the Democrats who make up the bottom half of your chart. This chart proves what we already know - that the DLC member tends to represent constituencies which are more conservative than the average DU member.

My quarrel with all analyses which attempt to malign senators based upon their voting is that it ignores (1) the point in his or her career the pol is at now, (2) the point in their 6 year term the senator is at when a vote is taken, (3) the degree to which the senator is vulnerable at the time of the vote, (4) the demands or needs or that senator's constituents.

I favor representative democracy, and I don't think it's realistic to expect Landreiu and Kerry to have similar voting records. They represent their constituencies, and that is their obligation.

I don't understand why so Democrats take such glee in finding half the party "too Republican." We have 44 votes, and half of those are "too Republican" for many Dems. That's tragic.

[LiberalAndProud]

99. You're correct, of course,

it's just that I don't know any Democrats who actually voted for Ben Nelson. He does represent the majority here, but I think he runs on the wrong ticket.

[Gronk Groks]

50. Fascinating...Alway thought Lieberman was the ultimate DINO...

Yet he is 13th from the bottom.

Reid (NV) is 21st from the top, in the middle of the pack, yet he is Minority Leader. You would think that he should be LEADING the Dems or at least be toward the top.

Was wondering how the Dems got into the position they are now in. The picture seems to be taking shape...and it is not comforting.

[Zodiak]

51. It also shows

how Harkin has been behind the progressives consistently for this entire Congress.

Strange how DU hasn;t discussed HArkin that much except recently when he co-sponsored Feingold's resolution to Censure Bush (which sucks because it is a resolution and I cannot score it when it comes up, unless, fo course I ask and LOT of DUers (like 80%) acgree it should be included).

[otohara]

53. Salazar - Worse Than I Thought

Wow, I don't know if I can vote for him again.

[flpoljunkie]

54. Anyone else notice that DLC has NO Senate membership on their website.

Have searched their website extensively, and can find no list of Senate membership. Are they hiding?

In this link, they mentioned they have 20 members, but do not list them.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=110

[LittleClarkie]

58. Somebody around here has a link to the old list

but the links on the site, when you finally find them, are broken.

I'm wondering if it's being revised. It USED to be there, in directory form.

Maybe folks were quiting them, and they didn't want people to see that.

[flpoljunkie]

73. Link has been inoperative for weeks.

[flpoljunkie]

75. However, here is the google cached copy of DLC members. Feinstein member.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cpXUDK0EPnYJ:www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm%3FviewAll%3D1+Diane+Feinstein+member+of+the+DLC&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari

[LittleClarkie]

57. Isn't Biden also DLC?

You don't have him marked.

I respect that you present your system as being pretty much your take, explaining how you got there and showing your work. I've seen charts before that seemed say "Here, let me do your thinking for you and make things easy."

Very interesting. Thanks for putting the work in.

[JohnKleeb]

60. Hes not DLC, its a misconception that he is

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

[Zodiak]

61. thanks for the link

Feinstein is now listed as DLC on my excel file.

Boy, transcribing the Wikipedia file into Excel and adding menendez (whom I looked up today), I have my 19 senators, but now this looks worse. Take a look (listed in the same order as the OP, asterisks are DLC)

harkin (IO)
Lautenberg (NJ)
boxer (CA)
Kerry (MA)*
Kennedy (MA)
Feingold (WI)
durbin (IL)
sarbanes (MD)
Reed (RI)
Mikulski (MD)
Levin (MI)
Akaka (haw)
obama (IL)
Wyden (OR)
Leahy (VT)
dodd (conn)
dayton (MN)
biden (DE)
bayh (IN)*
Shumer (NY)
reid (NV)
inouye (haw)
Clinton (NY)*
Stabenow (MI)
Murray (WA)
Dorgan (ND)*
Byrd (WV)
menendez (NJ)*
Rockefeller (WV)
Kohl (WI)*
feinstein (CA)*
leiberman (con)*
Cantwell (WA)*
Bingaman (NM)
baucus (MN)*
Johnson (SD)*
Conrad (ND)*
carper (DE)*
salazar (CO)*
nelson (FL)*
lincoln(ark)*
pryor (ark)*
landrieu (LA)*
nelson (NE)*

Also, Salazar is DLC, according to the DLC website

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253009&kaid=103&subid=111

[JohnKleeb]

62. I had a list of our RMMs in both houses of Congress

it was on my other computer, had it show people that hte DLC wasnt as powerful as they thought it was. I really don't hate or love the DLC, think their approach is misguided but they have given my state two great governors: Warner and Kaine, and I think that means more than some organization. Virginia was in economic trouble after that moron Gilmore tried to get rid of the car tax, Warner got elected by appealing to all Virginians needs and things have gotten better.

[Clark2008]

66. DId he leave the DLC?

He was once the chairman.

From 2001 to 2005, Bayh served as Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the longest term of any DLC chair (previous DLC Chairmen included Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman). He is also a member of the Senate Centrist Coalition and helped establish the New Democrat Coalition. Bayh serves on the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy.

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

[JohnKleeb]

70. Joe Biden not Evan Bayh

Biden is one a lot of people label here as DLC because he's hawkish I think. I am not his biggest fan but I think he's done some good things over the years like advocate for the rights of the disabled.

[Clark2008]

85. Did you read the link?

It wasn't Joe Biden I linked to - it was Evan Bayh. And I have a pic below where he was chair of the DLC.

Biden's not DLC. I knew that.

[JohnKleeb]

86. Sorry I thought we had confirmed that Bayh was in fact DLC

[Zodiak]

104. I have him down as such

I'm using the wikipedia list at this point, with Menendez and Salazar added.

[president4aday]

91. Joe Biden's colleague from DE, Tom Carper is DLC....

Tom's got an abysmal rating as befits a member of that esteemed club.

Carper is up for re-election this year versus Jan "Torture" Ting.

What a choice :puke:

[Clark2008]

63. Bayh's DLC, isn't he?

I thought he was even the "poster boy" for them (having appeared in several online ads).

Or did he leave?

On edit: As a matter of fact, he was once the DLC chair:



Can you put a "DLC" next to his name? Thanks! (He's not my senator. I just noticed that in your post. My senators are the icky sicky Frist and his tag-along Alexander (R-Plaid Shirt). )

[wyldwolf]

64. Yet Another Left-Based Rating System for Democrats' Performance

The second or third such system I've seen on Democratic Underground and, in my view, flawed like the others and designed to show a pre-conceived outcome.

First, one has to agree with the creator of the "system" that the issues are indeed "controversial" and that voting one way or another is "a betrayal of the party." In some eyes, voting the opposite of what the system's creator would like might constitute a betrayal.

Also, the systems seemed tailored to give the more moderate Democrats a low score, thereby "proving" that they have "betrayed the party."

Also, we have to agree with the creators of these systems what "total Democratic unity" means. Remember, Senators represent the people of their states. A Senator from Colorado is not in the least concerned about what the left in a Blue State defines as "democratic principles."

Finally, I disagree with the creator of THIS particular system when he says, that ADA ratings are rather arbitrary and rarely concern issues that affect the American people directly.

Here are the issues the ADA ranked with in 2005:

Minimum Wage increase

Bankruptcy Overhaul/Violent Protesters

Social Security

Medicaid Cuts

Prescription Drug Prices

Education Funding

"Mexico City" Policy : to repeal the "Mexico City" policy which bars U.S. aid to international family planning organizations that perform or promote abortions, even if they use their own funds to do so.

more...

http://www.adaction.org/2005senatedescrip.htm

Issues that definitely effect the American people on personal level much more so than who the president nominated for this or that.

And in the final analysis, most Democrats do much better on real issues facing Americans than left leaning causes.

http://www.adaction.org/2005SenateVRweb.htm

I'm not knocking the OP or anyone who creates a system to personally measure how Democrats are performing. But it does appear to me that these systems are created with a pre-conceived goal in mind.

On Edit:

Have to agree with Neil Lisst in the referenced thread who states "It's not surprising that Dems from Louisiana and Nebraska vote the way their constituents do.

It's a representative democracy, and expecting a senator from Arkansas to vote the same as one from Massachusetts is unrealistic.

There are a few exceptions, but senators overwhelmingly vote their constituencies on hot button issues... You pointed out the DLC connection to the half of the Democrats who make up the bottom half of your chart. This chart proves what we already know - that the DLC member tends to represent constituencies which are more conservative than the average DU member.

My quarrel with all analyses which attempt to malign senators based upon their voting is that it ignores (1) the point in his or her career the pol is at now, (2) the point in their 6 year term the senator is at when a vote is taken, (3) the degree to which the senator is vulnerable at the time of the vote, (4) the demands or needs or that senator's constituents.

I favor representative democracy, and I don't think it's realistic to expect Landreiu and Kerry to have similar voting records. They represent their constituencies, and that is their obligation.

I don't understand why so Democrats take such glee in finding half the party "too Republican." We have 44 votes, and half of those are "too Republican" for many Dems. That's tragic."

[Zodiak]

69. Did minimum wage come up for bill passage?

No? Well...I cannot score it.

And I has no preconcieved ideas about what I would fine. I set the criteria and scored it.

And yes, I scored it according to the Bush agenda...the agenda we have all ostensibly been fighting. These are the bills and confirmations that came up, and they were scored.

Sure, ADA picks votes that concern issues that Americans care about, but none were bill passages...none were appointments to positions of power that immediately exercise the Bush agenda on the American people.

Your points are well-taken, but I had no agenda. I admit being a leftie, but since when is that a crime?

I also do consider the source.

[wyldwolf]

71. I believe so

S 256. Minimum Wage. Kennedy (D-MA) amendment to raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over 26 months. Rejected 46-49. March 7, 2005.

[JohnKleeb]

72. Thats right Kennedy has a bill on it

Surprised that there were 5 who didnt vote. Too bad that didn't pass, we havent had a min wage hike since 96 I think it was.

[Zodiak]

98. it is an amendment

and as much as I like Kennedy and what he does, I do not count amendments.

Who were the five that voted against it? I bet they were some of the ones on the bottom of my list.

These numbers, like I stated before, have remained fairly consistent for nine months.

S 256 is this bill:

S.256
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

I'm glad that Kennedy tried to attach an amendment on the bill, but, in my opinion, the part that actually affected the American people is when this monstrosity passed in the first place, and it was scored.

I can't please everyone, nor should I try.

[EFerrari]

79. I agree. 22 DINO votes IS tragic. Just like having a DINO

representing left DEMOCRATIC leaning California is also tragic and should produce fricken glee in no thinking progressive.

[LittleClarkie]

116. Eh, I can live with it. He makes it clear

he's operating from his point of view, and we can take it or leave it. There isn't the absolutism we got from the Patrick Henry Dem Club. That used to make my teeth itch.

[wyldwolf]

118. Like I said

First, one has to agree with the creator of the "system" that the issues are indeed "controversial" and that voting one way or another is "a betrayal of the party." In some eyes, voting the opposite of what the system's creator would like might constitute a betrayal... Also, we have to agree with the creators of these systems what "total Democratic unity" means... I'm not knocking the OP or anyone who creates a system to personally measure how Democrats are performing.

But this and the Patrick Henry Mousketeer lunacy you mentioned does seemed designed to have a pre-conceived outcome.

[LiberalFighter]

68. How do you define abstaining?

Is it anyone not voting or they were present and did not vote? I don't know if there were any circumstances where the member was actually absent and didn't vote. If there were then I wouldn't classify it as abstaining.

Also, I wouldn't score a member with extra points just because they voted against Bush. IMO it should be that the issue was right or wrong. A separate system showing the percentage of times they voted bush's way or against him might be the way to go.

The graph showing that repugs vote pretty much lockstep should be publicize more and verbalizing over and over that repugs will vote with bush even when he is wrong (almost all the time).

[AtomicKitten]

77. DINO?

It takes a hell of lot of audacity to make that claim, and there is plenty of that to be had here at DU.
A thinking person would realize that Democrats come in all flavors, but they are ALL Democrats.
It's unfortunate with an upcoming election there are those that continue to try to divide the party. Not too bright.

[EFerrari]

80. Too bad there is so much audacity at DU and so little

on Capitol Hill.

Maybe you object with reason to the term "DINO". But, keeping track of how well representatives actually REPRESENT, isn't necessarily divisive. It could be called prudent. It could tell you who needs to be herded back to their base. It could do a number of positive things.

[AtomicKitten]

81. they represent their constituents

... not the community at DU.

If interpreted properly, their voting record appropriately reflects their constituency, and that's what democracy is all about.

[EFerrari]

84. Whoops! I forgot! Corporations

are people!

[AtomicKitten]

87. wooooops! You forgot there are moderate Democrats!

It is the epitome of narcissism/ignorance to try to impose your politics on other Democrats, here or in other areas of the country.

Moderate Democrats will elect moderate representatives. You may turn your nose up at their voting records, but they are representing their constituents, not you.

[EFerrari]

89. First, I'm not clear why you would want to begin a post

with a personal attack.

Second, I'm not "imposing" anything on anyone.

Third, moderates believe we should get the hell out of Iraq and that Bush is an incompetant president. There is a consensus on this, in case you haven't noticed.

Fourth, I am one of Dianne Feinstein's constitutents and no, she doesn't represent me or most of the state. She represents the defense contracting lobby. She does this very very well.

Fifth, and this is a beaut: "You may turn your nose up at their voting records, but they are representing their constituents, not you." So much for inclusiveness.

Don't even take me there. You need a plunger to read Bush's polls but I'm a screaming leftiist?

By the same measure, so is most of the country.

Nice try.

lol

[AtomicKitten]

92. you're lack of understanding helps puts the "loony" in loony left

words to look up:

democracy
representative government
majority rule
compromise

[Zodiak]

101. it is my experience that...

argument is not won by those who can throw more ridicule around.

[AtomicKitten]

102. Nor is it won by those throwing the word DINO around.

[Zodiak]

106. common word on DU...and an issue raised many times

I'm sorry it offends you.

How about "Democrat who fails to caucus with their fellow Democrats when it really counts" or "maverick Democrats"...whatever you want to call them.

I never defined it...only give the metric and invite others to define it for themselves. IF you have an objection, it is duly noted. If you have insults, then that is duly noted, as well.

[Iowa]

95. sfexpat2000, good posts...

Your points are on target.

[EFerrari]

121. I seldom post in GD:P because I don't like upsetting DUers.

And, at some point, we have to hang on to the heart of the progressive movement, to hang on to liberal values. And that could be done without fraternal bloodshed, lol.

[Iowa]

131. Yeah, and I sometimes wonder...

who is really behind some of the more right leaning posts here. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the DLC, corporate lackey, Dem incumbents had staff posting here in an effort to demonize terms like DINO - working to provide cover for all the treachery. I could see why they'd want to silence criticism. One never knows who is on the other side of the screen; especially the ones who are the most insulting, condescending, and out to create the most carnage. They seem to have far more invested in this than the average joe who's just looking to discuss politics with like minded people.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for not poking it with a stick, so I'll shut-up now. :popcorn:

[EFerrari]

133. The deal is to be able to talk.

That's all it is.

I'll shut up now, too.

lol

[ruggerson]

93. I have a dog named Maytag

does that count?

[EFerrari]

119. I had a dog named "Hoover". Not after the president.

:toast:

[Iowa]

94. No they don't represent their constituents...

They have failed to do that - repeatedly. And that's exactly why we're in this terrible mess.

--Slashing health care for disabled citizens to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is not representing their constituents.
--Greasing the skids for a fascist like Alito is not representing their constituents.
--Destroying the middle class is not representing their constituents.
--and on and on and on...

If their constituents are too frickin' dumb, or too busy raising kids, or too overwhelmed working two or three jobs, or whatever, to delve into the intricacies of the legislative agenda and learn how it might impact them...

Look - many of these "constituents" you reference get their information from 30 second ads, peers who are as clueless as they are, bumper stickers, govt. propaganda, and other biased sources that exist solely to manipulate them. Hell - it takes some expertise to FIND information that isn't based on lies and half-truths. The last thing they need is some self-serving, sleazebag senator willing to prey upon their ignorance - willing to stick it to them because they aren't paying attention.

I used to worked with people with severe disabilities (most were on SSI/Medicaid). Many were mentally retarded, mentally ill, had learning disabilities, HS drop-outs, etc. I was required to offer voter registration at application. I kept track for awhile, and roughly 90% of that group registered republican! It was suicidal, yet they did it anyway. Why? Because the republicans did a better job of manipulating the public than our guys. Do you think these disabled people WANTED what they're going to get? Do you think politicians provide an honest representation of the issues ("No Child Left Behind", "Patriot Act"...)? There are a lot of people out there who need a principled guy like Tom Harkin of Iowa - a guy from a conservative state who does the right thing for his constituents whether they "get it" or not. Now THAT is representative democracy.

You don't help someone jump off a bridge just because they're standing on the railing. You do the right thing. And you do what you think is right every day - even if it costs you. Tom Harkin does that. There are no excuses for those who don't.

[AtomicKitten]

97. Yes, they are elected by their constituents and represent them.

The arrogance of the "enlightened" ones is breathtaking. How dare you seek to impose you beliefs on them regardless of how right you think you are? By all means pack your bags and go to places where you think people are too dumb to vote. Knock yourself out during the campaign. But don't forget you can't pull the lever for them. That's still their right, privilege, and duty as citizens regardless of how uninformed (different point of view perhaps?) you think they are.

Jeez, I am blown away by the presumptuousness of some here at DU.

On edit: I have worked in swing states during elections, but at least I have respect for the people there.

[Iowa]

117. Where to begin...

First, I know what you're saying and I used to think that way myself. But then I had a long life working in the trenches with years of exposure to all the frailties and realities of the human condition. And not just superficial contacts - it was up-close-and-personal - I've seen it all. I've got news for you. The world isn't a level playing field. It's made up of winners and losers, hunters and prey, weak and powerful, givers and takers, helpers and exploiters, rich and poor, connected and disenfranchised, and everything in between. Those of us who happen to land in a position that will impact the lives of others have an obligation to try to make the world a better place, even if it involves saving someone from falling on his sword. That isn't "arrogance" or lack of "respect". It's doing what I'd want someone to do for me if the roles were reversed. You're all puffed up with righteous indignation about how that's "presumptuousness" and disrespectful - so you tell me how depriving disabled people of health care and the basic necessities of life is the "respectful" thing for a Dem in a red state to do. That isn't respect. It's excuse making for corporate shills.

Next, if you want to talk about "presumptuous", let's discuss your assumption that it's possible for any politician to know what the majority of his constituents want at any point in time. Sentiments change like the wind. Have you seen the map floating around here today? Red has changed to blue in a blink. Yet you're very quick to defend DINOs in red states based upon outdated sentiments that were probably erroneous to begin with. You'd have us believe that they're just doing what they're told, and all that nonsense. So how do you explain Tom Harkin? Do you fault him for going against his constituents? "The arrogance of the enlightened ones (like Tom Harkin) is breathtaking", isn't it? How dare he seek to impose his beliefs on them regardless of how right he thinks he is!" Is that right? I'll bet you're "blown away by the presumptuousness..." of Tom Harkin. Aren't you? Now Chuck Grassley, Iowa's other senator - there's a man who understands representative democracy! Right? Pfft.

Next... Nobody here is seeking to "impose beliefs on" anyone. Everyone has the right to vote or think however they want. Where are you getting that nonsense? The point is, if I'm the guy they elect, I won't expect every nursing home resident, every single mom with 2 jobs, every (fill-in-the-blank) to study every piece of legislation, examine the potential impact on them (and future generations), and tell me how to vote. That type of mindless passivity would constitute gross incompetence in a rep. There are reasons we don't hold referendums on everything. That's not how the system works, or how it's supposed to work.

And finally, what you're proposing would be just great for the corps who hire full-time lobbyists to look out for their interests, launch mega advertising campaigns, and control the media - all in an effort to manipulate the electorate to buy into whatever it is they want. Why do you think there are so many bumbling turds elected to high offices? Why do you think the US is in Iraq? Why do you think the idiot son is in the WH? I'll tell you why... because of marketing, lies, and manipulation. It works. You're suggesting our Dem senators should just hold a referendum via last week's polling data and vote accordingly. You're forgetting about the little guy who doesn't have the time to stay on top of it all, the ability to hire someone to do it for him, the resources to search out the truth, or the money to influence opinion his way.

[Zodiak]

100. yes, I am used to being accused of bias

when I post these numbers. Some guy on the Kos called me every name under the sun last December. I really did not go into this with an "Agenda"...I really didn't know where all of the Senators stodd other than the issue du jour. When I scored them according to how I like (and of course I admit that, although I seem to have a lot of company), then this is how the Senators stack. Different people accept different levels of "betrayal"...for me, less than 50% is not acceptable, and that Senator should come under pressure.

I really do not care whether anyone will try to name-call me into not doing this exercise. In my field, skeptics and doubting-thomases abound.

It is just a number system that, to me, cuts through a lot of B.S. The argument that these Dems represent Southerners accurately does not ring true with me. Southerners know better, and will vote for a real Democrat (especially a populist) when they see one. The thing is...they have to see one. Populists do not agree with progressives 100% of the time, but they would agree a whole lot more with progrssives than Ben Nelson.

[AtomicKitten]

103. it isn't your numbers, it's the faulty interpretation of them

.... and using such a loaded (and ignorant) word as DINO.

[Zodiak]

108. your objection is noted.

and this is an exercise to break ignorance. I think I will let everyone else interpret the numbers for themselves, regardless of what motivations you attribute to me.

[EFerrari]

120. What you are doing is valuable, imo, because in dealing with

the screaming Rightwingery, the left is being hauled to the right.

It's a reality check, a good one. :)

[mtnsnake]

83. Hear hear!

What you said, Kitten!

[mtnsnake]

82. Do you take into account all the "missed" votes by certain senators

who seem to abstain from voting quite often?

[Zodiak]

96. it is clearly stated...if they are "not voting", they get 5

and it happened about 10-15 times.

[mtnsnake]

125. Thanks

I missed it the first time.

[Ksec]

105. great post

I dont have any Dem senators (Ohio) but at least I have two decent scoring repukes. (dewine, voinovich)

[Zodiak]

109. I am a transplanted Texan

for a short while longer...I live in Ohio, now, so I feel your pain.

I thought when I moved here I was getting away from a corrupt Republican state government (Bush made it a mess)...little did I know I was coming to the land of Howdy Doody Taft.

[NativeTexan]

107. I just wish I had a Dem ANYTHING to COMPLAIN about!!

Maybe soon....maybe.....

[OKNancy]

127. Bingo

Let's see- Tom Coburn or Mary Landrieu? Jim Inhofe or Patty Murray?
I'd take a DINO in a New York minute :-)

[NativeTexan]

130. Kay Bailey Hutchinson or John Cornyn?....Geez....

[ArkySue]

111. Both of my Senators are DINOs

Nothing I didn't know already....ugh!

[Wilms]

113. K&R n/t

[guidod]

114. At least I have Boxer,

I would love to see Dinofeinstein go.

[pat_k]

115. Rating for Menendez not indicative. . .

. . . He hasn't been there long enough. I would have been interested in seeing what Corzine would have been rated. I'm guessing he would be close to Lautenberg. Hopefully, Menendez will be heading that way.

[duhneece]

122. Bingaman voted "NO" to the Iraq War Resolution

And that means too much to me to disregard. Guess I'll just have to add a few points to the score he earned from you. Please know that I do appreciate the work you did, however.

[mdmc]

123. what does haw mean?

:kick:

[OKNancy]

126. According to your chart, all but a handful of Democrats

are still better the the vast majority of Republicans.
Even the creep Nelson from Nebraska helps us gain a majority in 2006.
Does anyone seriously think that Nebraska will vote for a "Boxer"?

[Zodiak]

129. no one has suggested it

so there is no point arguing against a point no one made.

[AX10]

132. Though he has made a few votes in the wrong direction...

I still am a fan of Chris Dodd. He is my Senator.