--07.11.05

Less Than Half Dem Senators Have Passing Grades, Boxer Leads

"The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.

Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure....

The Bush administration has repeatedly rejected calls for mandatory controls in favor of voluntary emissions limits, and says that program is working....Despite the growing body of evidence that industrial discharges of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause of global warming, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, once again argued 'there is no convincing scientific evidence.'" --Washington Post, 06.23.05

Inhofe's statement has been contradicted by a recent Bush EPA report acknowledging that global warming is caused by man-made pollution and that the voluntary emissions method of control is not working, since, as reported by the BBC it predicts a 43% increase in US greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 through 2020, which will likely destroy more fragile ecosystems "such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands."

For those who are keeping score, Senator Boxer has a score of 90% (10 approved votes), based upon 11 vote opportunities: the Ohio vote rejection, the Rice and Gonzales nominations, the consumer protections and bankruptcy votes, the ANWR vote, the medicare budget cut, the tax cut budget, the Bush budget, the greenhouse gas amendment, and the Schiavo vote.

4 Passing grades of 81% (9 approved votes) go to: Edward M. Kennedy , Richard Durbin of Illinois, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

11 Dems with passing grades of 72% (8 approved votes) are:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Robert Byrd (D-WV) Corzine (D-NJ) Feingold(D-WI), John Kerry of Massachusetts (no show) Leahy (D-VT) Carl Levin of Michigan (no) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR)

8 other partial Dems and the lone Independent now have failing scores of 63% (7 approved votes):

Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) (no) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) (no) Mikulski (D-MD) (no) Murray (D-WA) (no) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL)

Th 12 Half-Dems with a grade of 54% (6 approved votes) are:

Baucus (D-MT) (no) Bayh (D-IN) (no) Clinton (D-NY) (no) Dayton (D-MN) (no) Feinstein (D-CA) (no) Jeffords (I-VT) Liebrman (D-CT) (no show) Pryor (D-AR) (no) Reid (D-NV) (no) Rockefeller (D-WV) (no) Stabenow (D-MI) (no) Schumer (D-NY) (no)

2 Pretend Dems who now have a grade of 36% (4 approved votes) are:

Carper (D-DE) Inouye (D-HI) Kohl (D-WI)

The 6 DINO's (Democratic In Name Only) with a grade of 30% (3 approved votes)

Bingaman (D-NM) Johnson (D-SD) (no show) Lincoln (D-AR) (no) Nelson (D-NE) (no) Salazar (D-COL) (no) Mary Landrieu of Louisiana --Jerry Politex, 06.24.05

Democrats Sell Out D.C. Court Of Appeals Giving Bush Far Right Judge:

In effect, the only thing the Dems really got out of the deal was a promise by the Republicans not to destroy Senate minority input tomorrow. Joseph Liebermann, who has voted with the Republicans 50% of the time during this session, was the Democratic Party spokesman. The agreement was approved by Dem senate leader Harry Reid. This decision could very well mark the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party as a major force in Amceican politics. With Republicrats such as Lieberman and Hillary paying lip service to the traditions of the Democratic Party as they continue to move to the right, it's just a matter of time until the average grassroots Democratic sees little reason to continue to be lied to while supporting an ineffectual Republican Lite Party, a party where 58% of its senators vote with the Republicans more often than they vote Democratic. --Politex, 05.24.05 Dear Politex:
Do you have the tracking of democratic senators any where on your web site? Those are awful stats, only 19 of the 44 democratic senators vote democratic at least 70% of the time. I think you are saying that the other 25 democrats vote with republicans over 30% of the time. Is it any wonder that the public does not know where democrats stand on issues? Frankly I am a Bernie Sanders supporter and I am just as confused as to what democrats stand for as most of the general public. --Jeanette

Jeanette, our tracking of the Dem Senate votes is on this page. As for a quick and dirty overview of what the Dems stand for: from the 30's through the Clinton administration they have stood for the poor, the little guy, the common man, the average worker, women, and minorities-- the party that would protect U.S. citizens from the greed of corporations and the thoughtless of a tyrannical majority. The strategy was that there were more average folks than wealthy Republicans, so the Dems would win elections. As the nation as a whole became better off, non-economic factors such as religion and American libertarian mythologies coupled with anti-Communism to swing the political tide toward Republicans.

Today, anti-terrorism has replaced anti-Communism and Republican evangelicalism has produced the kind of bloc voting that the Dems used to count on from workers' unions, which have been neutered as a political force. Since we are living in what is pretty much a corporate republic with representatives of the corporations serving as political leaders, since Clinton, the Dems have been courting the Corporations as heavily as the Republicans always have, but are unwilling to become corporate puppets as thoroughly as the Republicans have become, because the Dems still cling to their historical grassroots as representatives of the poor and the oppressed. In short, perhaps Republican values are clearer to the American voter than Dem values because the mix of evangelicalism and corporate profit is less contradictory than the mix of the rights of the working poor and corporate profit. --Politex, May '05

Senate Dems Unified Against Bush Budget

'05 Score: Boxer leads 19 of 44 Dems With Passing Grades

BUDGET
Bush Speaks Softly, Congress Carries Big Axe

The 1 DINO (Democratic In Name Only) with a grade of 30% (3 approved votes) is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. --Jerry Politex, 04.30.05

Senate Dems Stumble Badly, Join GOP Attack On Constitution

'05 Score: Boxer leads 7 Dems With Passing Grades

I've spent over a week thinking about the Dems in the Senate and their approval of the Republican voice vote on Terri Schiavo. I've decided that their unanimous vote for the GOP Schiavo bill was not in the best interest of the Democratic Party's defense of the Constitution, and have penalized them accordingly. The points of argumentation may be found below. On a more positive note, all of the Dem Senators have been given a plus for their unanimous vote against Bush's attempt to gut Medicaid in his budget, resulting in the first defeat of his second term. Politex, 03.31.05

    Republican leaders, eyeing an opportunity to appease their radical right-wing constituents, convened Congress over the weekend to shamelessly interject the federal government into the wrenching Schiavo family dispute. They brushed aside our federalist system of government, which assigns the resolution of such disputes to state law, and state judges. Even President Bush flew back from his ranch to Washington on Sunday to be in on what amounts to a constitutional coup d'etat. --LAT Editorial

  If you are in a "persistent vegetative state" and there is a dispute about whether to keep you alive, your case will probably go no further than state court - unless you are Terri Schiavo. President Bush signed legislation yesterday giving Ms. Schiavo's parents a personal right to sue in federal court. The new law tramples on the principle that this is "a nation of laws, not of men," and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one tragic woman is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy....

 The founders believed in a nation in which, as Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, we would "submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules." There is no place in such a system for a special law creating rights for only one family. The White House insists that the law will not be a precedent. But that means that the right to bring such claims in federal court is reserved for people with enough political pull to get a law passed that names them in the text.

    The Bush administration and the current Congressional leadership like to wax eloquent about states' rights. But they dropped those principles in their rush to stampede over the Florida courts and Legislature. The new law doesn't miss a chance to trample on the state's autonomy and dignity. There are a variety of technical legal doctrines the federal courts use to show deference to state courts, like "abstention" and "exhaustion of remedies." The new law decrees that in Ms. Schiavo's case, these well-established doctrines simply will not apply. --NYT Editorial

In the Senate, home of Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer of New York, nothing. An objection from just one senator might have blocked or slowed the measure's march to the House. Instead, the Senate Democratic leadership approved the bill by unanimous consent, with no floor discussion about the Florida woman whose doctors say is in a "persistent vegetative state." What's going on?

Senators, at least those here in New York, are not talking for public consumption, but neither is their strategy well hidden. They have opted to sit back, let the courts take the heat and avoid a passionate attack from social conservatives who see this as an issue of life, like abortion, and want Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, removed on Friday, reinserted. By not tangling on the Senate floor, the lawmakers have escaped broad accusation of opposing life.

Democratic Senators who are critical of the measure were saying this week that they had little to gain by taking on this issue. Constitutional experts assured them that there was little chance that the federal courts would step in or that the United States Supreme Court would intervene after refusing several times to hear the state case. They also worried that if they blocked the bill, they risked being blamed if Ms. Schiavo died before the House passed it.

Therefore, there is nothing lost and perhaps something to gain by their strategy, the argument goes, especially since Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, is up for re-election next year and could not have welcomed a Senate fight.

All very plausible. But there is one other player in this sad drama. The public and its right to know and learn. "This needed to be debated so people in the country knew what the issues were, knew the implications of what we were doing," Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who led the Democratic House fight against the measure, said in a phone interview yesterday. "This was a constitutional crisis."

Perhaps the Senate decision to vote by unanimous consent was a politically savvy one, a way out of a no-win. But senators could still have explained themselves. They could have expanded on the House debate, could have raised questions about the separation of powers, state's rights, state versus federal courts, the right to die.

MINDFUL of their minority position and vulnerability from the political right, they chose not to. Even the normally irrepressible Mr. Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been reserved. On Tuesday, he said only that the case "shows how important the courts are as a check on the overreaching majority." By phone yesterday, he added, "People are starting to understand that these people are very extreme."

But he refused to discuss Senate strategy, instead referring a reporter to a staccato statement he issued on Monday, which said that the matter "ought to be left to the parents and the courts" and that Congress should not intervene again. Mrs. Clinton took a similar tone when asked about the case on Tuesday (before federal courts refused to intervene). "We should take politics out of it, let the court review and evaluate the law and facts and do what they do best."

Mrs. Clinton always carefully cherry-picks her issues, maybe more so now that she is increasingly mindful of her national reputation. But it still seemed strained on Monday when, just a few hours after the House vote, she confined her luncheon remarks to bland pleasantries in a genial speech at the New-York Historical Society about its new exhibit on first ladies.

Democrats are clearly hoping that the Republicans' tactics, led by House leader Tom DeLay, will backfire. Maybe it will, but no one can say they do not know what Mr. DeLay and his colleagues stand for, or at least say they stand for in a case freighted with as much political posturing as it is with human anguish. --Purnick, NYT

The sight of Congress and President Bush intruding into the sufferings of the Schiavo family was appalling....The political timidity of potential opponents was woeful. No one dared even demand debate in the Senate. --NYT Editorial

For those who are keeping score, Senator Boxer has a score of 88% (8 approved votes), based upon 9 vote opportunities: the Ohio vote rejection, the Rice and Gonzales nominations, the consumer protections and bankruptcy votes, the ANWR vote, the medicare budget cut, the tax cut budget, and the Schiavo vote.

6 Passing grades of 77% (7 approved votes) go to: Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

12 Dems with failing grades of 66% (6 approved votes) are:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Robert Byrd (D-WV) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR)

17 other half Dems and the lone Independent now have failing scores of 55% (5 approved votes):

Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Jeffords (I-VT) Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Stabenow (D-MI) Schumer (D-NY)

Those 8 Pretend Dems who now have a grade of 33% (3 approved votes) are:

Bingaman (D-NM) Carper (D-DE) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-NE) Salazar (D-COL)

The 1 DINO (Democratic In Name Only) with a grade of 22% (2 approved votes) is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. --Jerry Politex, 03.31.05

Senate Dems Can't Prevent Bush Tax Cut Madness

Boxer Leads 19 of 44 Passing Dens

03.20.05, NYT--Before leaving town for a two-week spring break, Congress indulged in its own form of March Madness. The Republican majority in the House and the Senate passed budget blueprints for 2006 that slash domestic spending by upwards of $150 billion over the next five years. [All of the Senate Dems voted against the Bush budget.] Yet [the Republican majority] still managed to increase the projected deficit by more than $125 billion over the same period (and by more than $1 trillion through 2015). How is it possible to produce that much red ink while slashing spending? Easy. Just cut revenue by giving huge tax cuts to - surprise, surprise - high earners and wealthy investors. The lawmakers will not make any final decisions until they cobble their separate proposals into one official budget later in the year, but the early signs are all bad - pointing to the least sensible tax cuts for the least needy recipients with no thought to the exploding deficit.

Of all the favors they are determined to dispense, tax cutters in both the House and Senate are most intent on extending the special low tax rates for dividends and capital gains, through 2010. The preferential rates are not scheduled to expire until 2008, but lawmakers want to act now, apparently to spare their constituents worry about the future. And who are those fretful constituents? In 2005 alone, almost half of the tax savings from dividend and capital gains rate cuts will go to investors who make more than $1 million a year, the top 0.2 percent of the income ladder. Nearly three-quarters of the tax benefits will go to those making more than $200,000, about the top 3 percent. The cost to everyone else in the form of forgone revenue will be $23 billion.

Also remarkable for their largess are two high-end tax breaks that would increase the amount well-heeled taxpayers would be allowed to write off for dependents and other expenses. They were enacted in 2001, but have been delayed. Now the budget proposals let them take effect. Once again, almost all of the tax savings would go to that lucky 3 percent of filers with incomes above $200,000. The lost revenue would amount to $95 billion over 10 years. In this particular piece of fiscal insanity, even the usual Republican argument - that letting a temporary tax break expire is the same thing as a tax increase - does not apply. These two changes have not even taken effect yet, so who would miss them if they never materialized? If you're President Bush, however, getting these two provisions is the tax policy equivalent of going all the way to Baghdad. The president's father originally allowed the deduction limitations on wealthy filers as part of the 1991 budget, the one that violated Bush père's "no new taxes" pledge and, in so doing, helped to end his chances for re-election.

The wealthy would also be on the receiving end of two new tax-sheltered savings plans favored by President Bush: the retirement savings account and the lifetime savings account. These were not embraced by name by the Congressional budget leaders. But Congress could easily include them in the final budget, since they will not start losing revenue - about $30 billion a year - until much later, when investors cash them in tax-free. The accounts would allow a couple to shelter $20,000 annually, as well as $5,000 for each of their children, on top of however much they may already be investing in other tax-favored plans. None of this will be any help to the vast majority of average Americans, who do not even take full advantage of current I.R.A.'s.

And then there is the 11th-hour tax cut slipped into the Senate proposal. It would repeal an income tax on Social Security benefits that applies to the wealthiest 20 percent or so of beneficiaries and whose revenue is dedicated to the Medicare hospital trust fund. The repeal would accelerate the fund's projected insolvency by four years, to 2015 from 2019. Now there's a plan! Give the best-off elderly a tax break and put all of the elderly who may have to go into the hospital at greater financial risk.

The full Senate vote may be found at U.S. Senate records, 03.19.05

For those who are keeping score, only Senator Boxer has a perfect second presidential term score of 100%, based upon 7 votes, the Ohio vote rejection, the Rice and Gonzales nominations, the consumer protections and bankruptcy votes, the ANWR vote, and the tax cut budget.

6 Passing grades of 84% go to: Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

12 Dems with passing grades of 70% are:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Robert Byrd (D-WV) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR)

17 other half Dems and the lone Independent now have failing scores of 56%:

Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Jeffords (I-VT) Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Stabenow (D-MI) Schumer (D-NY)

Those 8 Pretend Dems who now have a grade of 42% are:

Bingaman (D-NM) Carper (D-DE) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-NE) Salazar (D-COL)

The 1 Fake Democrat with a grade of 14 is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. --Jerry Politex, 02.20.05

3 Dems Help Bush Give Alaska Painful Root Canal

Boxer Leads Real Dems With 100%

03.16.05, NYT--"President Bush's long-stalled plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling cleared a major hurdle on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when the Senate voted to include the proposal in its budget, a maneuver that smoothes the way for Congress to approve drilling later this year.

By a vote of 51 to 49 [,including 3 Democrats, Hawii's Akaka and Inouye And Louisiana's Landrieu], Republicans defeated an effort by Democrats to eliminate the drilling language from the budget. The vote does not ensure that drilling will be approved. But if the budget is adopted, Senate rules would allow the passage of a measure opening the refuge with a simple majority of 51 votes, escaping the threat of a filibuster, which has killed it in the past.

The vote was a major turning point in one of the most contentious energy debates in Washington at a time when Senate Republicans, using the power of a newly expanded majority, have been pushing through bills that businesses had sought....The vote was a bitter defeat for environmentalists, who have railed against Arctic drilling for decades, arguing that opening the refuge would threaten the caribou and other wildlife that roam the coastal plain. Opponents said the Senate was subverting its own procedures.

"Today we saw a Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders," said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who made opposition to drilling a theme of his presidential campaign.

03.16.05, AP-- "Even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves."The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

The full Senate vote may be found at U.S. Senate records, 03.10.05

For those who are keeping score, only Senator Boxer has a perfect second presidential term score of 100%, based upon six votes, the Ohio vote rejection, the Rice and Gonzales nominations, the consumer protections and bankruptcy votes, and the ANWR vote.

6 Passing grades of 85% go to: Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

12 Questionable Dems with failing grades of 68% are:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI) Robert Byrd (D-WV) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR)

17 other half Dems and the lone Independent now have failing scores of 51%:

Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Jeffords (I-VT) Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Stabenow (D-MI) Schumer (D-NY)

Those 8 Pretend Dems who now have a grade of 34% are:

Bingaman (D-NM) Carper (D-DE) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Lincoln (D-AR) Nelson (D-NE) Salazar (D-COL)

The 1 Fake Democrat with a grade of zero is Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. --Jerry Politex, 02.17.05

Bankrupt: 18 Dems Join Bush In Second War On Consumers

Boxer Leads Real Dems With 100%

03.10.05--"The Senate tonight approved a measure backed by the credit-card industry that would make it harder for individuals to wipe out debt through bankruptcy, setting a path for quick passage of the bill by the House as early as next week.

"The 74 to 25 vote in favor of the bill, which makes the most sweeping changes in bankruptcy law in more than 25 years, was propelled by a 55-member Republican majority who voted in unison, joined by 18 Democrats and one independent [and Hillary Clinton, who was a no-show]....

"Consumer groups and many Democrats say the bill is too harsh on individuals who fall on hard times from sickness, divorce or job loss and have criticized it for retaining a loophole that allows wealthy individuals who file for bankruptcy to protect expensive homes." --Wash. Post

"The critics - including consumer groups, Democrats and more than 100 bankruptcy law professors - say that the legislation's supporters have significantly exaggerated the problem with the current bankruptcy laws. They say the legislation will do far more damage than good by hitting middle-income families, women and the elderly who have used bankruptcy protection in growing numbers to protect themselves.

"This bankruptcy bill is mean-spirited and unfair," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. "In anything like its present form, it should and will be an embarrassment to anyone who votes for it. It's a bonanza for the credit card companies, which made $30 billion in profits last year, and a nightmare for the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak."

"In a letter to Congress two weeks ago, 104 bankruptcy law professors predicted that "the deepest hardship" would "be felt in the heartland," where the filing rates are highest - Utah, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Idaho.

"Critics also said the measure fails to do anything to curb abusive bankruptcy practices by wealthy families, who can create special trusts to shelter their assets, and by corrupt companies like Enron and WorldCom, which were able to find favorable bankruptcy courts and deprive many of their employees and retired employees of benefits. The Senate defeated a series of amendments proposed by Democrats that sought to address those issues.

"The bill has a real bias," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, whose proposal to close a loophole that permits wealthy people to shelter assets through a special trust was defeated last week. "It deals with abuses in bankruptcy by one group but not with another group."

"The lobbying money for the legislation, which has come close to passage several times in the eight years since it was introduced, has been lopsided.

"The main lobbying forces for the bill - a coalition that included Visa, MasterCard, the American Bankers Association, MBNA America, Capital One, Citicorp, the Ford Motor Credit Company and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation - spent more than $40 million in political fund-raising efforts and many millions more on lobbying efforts since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that studies the role of money in the political process. By definition, the critics of the legislation had limited lobbying resources." --New York Times

The 25 Dems that voted against Bush, thereby supporting consumer protections, are:

Akaka (D-HI) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Wyden (D-OR)

--source, U.S. Senate records, 03.10.05

For those who are keeping score, only Senator Boxer has a perfect score of 100%.

7 Passing grades of 80% , based on the Ohio vote rejection, the Rice and Gonzales nominations, the consumer protections, and bankruptcy votes go to:

Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

12 Dems with failing grades of 60% are:

Robert Byrd (D-WV) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Wyden (D-OR)

16 other Dems and the lone Independent now have failing scores of 40%: Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Stabenow (D-MI) Schumer (D-NY) Those 6 Dems who now have a grade of 20% are:

Bingaman (D-NM), Carper (D-DE), Johnson (D-SD), Kohl (D-WI), Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), and Lincoln (D-AR)

3 Fake Democrats with grades of zero are: Ken Salazar, Colorado, Ben Nelson, Nebraska, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. --Jerry Politex, 02.11.05

Keeping Score: 18 Dems Join Bush In War On Consumers

Boxer Leads Dems With 100%

by Jerry Politex, Bush Watch

"Major legislation revising the rules by which class-action lawsuits are waged will be headed as early as next week to the White House for President Bush's signature, as easy Senate passage yesterday gave Bush and business groups a long-sought victory," reports the Washington Post

The Senate passed the bill [S.5] 72 to 26, as [18] Democrats [and Jeffords, I-VT] joined most Republicans [(2 didn't vote)] in passing the measure, which will funnel class-action suits with plaintiffs from multiple states out of state courts and into the federal system. Proponents say the change will lead to more rational and more consistent rulings. Consumer groups fighting the bill warned that, in practice, many valid claims will never be heard, because federal judges often dismiss class-action cases on procedural grounds....

The [Dem] amendments rejected by the Senate earlier in the week were aimed at ensuring that federal judges accept the cases, rather than dismiss them on the grounds that in national class-action cases there can be confusion about how to apply diverse state regulatory laws. The failure of the amendments, said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), showed that "the fix is in" and that the Senate has been "reduced to taking its marching orders on major legislation from corporate special interests and . . . allies in the White House."

Joan Claybrook, head of the consumer group Public Citizen, warned that yesterday's action "has given banks, credit card companies, insurers, HMOs, drug manufacturers and other big corporations a green light to defraud and deceive consumers without fear of being held accountable."

"The measure has been attacked by civil rights organizations, labor groups, consumer organizations, many state prosecutors and environmental groups, who say it would sharply curtail important cases and provide new protections for unscrupulous companies," reports the New York Times. "Many federal and state judges and state lawmakers have also criticized the bill, saying it would strip states of an important role in judging such contests and could add a considerable number of cases to already burdened federal dockets.

"'This bill is one of the most unfair, anticonsumer proposals to come before the Senate in years,' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader. 'It slams the courthouse doors on a wide range of injured plaintiffs. It turns federalism upside down by preventing state courts from hearing state law claims. And it limits corporate accountability at a time of rampant corporate scandals.'"

The 26 Dems that voted against Bush, thereby supporting consumer and environmental protections, are:

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

For those who are keeping score, only Senator Boxer has a perfect score of 100%.

Passing grades of 75% , based on the Ohio vote rejection, the Rice and Gonzales nominations, and the consumer protections vote go to:

Senators Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

20 other Dems and the lone Independent now have failing scores of 50%: Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

Those Dems who now have a grade of 25% are:

Bingaman (D-NM) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Corzine (D-NJ) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Lincoln (D-AR) Obama (D-IL) Rockefeller (D-WV) Schumer (D-NY)

Fake Democrats with grades of zero are: Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Ken Salazar and Ben Nelson, both of Colorado, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. --Bush Watch, 02.11.05

Dem Anti-Gonzales Vote Indicates He's The Worst A-G Nominee Since 1925

Six Dem Groundhogs For Gonzales Will Be Remembered In 60-36 Vote

Gonzales helped shape the White House torture policy that led to prisoner abuse in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba, his Texas execution memos for then-Gov. Bush have been seen as incompetent by jurists, and his letter to the Senate nomination committee concerning his shielding of Bush's driving while drunk conviction in Maine when Gov. Bush was called upon to serve as a posssible member of the jury in a drunk driving case in Texas was seen as misleading by some, lies by others.

"Democrats said Gonzales was evasive with his answers to their questions about White House policies in the war on terror, reports CNN. "Judge Gonzales still seems to see himself as counsel to the president, not attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the land," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York.

The Democratic turncoats who supported Gonzales were Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Ken Salazar and Ben Nelson, both of Colorado, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Bill Nelson of Florida and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

According to the WP, "all 55 Republican senators voted for Gonzales except Conrad Burns (Mont.), who was absent. Three Democrats -- Max Baucus (Mont.), Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) -- did not vote."

"Not since 1925," writes the Post, "when the Senate twice rejected attorney general nominee Charles B. Warren, has a nominee received as few minority-party votes as Gonzales did, according to Senate historians. Four years ago an evenly divided Senate voted 58-42 to confirm John D. Ashcroft, with eight Democrats joining all 50 Republicans in backing the outspoken and often controversial former senator."

The NYT reported that "six of the eight Democrats who supported Mr. Ashcroft are still in the Senate, and four of the six - Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota - voted against Mr. Gonzales."

For those who are keeping score, only Senator Boxer (100%) has a passing grade of 70% or better, based on the presidential vote and the Rice and Gonzales nominations, while 11 other Dems and the lone Independent are near the passing grade with scores of 67%:

Senators Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa. Another vote against the Gonzales confirmation came from Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, the lone Independent.

Those Dems who only voted agains Gonzales, giving them a grade of 33% are:

Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR) --Politex, 02.03.05

12 Senate Dems See Bush Shadow, The Rest Crawl Back Into Holes

12 Senate Dems saw the shadow of Bush on the Condi Rice nomination for Sec. of State. The rest voted for her confirmation, in spite of her do-nothing anti-terrorism record prior to 9/11 (see chapter 17 in BIG BUSH LIES) and her numerous lies and distortions in support of Bush's ill-advised and disastrous Iraq war.

The Dems who voted against Rice are:

Senators Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Barbara Boxer of California, who was one of her most outspoken critics, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa. The 13th vote against the Rice confirmation came from Senator James Jeffords of Vermont, the lone Independent.

Coupled with Senate Boxer's lone vote against the confirmation of the electoral vote because of an extensive record of serious irregularities in Ohio, some of which may have constituted fraud, others of which painted a picture of active, undemocratic vote suppression by the Republicans in the state, the only Dem who has reached our modest passing grade of 70% is Boxer. The rest of those on the above list have grades of 50%. --Jerry Politex, 01. 26.05

Editorial: What To Do About The Dem Quislings

Quisling...noun...Someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying his or her country; a traitor. dictionary

We're living in a corporate, two party republic, where those with the money control the political process and the best that third parties can do is to turn presidential elections from one major party to the other. Right now, the Dems are acting like Quislings, hiding behind the GOP takeover of all of the levers of government as an excuse not to make waves and hope they can get enough corporate cash to protect their own seats. Meanwhile, they pretend to uphold the ideals of their party, not to mention the ideals of our country, to which both parties give lip service when it suits their needs, and little else.

Traditionally, the Dems have been thought to be the party of the little guy, those immigrants, minorities, and workers looking for a leg up in our capitalistic system, while the the Repubs have been thought to be the party of the big guy, particularly the top 5% that owns 59% of the nation's wealth. Obviously, the Repubs need more voters to win, so their task traditionally has been to get enough little guy votes to win by appealing to them on non-economic issues. The Repubs have always wrapped themselves in the flag as hawks, accusing the Dems of being soft on the enemy. First it was the Communists, now it's the Terrorists. Under Bush, Repubs also have wrapped themselves in the Bible as never before, accusing the Dems of being soft on sin, although political scandals suggest that both parties are equally adept in that department.

"A new Annenberg survey found that only 15 percent of voters considered voting for the other presidential candidate at any point in the election cycle. Supporters of President Bush and John Kerry were statistically even: Eighty-four percent of Bush voters and 85 percent of Kerry voters said there was never a time they thought they would cast ballots for the other candidate," recently wrote the National Journal. Yet, "Quoting Annenberg political director Adam Clymer, the survey's analysis suggests the results 'vindicated a campaign strategy of playing to the base and spending relatively less time and money on undecided voters or soft supporters of the other candidate,' adding that Clymer thinks 'the Bush campaign was especially skillful at implementing that strategy.'" That is, if anything, an understatement--and ignores how the Democratic campaign did just the opposite, writes Doug Ireland.

During both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections, Bush Watch took the position that those who disliked Bush would be better off voting for the Dem candidate than a third party candidate, because a third party vote would not help to defeat Bush. Even Michael Moore finally agreed with this position during the 2004 elections. Yet, as the excerpts below indicate, our position is presently untenable, since most of the Dems are either supporting Bush's disastrous policies or failing to support alternatives. In two short weeks, most Dems failed to record a protest to the undemocratic presidential election in Ohio, and most Dems promise to go on record in support of the terrible Bush nomination of Al Gonzales as attorney-general.

Since the Dems remain disinterested in "playing to the base," we feel that the base should be disinterested in playing to the Dems who do not represent the ideals of the party. This action will have no effect on the makeup of Congress, since redistricing has assured a Repub majority in the House for the next decade, it's unlikely that the present Dem capitulation to Bush will change the Repub Senate majority, and the Senate Dems have pretty much given up filibustering in the face of Frist's threat to outlaw the filibuster. Accordingly, Bush Watch will keep track of how Dems vote on major legislation and only list those Dems who score 70% overall as being worthy of your consideration. The rest are Quislings. Right now, Barbara Boxer is the only Senate Dem with a passing score. --Jerry Politex, 01.12.05

Passing Scores in the House:

Brown, Corrine Carson Clay Clyburn Conyers Davis (IL) Evans Farr Filner Grijalva Hastings (FL) Hinchey Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kilpatrick (MI) Kucinich Lee Lewis (GA) Markey McKinney Olver Owens Pallone Payne Schakowsky Thompson (MS) Waters Watson Woolsey

Four years ago, the Democrats rolled over on the Ashcroft nomination. Then they rolled over on the Bush tax cuts, the authority to invade Iraq, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare reforms. None of that did them one lick of good in November. If the Democrats have the gumption to fight about anything, it ought to be about this [Gonzales] nomination. But it appears they don't. --Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

Is dissent enough? Or must we work for a wholesale change in our representatives, demanding that they either stand up for the principles for which so many Americans have fought and died, or leave the political arena altogether? Where are the true democrats among the Democrats?...Have they all lost their voices?

First Bush and Gonzales came for the terrorists, but I was not a terrorist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the enemy combatants, but I was not a combatant, so I did not object. Then they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, but I was not a protestor and so I only voiced my unease. If we - and our elected representatives - do not speak out now, loudly and forcefully, it may not be long before they come for the rest of us. --Thom Hartman.

As Congress prepared to rubberstamp the nomination of torture aficionado Alberto Gonzales as the nation's chief prosecutor, the Washington Post broke news that would have torn a saner nation apart. The Bush Administration, the paper reported January 2, is no longer planning to keep hundreds of Muslim prisoners currently rotting away in U.S. concentration camps at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram merely "indefinitely." The Defense Department and CIA are now planning "a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions" for these innocents. We're locking them up forever. Without due process.

Before gangsters like Alberto Gonzales seduced us into abandoning our values, a person was considered innocent before being proven guilty. Now we're locking people away because "the government does not have enough evidence to charge [them] in courts." And everyone, including Democrats, is OK with this. --Ted Rall

The Democrats are, of course, opposed to torture. They have, they say, "serious questions" or "grave concerns" or "deep reservations" about Gonzales' record on the subject. And they are, most all of them, planning to vote for him anyway. Just like most of them voted to give the president authority to invade Iraq, even though they had serious questions and grave concerns and deep reservations about that, too. The Iraq war vote, more than anything, is what ignited the Dean insurgency. There was this sense - a correct one - that Democrats in Washington would not stand up to stop George W. Bush even when they sensed the president was driving us over a precipice. Now these senators are poised to take the following position: They are against torture but they are for the man who set the stage for torture.

The Democrats lost the presidential election in part because they aren't trusted on national security. How is this problem solved by embracing one of the administration's worst foreign policy failures? What did acquiescing on Iraq get the Democrats? Substantively, they are complicit in the misadventure and will be part of the political generation that must spend the next decade or two digging out from the rubble. And politically? The Democrats lost seats in Congress and the contest for president, too. Enabling the Bush administration's habit of escaping accountability for even the grossest failure isn't smart politics. It's cowardice. If Democrats are to compete on the political turf of values, they'd better find some they stand for. --Marie Cocco

"We have found numerous, serious election irregularities . . . which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. . . . In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio." -- "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio"

Presumably Rep. Conyers is being careful not to draw conclusions because he wants Congress to have a look. But we're talking about a Congress whose members often pass important legislation without bothering to read it. What makes him think anyone is going to read his report...? Instead, he and a few other Democrats offered a formal challenge to Thursday's ceremonial counting of the electoral votes from November, forcing a brief delay in the official certification of President Bush. --William Raspberry

Dear Senator Kerry,

First, I want to thank you for visiting our troops in Iraq. I support them and want them home. Second, I want to tell you that someone gave you some really bad advice about leaving this country at such a crucial moment in history. I suppose it was more important to save face with your constitutes than to honor you commitment to the American people. I think your strategy backfired. Because now you have lost the respect of thousands and thousands of people who went to bat for you during the election campaign. People like me.

If something is not done to reform this election process then we might as well sound the death knoll for democracy right now. Come 2006 a vote for you will mysteriously go to your opponent and you can times that by the thousands and by every state in this country. It's not about Bush winning or Kerry winning it's how the game was played. It was played with dirty tactics, it was played badly, and there was massive cheating. That is the crux of the matter and it needs to be fixed. Now.

You were not here when we needed you most so don't expect us to be there for you when you need us. Next time something this monumental is going on in your own backyard you may just want to stick around and fight for what is right. Actions speak louder than words.

Sincerely, K

Senator Kerry,

As a progressive who campaigned hard for you and donated in excess of $700.00 to your campaign, after initially supporting Howard Dean, I can honestly say, you've really blown it this time with your insulting letter [see below] appealing for us, the citizens, to do the work again on electoral reform.

All of us who fought so hard for you have been simply left to swing in the wind. Hardly a token finger was lifted by you to fight for our rights to have our votes counted. Your language was clear: It's all about you and your desire to win. You won't fight for us and our desire to have a real democracy where every vote is counted.

You're finished politically unless you see the error of your ways, apologize, recall some of your integrity and willingness to face fire from the 70's and fight on for this great and imperfect country. You will never receive another cent or a vote from me or any other progressive. Many of us will support an opposition candidate in a democratic primary against you.

After saying you'd support the Iraq war even without WMDs, after you ran commercials emphasizing violence over justice ("find the terrorists and kill them"), after you rolled over in a shockingly unjust election, and now after ducking out of an important fight for the soul of our democracy, just what the heck are you? ASK YOURSELF THAT. Remember your lack of responsibility and courage is enabling the dangerous direction of this country.

We need leadership. We're not getting it from you or many other Democrats. With shared and strong values we will lead ourselves, with an insurgent movement of integrity within the Democratic Party and support for coalitions (with progressive Republicans and third party people) outside the party.

Citizen Zeus

Dear Christine,

...Tomorrow [01.06.05], members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.

Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

But, that does not mean we should abandon our commitment to addressing those problems that happened in Ohio. We must act today to make sure they never happen again.

I urge you to join me in using this occasion to highlight our demand that Congress commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system. A Presidential election is a national federal election but we have different standards in different states for casting and counting votes. We need a national federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I will propose legislation to help achieve this....

A recent report from Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) reveals very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials. I commend the Democratic National Committee for its announcement this week that the DNC will be investing resources and reaching out to non-partisan academics in a long term study of Ohio voting irregularities. I am only sorry that we haven't seen the same from Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell and GOP officials.

Congress must play a positive, proactive role on this issue. That's why I will soon introduce legislation to reform our election system, ensuring transparency and accountability in our voting system and that all Americans have an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted....

There are nearly 3,000,000 of you receiving this email. We accomplished so much together during the campaign. Now let's use our power to make sure that at least one good thing comes from the voting rights problems of the 2004 election. If we want to force real action on election reform, we've got to demand that congressional leaders hold full hearings. Make sure they hear from you and help hold them accountable.

Speaker Dennis Hastert: 1-202-225-0600... Leader Bill Frist: 1-202-224-3135... And please report that you've made your call right here: http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.php

Thank you, John Kerry

Bush Watch is a daily political internet magazine based in Austin, Texas, paid for and edited by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Contents, including "Bush Watch" and "Politex," (c) 1998-2005 Politex. The views expressed herein and the views in stories that you are linked to are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch. Permission of author required for reprinting original material, and only requests for reprinting a specific item are considered. The duration of the working links is not under our control. Bush Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk. Send all e-mail to Politex.