Senate Democrats. What have you done for us lately?

[leftofthedial]

"The leftofthedial Democratic Principle Meter"—these are my opinions. Feel free to debate.

We must defeat the repukes and remove them from power. This includes replacing those who support the repuke agenda.

In my opinion, the underlying fundamental principle that defines what it means to be a Democrat—what separates us from the increasingly fascist repuke party—boils down to our commitment to social justice. Among other important issues, this principle is and has been expressed politically in two important ways:

1. A commitment to personal liberty as defined in the Constitution. Historically, this commitment has been exemplified by Democratic support for civil rights, reproductive rights, personal privacy and defense of the common person against the power of the state and the power of corporations.

2. A commitment to working Americans. Historically, this commitment has been exemplified by Democratic support for labor unions, the New Deal, higher minimum wages and other workers’ rights, and defense of the common person against the power of the state and the power of corporations.

Democrats who vote consistently in support of this principle of social justice are to be commended. They make us all proud to be Democrats. They are what made the Democratic Party great. They clearly follow in the traditions of the great Democrats of the past who made this country at one time the greatest democracy in world history and brought peace, prosperity and progress to America.

It is useful on occasion to measure how Democrats stand up in defense of Democratic principles on the tough issues. Talk is cheap. Any Democrat can safely speak out on issues. They can safely vote in favor of important, but relatively minor, issues and "pad" their "liberal-versus-conservative" scores. But how courageous are they on tough votes where it might have been easier or more politically expedient to compromise on our core values?

In recent months, five votes have come before the US Senate that epitomize the principle of social justice and have offered, in my opinion, for current Senate Democrats an unambiguous test of their commitment to Democratic values:

1. The Bankruptcy Bill
2. The Roberts Confirmation
3. Cloture on the Alito Nomination (and the attendant filibuster attempt)
4. The Alito Confirmation
5. The Reauthorization of the Patriot Act

I catalogued the Senate votes on these issues. Setting aside for the moment other important votes and the relative importance of each of these particular issues, I simply counted how the Senate Democrats voted on these issues. On how many, zero through 5, did each of them come down on the side of Democratic principles?

FIVE FOR FIVE
The only Senate Democrat with a perfect score, voting against the bankruptcy act, opposing the fascist judge Roberts, supporting the filibuster, opposing the fascist judge Alito and voting against reauthorizing the police state enablement act, is Tom Harkin of Iowa.

FOUR FOR FIVE
The Senators who betrayed their Democratic principles only once in the five votes includes:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

THREE FOR FIVE
The Senators who failed to stand up for Democratic principles twice on these votes:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Reid (D-NV)
Stabenow (D-MI)

TWO FOR FIVE
These Senators voted in favor of Democratic principle twice and with the repukes three times:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Rockefeller (D-WV)

ONE FOR FIVE
These Senators voted four times with the fascist party:

Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)

ZERO FOR FIVE
No comment is necessary on these three:

Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Nelson (D-NE)

As a lifelong hardcore Democrat, I am concerned that the rising disgust Americans feel for king george and his criminal gang is not accompanied by a rising tide of approval for the Democrats. Could it be that too many of them vote against the interests of the American people and act like bush co-conspirators?

I sincerely do not want this to be just a "Dem attack" thread. I hope we can unite around basic principle and hold ourselves and our elected representatives accountable.

[demnan]

1. Well put and recommended

and as George Clooney says, Senate Democrats, "fuck you!" (except for Harken). :)

[leftofthedial]

17. you have to wonder what some of them really think

[bryant69]

2. Lieberman Beats Byrd

Now that's interesting.

What would be good to do is cross checking this list, particularly the bottom three categories, and seeing how many of those are running this year and how many of them have serious primary challengers, and how many of them are in "safe" districts.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

23. Lieberman makes a good posterboy for Dem collaboration

with king george's criminal enterpirses

but Byrd has been a disaster lately.

[tatertop]

3. The Democratic Party must enlist Flavor Flav and The Cable Guy

We need someone who knows what time it is and
someone who can get things done.

[leftofthedial]

24. and that's not funny,

I don't care who you are

;-)

[tatertop]

28. Flavor Flaaav!

I try to get in one Flavor Flaaav! every
ten days or so. (Perhaps I can order a bunch of those
big clocks for Lieberman and Zell and all the
other republican congress people. They definitely
don't know what time it is.)

[mattclearing]

4. Thanks for this. You raise interesting points without resorting to the

senseless Dem-bashing we see here constantly.

That said, I support primary challenges for all non-progressive Dems based on principle.

Especially for everyone in thost bottom three categories.

[leftofthedial]

6. you really wonder how a Democrat could "fail" on the majority

of those votes.

Personally, the Patriot Act Reauthorization and the bankruptcy bill are my "values" hot buttons and I have a hard time supporting any Senator who voted for either one of those.

[mattclearing]

9. Agreed.

The bankrupcy bill in particular is a total slap in the face of all working people, who are more susceptible to the entreaties of predatory lenders.

But the Patriot Act is just bad policy.

[leftofthedial]

18. the patriot act is the quasi-legal underpinning of fascism

and totalitarianism. As wild as much of the rhetoric is around here about its evils, the actual bill is even worse. It should be renamed "The Bill of Rights Cancellation and king george Coronation Act."

The two of them, taken together, if fully exploited by the corpo-fascists, would turn America effectively into a fascist, feudal state.

[Mythsaje]

5. I think this feeds into the perception by many

that there's very little difference in politicians, that they are simply two sides to the same coin...owned by the rich and powerful. We all know what has to be done to reform campaign financing. We all know the drug war was/is a mistake. We all know that our Constitution is under attack.

What are they doing about it?

[bryant69]

7. That perception benefits Republicans

The more people give up on politics, the better it has traditionally been for Republicans (particularly since part of their core message is essentially "Government doesn't work"). It does raise an interesting question - are we doing ourselves any favors by attacking Democrats, even if they did vote in lousy ways?

Bryant

[Mythsaje]

8. On the other hand, how can we afford NOT to point it out

when it's plainly visible for anyone to see? The perception is already out there...believe me, I hear it all the time from otherwise intelligent people-"Why bother? They don't represent ME."

My ex is a prime example of this. She's terribly intelligent, but she thinks politics and politicians are a waste of her time and energy. She has no faith in them whatsoever, and, frankly, I can see where she's coming from. On one hand we've got Democratic Senators who vote against the interests of the common worker, while taking money from corporate lobbyists, and a Democratic Governor who signs into law a gas tax that penalizes the most vulnerable at a time when the oil companies are already raking them over the coals. They put a tax on gas when the price per gallon was almost 3.00. What the hell kind of sense does THAT make?

Not to say we don't need the revenue. Our highways are trashed, particularly around Seattle. But when you live in a depressed area where you're lucky to find a job much higher than the minimum wage, every penny on a gallon of gas means a lot.

[Why Syzygy]

12. Exactly what is the point

in having "Democrats" "represent" us if they aren't? How does that help?

[bryant69]

13. Well a few points

1. This is a limited selection - a case can be made that these aer the most important recent votes, but they aren't all of them. I guarentee that all of these senators (even the ones who scored zero for five) have made some votes we agree with.

2. This could be just in your inflection, but obviously there are democrats who voted the right way on all five (well one) and several who voted the right way four out of five times. Saying "Democrats" don't represent us, is kind of unfair to them (although in fairness you might be intending that "democrats" to only apply to those on the bottom.

3. There is a difference between a filthy weasal who votes against his or her party and it's principles and a person dedicated to stomping out that party and those principles. Neither one is great, but let's not make the Communists/Socialists mistake in Germany before the Nazis took over (or, for that matter, the Green Party's mistake in 2000).

Bryant

[leftofthedial]

26. some of the worst on the list

score highly on "liberal-versus-conservative scorecards because they do reliably vote liberally on numerous "safe" or relatively minor issues.

My focus is on core party principles and I think the five issues I chose fairly represent those principles.

I do not believe that all Democrats "don't represent us." Too many apparently do not though.

I'd like to see us find a way to hold the "filthy weasels" accountable before they further undermine our efforts to defeat the fascists.

[bryant69]

27. It's a question of priorities

What is more important - holding the weasels responsible or stopping the fascists. This isn't necessarily an either-or situation - we obviously need to try to do both. But when the two goals conflict (and they will here and there) what is more important?

On a secondary note, which are we angrier at? Which provides the more emotional response? Because our inclination will be to come down on that side of the fence, regardless of the logic of the situation. I'm not saying we would - just that we would be inclined to.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

14. that's my concern

I fear that "Democrat" has become an empty label for some Democrats, especially in the Senate.

Rooting for "Democrats" to "win" is as ultimately insignificant as rooting for your "hometown" sports team, if we don't hold them accountable for their votes and insist that they reflect our core values. Else why have a party at all?

[leftofthedial]

20. It's hard not to have that perception

we need to get money out of politics

the current notion that money = free speech is perverse and sick and profoundly anti-democratic.

[Mythsaje]

22. Yep...it ties directly into the whole

"corporate personhood" crap...that corporations are entitled to "free speech" in the form of advertising and campaign contributions. An immortal entity that cannot suffer illness, cannot go to prison, and cannot die is NOT a person.

[leftofthedial]

21. It's hard not to have that perception

we need to get money out of politics

the current notion that money = free speech is perverse and sick and profoundly anti-democratic.

[rucky]

10. Thanks for tallying this! K&R

I've been searching for a scorecard like this since Alito.

:yourock:

[leftofthedial]

25. Thanks.

I wish I had time to do this more often

but the bush enronomy has me out all day digging for roots, trying to snare small animals and asking for spare change from passersby.

[Why Syzygy]

11. Great info. Thanks.

The disgusting three. They wear a Dem label but yet vote straight Fascist. Sickening.

[leftofthedial]

19. is there no way to hold them accountable?

IMHO these are not liberal-versus-conservative issues, they are backbone Democratic issues.

[MH1]

15. What happens if you add in CAFTA and ANWR votes?

Just curious.

I just picked those off the top of my head...it bothers me that your 5 top issues don't include the environment and trade - two major components of social justice. And the environment especially has been a defining area for Democrats - do you exploit it until it's used up or do you work to protect it?

[leftofthedial]

16. I debated whether to include those

NAFTA/CAFTA are also "litmus" issues IMHO and could certainly be included. Maybe I'll go back and add them in.

ANWR should be a "safe" issue for a Democrat. Any Dem who supports drilling in ANWR rightfully deserves an anti-environmental label.

[RazzleDazzle]

29. Tom Harkin

Of course. The pity is that there aren't many, many more who joined him. The whole 4 for 5 group should've been there with Tom, every single one of them. Well, they all should've been. But there's really no excuse, IMO, for all of them not to have been on the 4 for 5 list.

[tomreedtoon]

30. How many have offered explanations for their votes?

They must have some explanation for them. Admittedly, the press isn't going to be holding their feet to the fire for these issues. But it might make a great deal of sense if they have published explanations for their votes.

If they don't, if they dodge, if their reasons are squirrelly, or if they get angry, then I'd say this was actionable. In terms of not voting for them or supporting opponents, that is.

I just don't want to see people accused because of what they did; why they did what they did should be the important factor.

[leftofthedial]

31. what they did is the only thing that matters in the final analysis

I'm sure every one of them has an "explanation" for every vote. It is widely assumed, for example, that Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill because his whole state is effectively "owned" by the credit card companies and that Byrd voted for Alito because the WV coal companies told him to.

That an alleged Democrat could fail on two or more of these fundamental votes is beyond "explanation."

Regardless of any rationalization a Senator might offer, we live in a worse world today than we did before these votes and those who voted with the fascists are culpable.

[tomreedtoon]

32. You're willing to kill without listening to the accused? Wait a minute!

You would send me to the gas chamber for shooting a man dead. You refused to listen to my explanation that the man was about to throw a baby off a bridge. So explanations don't matter, only the final results, eh?

That is...dare I say it...a remarkably Republican attitude for you to take. Have you even considered that there may be reasons other than the obvious that a person might wish to vote differently than your interpretation of the issue?

I'm not saying that the explanations Senator Clinton might offer - to take one Senator who has raised a few hackles here - might be any good. I'm saying that she should at least be offered the opportunity to explain her decision. And if she expects any votes for any future office, she would likely greet the opportunity to explain her decision.

If she ignored the opportunity, or if she handed out a line of obfuscation and bull, THEN you might be excused for readying your noose. But I see a whole box of pre-tied nooses behind you and I think that's just plain wrong.

[leftofthedial]

33. Let 'em explain--I'm not readying any nooses

Some already have explained some of their votes.

But it would take some pretty tall 'splaining to justify failing on multiple of these votes. A bit like dead bodies piling up around you on a consistent basis. It gets harder and harder to explain. And being...dare I say it...remarkably close to name calling doesn't help anything.

[leftofthedial]

34. I guess I should add the votes on Feingold's censure resolution

to the "index."