Senate Voting Record Chart. Boxer and Harkin tied for first.

[genius]

The Senate voting records are sad - compared to those of the House which contains Democrats with perfect voting records.
http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-scores.html

[Liberty Belle]

1. Amazing contrast between CA's 2 Senators.

Boxer has the highest score and improved 20 points over last time.

Feinstein, by contrast, dropped 37 points.

Californians, please send this rating sheet to Feinstein and ask her to improve her stances on core Democratic issues!

[Mass]

2. My two senators are both around + 20

kerry +22.55 and Kennedy + 20. (Akaka, Dayton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Levin, and Wyden being the only ones around + 20).

Interestingly Feingold has gone down -20 due to the fact that he voted for Johnson and Byrd is now -40.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Still using these ridiculous rankings?

Do yourself and everyone here a favor and drop Patrick Henry in favor of a group that has a modicum of political knowledge and half the zealotry.

[Mass]

4. At least, he holds everybody to the same standards

which is more than can be said from some people here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. And what a worthy standard it is...

:sarcasm:

[Mass]

6. At least it is consistent, even if subjective!

I am sorry, I have seen enough BS with some people bashing some pol for something while writing up another who has a worse position than a list like that is reassuring by its consistency.

It represents only genius's opinion, but everybody can understand what his criteria are (and they are not to write up or down somebody).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Bush is consistantly bad. Does that mean he's okay by you?

[Mass]

8. Not ok, but I can understand how he thinks and then make my own conclusion

Same thing here.

This is more than some people here can do.

BTW, I have no problems with his criterias. Do you think the votes he selected are not important?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Not only are they not important, they show a lack of political savvy.

Half of the votes are for things that Democrats had absolutely no shot of defeating, and the other half of them are on things that no Democrat who has any shot of coming close to having a competitive race in the future would ever conceive of voting against. Then he includes repetitive procedural votes, which is the same thing the Bushbots did when they smeared Kerry by saying he voted to increase taxes around 100 times. It's total bullshit and zealotry, and I'm growing weary of it.

[Mass]

11. OK, if you think these votes are not important, I disagree totally

What are the Senators supposed to do if they dont voted Gonzales down or vote against something as nefarious as the Bankrupcy Act, that is so bad for people.

I am not sure why you make such a big deal of it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Bankruptcy Act: #1 reason why this shows ZERO political savvy.

As if our Senators from states where banking is the top industry and employer, such as Delaware and the Dakotas, had ANY choice whatsoever in that?

And what chance did we have against Gonzales? Why in the world would you want our Democratic Senators from Republican leaning states to expose themselves to criticism on an issue on which Democrats had absolutely no chance of winning? Isn't it more important to keep as many Democratic Senators as possible? Or do you just want ideological purity?

Zealotry has few uses.

[Mass]

16. So we should not vote against something that will pass

Sorry, I cant relate with that. And for Gonzales, ,most Democratic Senators from Republican states voted against him. Same thing for the bankruptcy Act where many Dems from Republican states voted against him.

We are in a Republican congress. There are very few of those votes the Dems are going to vote. Following your logic, democratic senators from republican states should vote constantly with the republicans.

We are currently far from ideological purity as the vote for Negroponte shows. But I dont see why you yell so much after what is after all nothing but a chart showing how Senators vote.

[Mass]

9. Sorry but the comparison is unfair between the House and the Senate

as they dont have the same votes. In particular, you have here a few nominations that you see as problematic and we dont know how the people in the House would have voted on those.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Any group that gives a score of -20 to Sen Feingold and Sen Leahy

is really using some bizarre standards to measure by. I would ignore these ratings just on the score of these two.

[Mass]

13. Still mad at Feingold for voting for Johnson as EPA head.

I know a lot of people consider it is not a great deal, but sorry, it is for me (and it is how he got his -20, if you want to know).

He is still better than a lot of them, but this scale is steep, that is all.

[cestpaspossible]

14. Why didn't you include the vote on the Cantwell Amendment?

one of the key votes this session, imho.