How do your Senators rate? Here is an objective look at their record.

[genius]

This is a chart of their major votes of 2005.

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

Bet some of the scores will go up and some will go down after the Gonzales vote.

[jpgray]

1. That you see this as objective is incredibly disturbing. (nt)

[genius]

2. It is a chart of their votes. The votes speak for themselves.

[jpgray]

13. No it isn't

It's a chart of exactly three votes, subjectively chosen by the creator of the page. This person has attached a subjective rating system to these votes, and the scoring makes Bayh come out as a "better" Senator than Byrd. That's not only subjective, it's fucking moronic. Do you know what objective means?

[Albert Einstein]

16. You don't think the votes on the election, Rice and Gonzales are important

I think most Americans would disagree with you.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. He is saying that there are many OTHER important votes to consider

Sorry, but the lone Senator who voted against the USA Patriot Act is no coward as this scorecard portrays him as, and he surely does not rank worse on holding this administration accountable than Evan Bayh.

[Albert Einstein]

20. This is a chart of 2005. The year has just started. 2001 is past.

Do you want them to judge people based on their past voting record rather than their current one? Encourage your Senator to vote the right way as the year continues if you want them to have the best record.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Sorry but Senators are elected for 6 year terms and many serve multiple

I refuse to judge them on a span of one year.

[Albert Einstein]

23. Then look at charts for other years.Don't put down charts of current votes

Next time they run for office we should not judge them on all years but 2005. Why do you want no chart for this year?

[jpgray]

24. Because this chart is idiotic

It has three ratings: Strike, Home Run, and AWOL. Forgetting that the chart-maker was too daft to properly sustain a metaphor, having a -7.5 rating for missing a vote is idiocy. Our Congress is a majority rules system--if we have enough votes to spare and a senator could be better used elsewhere (such as Kerry during the campaign this past year), it is BETTER to have the senator miss the vote than to have him or her waste time in empty ceremony simply to satisfy the whims of a halfwitted and logically bankrupt internet chart.

[Albert Einstein]

25. If you don't like your Senator's record, don't blame the record.

If a Senator fails to be there when it is important, he should be held accountable. It may not be as bad as voting the wrong way but it is bad. Dennis Kucinich only missed one vote and that was because they held it off schedule while he was at a debate. He believes that he was elected to do a job. Perhaps if Senators are called on their missed votes, they'll be there when it is important.

[jpgray]

26. That cedes control of a senator's schedule to the majority party

Frist can simply call a vote on a controversial issue whenever he wishes, sending campaigning Democrats back to the Capitol. Remember he did this a few times to Kerry, calling the unemployment benefits vote and then cancelling it so Kerry wasted entire days travelling back and forth--not getting to vote, and not getting to campaign either. Do you see how stupid it is to make a blanket condemnation of missed votes?

[Albert Einstein]

28. Dennis Kucinich has been in the minority party for years. He handles it.

Maybe your Senator should go to him for advice.

[Albert Einstein]

18. If you don't like the way people vote, tell them to do better.

Byrd's a great Senator. I'm sure his votes will improve as time goes on. He actually has one of the better scores on the chart. The PHDC was the group that picked Byrd and not Bayh for their Senator of the Year last year so I'm sure they like Byrd better. There is minimal difference in the chart between Byrd and Bahy currently. One of the two didn't vote on January 6th. The other one voted against Boxer.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Depending on how far to one side you're standing

things that would be distorted appear quite normal. Such it the life of a wing nut.

[Albert Einstein]

12. A vote is a vote. Votes speak the truth. They can't be slanted.

The problem with charts like this is that it is hard to lie and spin when the truth is all in the chart. This is also just the start of the year. It will be interesting to see how this chart changes based on upcoming votes.

[LittleClarkie]

29. I could do without the editorializing on the chart though

It's not hard to spin and distort when you use inflamatory language to label the votes and explanitory notes like "here's the day they rolled over and didn't stand up for democracy."

Just show me the vote and let me draw my own conclusions. I don't need to be told what to think about the votes. I can do that for myself.

This is not an objective chart.

[Constitution]

30. You made up that quote, didn't you. It's not on the chart.

It doesn't even match the explanation of topics voted on.
That's not on the chart. The chart has three possible types of votes.
Strike - where they voted with the Republicans
Home Run - where they voted against the Republicans
AWOL- where they did not vote

[LittleClarkie]

33. I have a photographic memory, but sadly, no film

Yeah, I paraphrased. Hence saying the editorializing was "like" the phrase I gave. Here's the key to the chart's ranking system, and the reason for my comments for the most part. I bolded the bit closest to what I said:

Home Run (H Run): This Senator took a stand for the American people. +10 points

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
Total: The accumulated points to date on major votes/consents.

Votes/ Consents counted to date:

1/06/05: This was the opportunity for Senators to stand up for democracy and the honest elections

1/26/05: This was the vote on confirmation of Condoleezza Rice, the woman largely responsible for 9/11 and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in unnecessary wars.

2/01/05: This was the day where all Senators were part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of a lawless torturer (Alberto Gonzales) as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General)

[genius]

34. But it's not true. I prefer accuracy..The site was careful with its words

The truth of the matter is that this site was put up by Democrats. Democrats have been calling and faxing their senators on all these votes. The scores are clearly in line with the calls and faxes the senators have been receiving from Democrats asking them to do the right thing. Would you rather they gave points to people who voted against Barbara on Jan 6th and to people who voted to confirm Condi? I'm sure there are some Republican groups that have charts doing just that. The descriptions of the votes in this chart is totally in accord with what most of the people at du were telling their senators when they tried to get them to vote correctly. The votes were objectively noted. They were what the people voted.

[LittleClarkie]

36. I prefer Project Vote Smart

when I want to find out how someone voted.

That is an objective site for information on how someone votes. They don't tell me when they think someone was "AWOL". They don't tell me who they think a vote harms. They just tell me how people voted.

The site may be perfectly accurate, but still the wording is emotionally charged. It takes a side. It decides for us in scoring and wordage what we should think of these Senators for their votes, however accurately it may tell us how they voted. I prefer not to be lead by the nose.

"Objective" is not an accurate assessment. Therefore the evidence shows that you do not prefer accuracy. You prefer bias. So go ahead and prefer bias. I prefer http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm .

[Albert Einstein]

3. Great chart. Their positions are clear and in black and white.

Good job. They can't lie there way around their votes.

[ZombieNixon]

4. Oh, please.

Three votes is not enough to plot a solid trend as any mathematician will tell you.

[Albert Einstein]

6. Clearly, the new votes will be added as they come in.

Notice the blank spaces. This is a good site to list as a favorite to quickly check how people voted.

[ZombieNixon]

9. Yes, it's a handy place to check votes, but

when John Kyl has a higher score than Barack Obama, something's wrong with the math. Let them get a healthy chunk of a session under their belts before they start getting "scored." I love Barbara Boxer the death, and I'd give her a +30, but if you're going to score them now, there are many other Dem senators that deserve positive scores.

[Albert Einstein]

14. Obama voted against Barbara on January 6th.

Kyl did not vote. Both voted for Rice. Their scores so far are close. They both had some bad days. The Gonzales vote is coming up and Obama has a chance to prove himself. This is why charts like this are important. If you don't like Obama's record, ask him to improve it.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Many of these men and women have made very good and important votes

In the past. This scorecard does not consider them.

[Albert Einstein]

22. This is a chart of 2005. I guess they'll have to do well this year.

Every Democrat in Congress has done great things in the past. I, for one, want to know what they are doing now. Have they defected to Bush? Are they holding firm and standing up for us? Where are they at now? Charts like this allow us to watch them. If they know they are being watched, I bet they'll do better.

[Albert Einstein]

5. It also shows how bad the Republicans are.

I suspect anyone who doesn't like it, wants the Republican votes glorified.

[laruemtt]

7. sheesh, byrd's one of the better ones at

-10???? wtf are we paying them for?!

[Albert Einstein]

8. He's one of the ones planning to vote against Gonzales

So his score will probably go up then.

[independentchristian]

11. Richard Burr is the biggest crook in Washington, DC!!!

"Yeah, I voted with the President 90% of the time, hee, hee, that's because he right 90% of the time, hee, hee."

North Carolina wanted another Jesse Helms, they got worse.

Where Helms may have favored "one segment" of the population, Richard Burr doesn't favor either segment of the population. The guy is a sold out, corporate thug.

But he "looks" like a Senator.

I can't stand the guy.

[SoCalifer]

15. I Love L.A.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) +10

[Albert Einstein]

27. The reaction is funny. I'm glad I'm from California. My Senator is great.

Watching people attack a chart of votes because their Senator didn't show up or voted the wrong way is really interesting. Though the the worst may be the best and visa versa by the end of the year, it's funny watching the people try to attack the messenger rather than their Senator who messed up.

[Constitution]

31. People are making up reasons not to like the recs of their senators' votes

Did Feingold's people not know that he voted for Rice? Did they think he voted with Boxer on 1/6? Or are we now supposed to keep silent about who voted which way? We don't want to know if our senators messed up.

[LittleClarkie]

35. And God knows we need to be told EXACTLY how we should feel about it

Great. Lefty sheeple.

[Constitution]

32. Thank you. This will help us make our leaders accountable.

If they blow it, we'll know.

[mr715]

37. A few comments

How do your Senators rate?

Well. Lets examine this.

The chart is not objective. It is not of their record. It is not of major votes.

I'll explore this further.

A) It is clearly coming from a person that thinks that the vote to certify the elections was to be contested. I disagree and while I admire Barbara Boxer's actions and her condemnation of the Bush admin, I think her tactics were risky for the party. She is known as an attack dog, and just won a resounding re-election, so she was free to appear partisan. The Senate does not overturn the electoral college. In this case, there was no WAY it could happen given the political climate.

B) The Condi Rice / Gonzales thing. No, Condi Rice should not have been confirmed. Neither should Gonzales. However appointments to executive cabinet do not a major vote make. They are largely pro forma and I can't think of a single cabinet secretary in the last 50 years that received a solid dissent besides Ashcroft. In general, Senators give to the executive the cabinet he wants. Because they are an extention of HIS will and have no intrinsic power unless he gives it to them.

The rankings are arbitrary. Missing a vote isnt a bad thing. Bad attendence because of a campaign is one thing. Voting "Here" when you do not want to take a stand is another.

For all intents and purposes, a vote of "Here" is a vote of "No" when talking about Condi Rice. A vote of "Here" is a vote of "Yes" when voting to certify the election.

Its a complex game, and boiling it down to "Yea" good and "Nay" bad loses much of the complexity of the American political system.

This is neither objective, nor a record of positions on major votes. It is a cherrypicking of particular votes which irked the creator of the website.

If you want to know a Senators real record, look at their committee votes, their votes on the rules, and their debates.

Kerry was never for the war. Listen to his words and you'd know that. If you reduce the complexity of his position to yea or nay, you lose the point.

I've accepted the fact that I'm in the minority here and that I am a (on this board) "Bad" democrat for supporting pragmatism above purity. But seriously. Shall we explore Dennis Kucinich's record and rate him against such liberal champions as oh, I don't know, David Drier?

How about Dennis Kucinich against Holy Joe Lieberman? Or maybe Justice O'Conner

Lets see how they rate up.

Dennis Kucinich voted once against abortion - Negative 10,000 points
Joe Lieberman expressed that abortion should be rare - Negative 2 points
Justice O'Connor upholds Roe - +10 points.

Clearly O'Connor is the good democrat.

[mr715]

38. Duplicate nt