Pelosi has successfully opposed Bush 86% of the time!

[monktonman]

Big frickity-frick.
While thats news to me, how many average voters know that?
How many AVERAGE VOTERS, not DUers, know that or even care?
Fact of the matter is, the typical voter doesnt know these things and
vote based on how they FEEL about a given candidate.

Every day, the typical voter turns on his television and see's the dems
being handed another defeat. They fold like wussies every time.
While I understand how hard it is for Nancy and the boys to push the dem agenda through
with such a thin majority and while I applaud them for opposing Bush policies
86% of the time (highest in recorded history?) I'm angry at them for rufusing
100% of the time to play politics.

Sometimes, putting up a good fight, like in the case of Pete Stark, is way more
important than policy initiatives.
Sometimes.

[bryant69]

1. I totally agree. It's far more important to look like you are fighting Bush than to actually fight

him. Symbolism is what matters, not substance.

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

[robinlynne]

2. You mean the troops are home? Our civil liberties are restored?

Has all the stolen money via private government contractors been returned?
Did we win on impeachment?
So glad the wiretapping has been stopped.
And proud of our Dems who stopped the war funding.

That is wonderful.

well, if not, what bills were the Dems working on?

[monktonman]

5. I agree, add those to the list.

But some are saying that although the Dems havent accomplished these things
(ok, lets not forget about the razor thin majority. I'll give you that.)
they have opposed Rethug policies and have been successful 86% of the time.

Fine
What the AVERAGE voter really wants is to see the Dems showing some guts and taking a stand
every once in awhile. If you think Joe six-pack sits around thinking like a policy wonk
your kidding yourself. What he does see is a pack of scaredy cats running with their
tails between their legs. Every time. Sorry but thats what makes news.
Yes, I know this is the way pukes frame things but sometimes it would be nice to see
our guys forget about being nice or how things look and take the gloves off and fight.

[berni_mccoy]

3. define "successfully opposed" because I'm not seeing it.

What vetoes have been overridden?

Which Iraq Funding bill has been voted down?

Which Democratic funding bill have been passed?

What Republicans have been censured for their outrageous unapologetic rhetoric?

This is why she and many other Democrats were elected.

[monktonman]

6. It was something some other poster was saying...

to stick up for Speaker Pelosi.
Im not buying it.
read the OP

[Donnachaidh]

4. 'successfully' opposed Bush 86% -- WHERE?

I'd really LOVE to see that percentage backed up with facts. ON WHAT? Was there a thumbwrestling match that wasn't televised? Rock paper scissors?

WTF do these *numbers* come from -- because I've seen nothing but SHIT from Pelosi and Reid - the sheep twins.

[monktonman]

9. My point exactly! n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. Please see link in my sig.

Given that I'm the one who started kicking that around (with that wording) in the last week, both in threads and in my sig, he probably got it from me. I wonder why he didn't ask me instead of starting a new thread.

[monktonman]

23. Your sig is what I'm commenting on.

Do you think the AVERAGE voter knows that?
If the only people to vote were people on DU
we'd have it made!
Showing that statistic, while it may be true (even I dont care)
doesnt mean shit.
I ask you....if they have the highest yadda-yadda-who cares,
why is their approval rating lower than Bush?
Please explain.

[Rhythm and Blue]

24. Explain their approval rating? Pretty easy.

1/3 of America thinks: "Man, why aren't they doing more to get us out of Iraq and give us universal healthcare?" Most of these blame the Republicans for blocking legislation, though a minority thinks their party is a pack of sellouts.

1/3 of America thinks, "Fucking Democrat communists, trying to make us lose the war on terror and give us socialized medicine." Most of these blame the Democrats for introducing bad legislation, though a minority thinks their party is a pack of sellouts.

1/3 of America thinks, "I have had it up to here with these partisan games both parties play. They're more interested in insulting each other than actually doing anything about my problems." These blame the Republicans slightly more; this is why approval of Democrats in congress is higher than approval of Republicans in congress.

[monktonman]

25. You give us too much credit.... n/t

[Rhythm and Blue]

26. Yeah, I should make those figures closer to 1/6, 1/6, 2/3. nt

[Zodiak]

27. They had to throw the kitchen sink in to get those numbers

I became interested in this sort of thing a few years ago when everyone was going after Leiberman for his continuous betrayals and his supporters were on here quoting his ADA ratings, etc.

I looked up the methodology of ADA and a few more organizations, and to arrive at the numbers they get, they throw in a bunch of useless procedural votes and amendments that never see the light of day. In other words....they make sure they obscure the meat behind a wall of fat and gristle

I went and rescored Dem Senators on bill passages and important nominations (the big issues), and get a VERY different set of numbers than NARAL, ADA, etc were getting.

Remember, many of these organizations are lobbyists whose job is to cozy up to politicians of one of the two parties. Naturally, they are inclined to make the politicians they court happy by giving them inflated ratings.

That is my assessment of all of this sudden quoting of ratings by Hillary supporters. By my calculations, she agreed with the progressives on big issues 53% of the time in the 109th Congress. Does that sound more like the record that we have witnessed for the time we have been here on DU?

People spouting numbers like this do not publish the methodology, as well. Numbers without methodology are worth absolutely bupkis. That's what stock I put in all of this ADA, NARAL crap flowing around lately. It's all just the same tired excuses from the same centrists and party loyalists that think they can piss on our heads and tell us it is raining.

Oh.....and here are my numbers:

Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.62068966
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862


And here is my methodology:

Here are the 29 issues that I scored (and how I felt the issue should be voted on):
------------------------------------------
Condi confirm (nay)
Gonzales Confirm (nay)
class action law (nay)
bankruptcy bill (nay)
confirm negroponte (nay)
energy bill (nay)
CAFTA (nay)
CAFTA (2nd vote) (nay)
ohiovote (no to certification, 5 points for at least giving a speech)
firearm manufacturer immunity (nay)
confirmation of radical judges (gang of 14 = 5 pts, voting for one or more of these judges 0)
tax relief act of 2005 (tax cuts for rich) (nay)
deficit reconciliation act (spending cuts for poor) (nay)
Alito cloture (nay)
Alito nomination (nay)
Tax cut protection (favor the rich) (nay)
Extend Patriot Act (nay)
Raise limit on public debt (nay)
Flag burning Amendment (nay)
US-Oman FTA (nay)
Roberts Confirmation (nay)
Gates' confirmation (nay)
Atomic cooperation w/ India (nay)
Border Fence (nay)
Military Commissions act (nay)
Pension protection act (nay...not sure about this one, actually..Feingold and Boxer voted nay)
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (nay)
Child Insterstate Abortion Notification Act (nay)
Stem Cell Enhancement Act (yeah)

A couple of issues listed here did not serve to distinguish between Dem senators (because they all voted together), but they were included because they were important votes (the Gates' confirmation).

Anyways...that is the Senate how I see it. If anyone is interested in doing this themselves, please PM me your email address and I will send you the Excel file to save you some research. You can then tweak it to your own tastes.

(yes, I flag DLC Senators. When I started this exercise, I wanted to know how they stood on the big issues. The senators in bold are the ones I am sure are running for Pres in 2008. I am sure I have missed a few)



As an anecdote, remember this: never believe a DUer who posts in GD over a hundred times a day. If they spend that much time typing, they can't spend that much time reading. Just repeating talking points.

[Rhythm and Blue]

29. The links clearly state the methodology.

For the opposition-to-bush, it is "How often Congress voted with Bush on bills the President took a clear public stance on."
For Clinton, it's "How often Hillary Clinton voted with members of her own party on contested votes."

[Zodiak]

34. This sentence is not a methodology:

"These scores represent the percentage of votes on which a lawmaker agrees with the position taken by a majority of his or her party members. The scores do not include missed votes."

It does say which votes or what types of votes were counted. As far as this methodology goes, every time things are voted on by "unanimous consent", it is counted.

Also, by this methodology, since a majority of Democrats voted with Bush for the Patriot Act, then voting for the Patriot Act would count. In the Senate, nearly 50% are DLC.....so does that mean that this is a reflection of one's loyalty to the DLC?

And that is only one example. The other is most likely just as incomplete. A statistic is only as good as the methodology. DUers are interested in the big issues that affect their lives directly, not whether or not we should honor Gerald Ford after he died (which was a vote in the Senate this session).

But I am not going to bore you with 20+ posts hopping up and down to convince you when you obviously have an agenda, as evidenced by your sudden proliferation on this board and your need to come to every thread and challenge everyone who disagrees with you (I read a lot more than I write here). I have said my piece. Many of us have been here for some time and have seen the ebb and flow of this sort of rhetoric before. I have done my homework enough to see through the BS and so it doesn't work on me.

But by all means, peddle it....I won't stand in your way.

Ahh....wait....it looks like I am looking at another statistic site that has crap stats.....this one

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

So many bogus stats being quoted today without any facts to back them up. Hard to look them all up ya know.

Wait again...it IS one of your stat sites. You are even misrepresenting what the poll means. It wasn't on contested votes.....you put that word in yourself to make it SEEM like the big issues. Cute, but it doesn't cut the mustard.

[Rhythm and Blue]

35. It's pretty obvious that "unanimous consent" is not counted.

Look at Olympia Snowe's figures. These are contested votes. If you like, I can provide you with other, similar party-loyalty figures; it's just that WaPo's has the nicest layout.

[Zodiak]

36. It doesn't say either way

It left one sentence for the explanation of votes. That is it. Anything you say beyond that is speculative.

And I don't need them. Like I said , I have done my homework and do not have to rely on others to do my thinking for me, especially a DUer with an obvious agenda who feels they have to post a zillion times a day.

Your time is better spent convincing someone else that the piss on their heads is rain. I'm immune.

[never_get_over_it]

38. OK this is fabulous

good work and I think you are right on target.

I call this article BS - because there is no way on IMPORTANT issues Nancy and Harry have stood up to this puke 86% of the time -

For example they are always going on about raising the minimum wage - oh guess what that was attached to some war spending bill - so the only way they were going to get it was to also give the freak more money for Iraq - although glad they were able to accomplish that - just wish more destruction money had to go with it.

and way to stand up on FISA in August and even now - PLEASE....

Perception is EVERYTHING and no matter what this article says - the perception of almost everyone is that the Dems are spineless

Thanks for your work - I did something similar to pick my top 10 BEST Senators - truthfully I don't think our top ten is that different....I have to go look for that thing and see how it compares - if I find it I'll let you know

[Zodiak]

39. Excellent...I would love the comparison.

looking forward to it.

[Donnachaidh]

37. it's real easy to play with figures to window dress

And that's basically what I'm seeing in your link.

So when we add up all the rinky-dink *votes* on smaller issues, we're supposed to count *that* as opposition? This is the same sort of three-card monty BS that the Republicans use to blow smoke about their *family values agenda* voting! So, because it's written about a Democrat we're supposed to be okay with this nonsense? The *cootie factor* is gone because it's Democratic rhetoric?

Wow. I was under the impression that Nancy was given a MANDATE by the voters last November. One that included some very important things -- if not stopping the war immediately, putting a big old rock on the warchest to stop funding Napolean Bushaparte from spending our unborn grandkid's money. And how about that children's healthcare thing? Or the tax breaks that are breaking the backs of the middle class? Ya know -- the REAL things the American Middle class worries about?

I was a Pelosi supporter, and stayed a supporter even after she took impeachment off the table. Forcing Stark to apologize to that drunken sot and the rest of the republican crybabies just slammed the door shut. She's not even backing up her OWN people now? WTF?

She should step down. She's done NOTHING she was asked to do. She's USELESS. And she's dangerous in her uselessness.

[mmonk]

7. I like this

"Sometimes, putting up a good fight, like in the case of Pete Stark, is way more
important than policy initiatives."

simply because of where we are in this country as well as the senate makeup and an executive with a veto.

[renie408]

8. "Typical voter"?? What about the 'typical' DUer??

Look at the responses you are getting. I know you have facts to back up that stat because I saw another post, with links, quoting the same thing the other day. It doesn't matter. Unless the Dems pull a miracle out of their ass, people here are going to spit on them. How on fucking EARTH is Nancy Pelosi supposed to get the war ended with a Senate majority of ONE?? Impossible? Who cares about pesky reality! We want results!!

[monktonman]

10. Maybe I speak chinese?

It doesn't really matter if The Dem leadership blocks 100% of repuke
initiatives. Its the public PERCEPTION of the typical voter that counts.
What the typical voter see's from these guys is nothing but perpetual bending over.
enough already!

[berni_mccoy]

13. lol, I re-read your post. I see your point now, but it was subtle

I thought you were defending Pelosi at first. My bad.

[renie408]

16. No, not chinese. But you seem fluent in Asshole. n/t

[monktonman]

19. studied asshole as a second language for many years

more challenging than sanskrit.

[lvx35]

30. That's why the OP is great.

Thanks for that. I get so sick of all the complaining...The reason Pelosi is stuck is because she doesn't have the power not to be, and the 11% approval rating diminishes her power further...If a congress person has to choose between the 35% of Bush and the 11% of Pelosi, they will go with Bush and back the war.
I wish people understood that there is very little power in anger. Getting people angry about Pelosi will do NOTHING to change the situation. Real power lies in hope and optimism.

[Captain Hilts]

14. People don't understand how govt. works. Or they want us to act like Gingrich did and talk trash.nt

[monktonman]

18. People DONT understand how government works.

I know how hard it is for these guys to get things done they way they are.
The average voter doesnt though and the dem leadership should know that.
Instead of sometimes putting on a good show for the knuckleheads,
they prefer to rely on statistics and poll metrics and shit the average
voter doesnt know or even want to know about.

Joe six pack wants someone who will fight for whats right.
what that right is about, sadly, is up to those who are elected.
For knucklehead its the fight thats important.

If Speaker Pelosi has successfully fought 86% of all bush initiatives (highest in recorded history
dontcha know.) How did they get that 11% favorable rating ?

Perception is how.

[rodeodance]

11. well, get buzy, pass to all you know and the your media. write LTTE.

[Horse with no Name]

12. But not when it really matters

That is the key.

[Robbien]

15. How many times has Pelosi said NO. We will not present GOPer bills

She presents 100% of each and every GOPer bill and GOPer censure statement the GOPers demand be presented for a vote.

And then wimply votes against them while they pass with flying colors. And then expects the dumb American public to pat her on her back for a job well done.

If a Dem even dares to present a bill she makes sure the bill is not presented for a vote until HUGE GOPer involvement and amendments are granted. Not one.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. You are wasting your talents on this one around here. Unless

Nancy P personally drops the poison gas pill on Bush & Cheney after she presides over their war crimes trial you won't see any bouquets heading in her direction from DU these days.

[monktonman]

20. all hail Nancy P.

I personally think they are doing OK.
I'm talking about image.
thats all.

if they're doing such a great job, why has the American public
given them a lower approval rating than Bush?
How is that possible?

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. Poll about congress are without exception extremely low always.

They are meaningless.

[kestrel91316]

28. There is a big difference to me between opposing Bush verbally and

putting up a SERIOUS, no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle FIGHT. To the death. Fighting for principles.

It's the constant acquiescing and buckling under and apologizing that bothers some of us. No wonder Congress has, what, an 11% approval rating?

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. Yeah. The problem is they do the latter, and you want the former.

The opposition refers to actual votes. Everyone here is complaining that people said mean things about Stark.

[monktonman]

33. We know the things we know partly because we come here.

In another post, you asked me to check out your sig line.
I did and I was surprised. Doesnt change the way I feel about the present leadership.
Like I said earlier, they could appose Bush 100% of the time and it still means squat.
I'm talking about people who DONT DO DU.
What do you think they'll see when they turn on the news tonight
and see Pete Stark whipe away his tears after apologizing?
They're certainly not gonna think "well, they have successfully apposed bush policies 86% of the time."
They're gonna think " well, he said sorry so he must be wrong" or "fucking pussies"

109,000 registered viewers doesnt me shit in the landscape of american voters.
Having some guts does.

[defendandprotect]

32. EXCEPT when it counted -- like refunding the war --- and IMPEACHMENT --- !!!!