Alright, I have to say it, The Patrick Henry scorecards piss me off

[Hippo_Tron]

I've ranted about this a number of times in replies but I've never started a thread about it, so here goes.

I am upset at the fact that several members on DU have decided to use the Patrick Henry scorecards as a way to unfairly demonize certain members of congress and more specificly US Senators while making gods out of others. I don't mind having a chart that shows how every senator and every congressman has voted this year. In fact, I think that this is a good way to keep an eye on our senators and representatives.

If posters would post the Patrick Henry scorecards and say, gee maybe we need to call a few of these senators and representatives and tell them how we feel about some of their recent votes, that would be alright.

What I don't like is this...

"Such and such Democrat has a -20 on the Patrick Henry scorecard, we should kick that DINO out of office this instant. But look Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, they have perfect record. They are great and all other Democrats suck, they are the only ones worthy of being President."

The reason I don't like this (besides the fact that I see it 20 times a day) is that judging senators by their Patrick Henry scorecards is completely unfair. The Patrick Henry scorecard calculates certain votes from 2005. It's now June 2005. Basically, the Patrick Henry scorecard calculates half of a session of congress. Some of these men and women have served over 20 years in congress. Some of them have thousands of votes that aren't listed on the Patrick Henry scorecard. Some of them have made serious accomplishments outside of congress or accomplishments that aren't reflected on their voting record. You can't honestly tell me that you can seriously judge whether or not somebody is a real Democrat by their voting record from January-June 2005.

Not only that, but how a Senator/Representative's vote is scored is based on how it is in accordance with the Patrick Henry Think Tank's principles. Being a Democrat or even a Progressive Democrat doesn't mean that you have to agree with the Patrick Henry Think Tank 100% of the time.

Once again, I don't mind the scorecards. I mind the way that they are used to attack senators and representatives. I would ask that if DUers post these scorecards that they post them in a less inflamatory manner.

[LittleClarkie]

1. Every time I see that

I always post www.vote-smart.org so that folks can see ALL the votes of these people, over several years, and MAKE UP THEIR OWN DAMN MINDS.

Not only are they grading on only half a year. They're picking only certain votes, chosing to see those votes only one way, and then insist they're very objective. They've also included things like Jan 6th, when only Boxer got a good grade, even though all that was needed was one Senator to make the point that needed making.

I dislike being told I should support, give money to and promote someone for president based on someone else's criteria, and then when I object, I'm asked why I'm against human rights?

Oye vey.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Off topic, but do you support Clark or Kerry for 2008?

You have Clark in your name but Kerry is pretty heavy in your sig, I can't tell.

[LittleClarkie]

3. My name pays tribute to my beginnings

which were superficial at best.

The long answer:
Little sheeple me heard Clark say one, count it one, thing that resonated because I'd thought it myself, and that was that Bush didn't have a blank check dated 9/11 with which to go to war. I became a nominal Clarkie and was mighty disgruntled when he dropped out before I could vote for him in Wisconsin. So I did anyway, just because he was still on the ballot.

Slowly, stuff like Gitmo drove me into the arms of a candidate I could have given a damn about at the time: Kerry. I thought of him as ol' Styrofoam Personality. But as I got to know him, and worked on his campaign, and read a book or two about him, I warmed up to him.

Then I saw "Going Upriver" and fell in love the rest of the way.

The short answer:
I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Support Kerry 2008" I'm sure my freeper neighbors think I'm insane. Probably some of my fellow Dems as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Kick for the night

[GeorgeGist]

5. First I've heard of it, thanks for the head's up /nt

[Mairead]

6. It's perfectly appropriate to look only at the recent record!

If someone is selling us out today, what they did in the past is not important. Except maybe to people who live in the past!

Politicians should constantly have to answer the question 'What have you done for us today?' We're paying them for their work today, not for what they did five or ten or twenty years ago.

[demwing]

7. Myopia is never appropriate

being blind to the past is still being blind.

I'll base my opinions on a whole person, not a snap-shot, thank you.

[Mairead]

8. "I'll base my opinions on a whole person"

When people say things like that, it's always because they are trying to find some way to justify a decision they've already taken.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. If I were interviewing somebody for a job...

Would I look at what they did in the last six months or what they have done that is relevant, their entire adult life. I have no problem with asking politicians what have they done for us today. I have a problem with those on DU who call good Democrats DINOs and traitors based on a six month voting record.

[Mairead]

11. If you were interviewing someone for a job...

you'd be quite the fool to hire them if their history showed them going downhill, wouldn't you?

Someone whose record goes from maybe okay 30 years ago to mediocre 15 years ago to consistent sellout during the past 3 years is in need either of psychiatric care or a strong boot up the bum! Which do you suppose it is in this case?

[Hippo_Tron]

12. 3 years of behavior is different than 6 months of selected senate votes

Especially since the Senate has done little more than deal with judicial appointments this session.

[Mairead]

14. Perhaps I don't understand something here

Are you objecting purely to how few months are involved, regardless of their relationship to a larger picture?

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I'm objecting to people who use the few months...

To trash good men and women and call them DINOs. Like I said, I think that it is perfectly appropriate to say, "Such and such senators have been voting to the right a little bit lately. This is a problem we need to let them know how we feel." I don't feel that it is appropriate to say that a Senator or Representative is a bad Democrat or a DINO that doesn't deserve to be re-elected because they don't score well on the Patrick Henry scorecards.

Let me give the example that finally sent me over the edge and prompted me to start this thread.

There was a thread about Russ Feingold for President a few days back. In response somebody posted a one liner saying "Russ Feingold needs to vote like a Democrat"

Now I wondered gee, how could this possibly be true. Russ Feingold has stood up constantly against unfair trade agreements, was the lone dissenter on the Patriot Act (a vote that alone could have cost him his job), voted NO on the Iraq War resolution and has been consistant critic of the war, was against the first bankruptcy bill as well as this one, and has stated that he intends to question Tony Blair about the downing street memo.

I posted the response "Are you fucking kidding me?" knowing exactly what I would get... a response with a Patrick Henry scorecard. And sure enough I got one, with Russ scoring a -40 (I believe that he's up to -20 now).

Russ scores a -20 on the Patrick Henry scorecard largely for three votes that I personally don't think are "anti-progressive". He voted yes on Rice, yes on Chertoff, and yes on cloture on Gonzales. As far as these go, Russ didn't sell out anybody with these votes. He believes in the long standing tradition that the President should be able to choose who he wants in his cabinet. You can disagree with that position all you want. I don't see how that makes him any more or any less of a good Democratic senator.

My point is, that when people use the Patrick Henry scorecard as the ONLY means to judge politicians it unfairly portrays people like Russ Feingold as bad representatives and unfairly makes people like Dennis Kucinich look like the second coming of Christ. I like Dennis Kucinich, a lot, but to be honest, I would like to know about his stance on a constitutional ammendment to ban flag burning, before deciding whether to support him for office and if I looked at candidates only by their Patrick Henry rank, I would not know about Dennis' stance on flag burning.

I think that Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich are both great Democrats who stand up for what they believe in even if it isn't the popular thing to do. But the Patrick Henry scorecards do not reflect this and people are beginning to use them as the ONLY means of judging a politician. That's what I object to.

[ISUGRADIA]

13. Yes, we mustn't look at their records in the past to see if they have

held consistent views on being pro-choice, etc. Only what cherry picked votes we choose to make them look good now.

[Mairead]

15. If the past and present are inconsistent, then it seems to me the part of

wisdom to look at the present. Changes are always toward the present, never toward the past. And an allegation of 'cherry picking' only works if you have evidence to support it. Do you?

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Kick for the morning