RS: 10 Worst Congressmen

[bearman🐻]

http://democrats.house.gov/
 
 Democrats don't have a plan and Nancy Pelosi doesn't stand for anything? Oh right. So let me ask you this...when you're in the minority and you basically have no power and the government has ZERO balance, just how DO you get something accomplished? Um, last time I checked, being in the minority is almost entirely about playing defense. When the majority party won't allow hearings or markups in committee, bills to come to the Floor, or even acknowledge key issues that need to be addressed? When (as a Democrat) you get shut out of meetings on important legislation and basically told to fuck off because Republicans are going to pass whatever the hell they want, no matter what the cost? Bipartisanship is a nonexistent word these days, unlike at least in 1986 when Rep. Rostenkowski saved Social Security and worked with Dems and Republicans and then Reagan happily signed the tax law. And I can give you countless examples of how the lovely Bill Thomas has deliberately screwed Democrats and even people in his own party because he's such a prick. He should have topped that stupid list. If you have it all figured out, then I'd LOVE to hear it.

[thingsfallapart]

Alright, well I didn't mean to stir up this pot of hatred, but everyone sure seems keen on attacking me.  A few things--Republicans don't outnumber Democrats 9 to 1.  Secondly, I think anyone who believes that if and when the Democrats come to power they won't simply do the same thing Republicans are doing and pass "whatever the fuck they want" is either idealistic or immature.  Let's not pretend that the Democrats have any goals of cooperation.  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, consider this.  What truly is the mark of a "bad" congressman?  I would say it is a lack of representation of their constituency and a failure to enact legislature benefitting that constituency.  Based on that definition, which I think is a fairly good one, wouldn't more Democrats be deserving of some of those slots?  Naturally, the Republicans are in power now and that makes it extremely difficult for Democrats to pass legislation that makes them happy, but wouldn't it truly be the mark of a fine congressman to be able to pass legislation in the face of great odds?

[bearman🐻]

No offense to thingsfallapart, but I get the sense that you don't appreciate what the odds are against a Democrat passing some kind of legislation beyond naming a post office or congratulating some sports team on their latest win. It's just not a simple matter of being a competent representative or senator. How are you going to get a bill to the House Floor if the people in charge are so adamant about not letting it get there? There's a reason why a Democratic bill to outlaw sweatshops in the Northern Mariana Islands (a U.S. Commonwealth) and pay the workers minimum wage never made it anywhere...Tom DeLay (a Republican) would never let it get there. So things with the "Made in the USA" label were being sold at the Gap and they were made by workers in sweatshops. Nice. That's just one example of many.
 
 Republicans don't outnumber Democrats 9 to 1, but the attitude that all politicains are crummy is a common one right now...but it's also pretty cynical and in my opinion unfair. I think we have to look at who is in charge, and it sure isn't the Democrats. Are Democrats perfect? No. Have they been unified and crafted a coherent, explicit message? No. But do they have ideas and want to stand up for people are getting screwed over? You betcha. Last I checked, Republicans didn't care about college students going into tens of thousands of dollars of debt...Democrats were the ones wanting to give them more student aid, raise the maximum Pell grant, and let them consolidate student loans more than once.
 
 Did Republicans give a crap about Enron? Or the fact that major airlines are taking away pensions from their workers? Nope. Democrats were the ones trying to get hearings and introducing bills to prevent that from happening again. The list goes on. I simply think we need a change, and things are not as bleak as everyone chooses to believe. True, things are bad and haven't been so partisan in a long time...but I also think that the Democrats would at least have enough sense to try to craft bipartisan legislation that deals with real issues, not putting up some stupid fence or trying to deprive certain Americans of rights to appease the religious fanatics. But I think at this point to attack and criticize doesn't do much good...this is the time to think that maybe things just might improve if we try to change it. With an election coming up, a lot of people might stay home in disgust and stew...but why not go vote the people out if you're mad?

[beetsnotbeats]

Pelosi Spells Out First 100 HOURS after Dems Take Control

[thingsfallapart]

I guess I'm just jaded.  Do I believe Democrats truly have a well thought out plan for the direction of the country?  Not really.  Look at John Kerry--in retrospect, he was an awful candidate for president.  Why?  I think a main reason was because no one could tell what he actually stood for, and it wasn't just the result of a fairly vicious spin campaign.  The man was simply a weak-willed, uninspiring politician.  I will continue to firmly be a Democrat, but right now I see a party in disarray with no clear leaders stepping up to the plate (save for perhaps Obama, who I think could actually stand a chance in 2008, should he decide to run.)  I suppose the bottom line is that I just don't buy into the idea of Democrats being honest-to-goodness champions of the underdog.
 
 Regardless, my main point about the Rolling Stone article still stands.  The term "worst" is subjective--something that allows the dimwits at RS to simply bitch about politicians that rub them the wrong way.  The fact is, being a "bad" congressman means not passing legislation, and the ones the article pointed out are, by that commonly held definition, actually some of the most successful congressmen there are.  If they had titled the piece "The 10 Most Immoral Congressman" (and it's clear that was the intention of the article--a spin campaign that seems no worse to me than what many Republicans have done in the past, but that's another matter), then fine, at least the purpose of the article would have been clear.  But instead they chose to take a poorly veiled swipe at politicians they don't like.

[SPARX]

Good thread, so far

[alex]

The overall article that went along with this list "The Worst Congress Ever" was actually really good.

[Drewduffy]

Of course the democrats have a plan and message:
 George Bush...Bad
 
 Iraq war...bad
 
 Economy...Iraq War bad
 
 Terrorism...Iraq war Bad
 
 Education....Did we mention... Iraq War Bad
 
 How do you differ from your opponent?...He republican, Bush Republican...Bush Bad..Iraq bad.
 
 Okay agreed we shouldn't have gone to Iraq... Dems Future Plan for Iraq...Iraq War, George Bush Bad.

[Barcelona]

Originally posted by d20001:
  Of course the democrats have a plan and message:
 George Bush...Bad
 
 Iraq war...bad
 
 Economy...Iraq War bad
 
 Terrorism...Iraq war Bad
 
 Education....Did we mention... Iraq War Bad
 
 How do you differ from your opponent?...He republican, Bush Republican...Bush Bad..Iraq bad.
 
 Okay agreed we shouldn't have gone to Iraq... Dems Future Plan for Iraq...Iraq War, George Bush Bad.

and on top of that Foley is a Democrat! These Democrats shouldn't exist!!!

[Drewduffy]

You couldn't have posted a better reply to prove the point. Foley's bad and he's republican... yeah no kidding.  That, of course completely clarifies the Democratic stance on their future plans.
   Not trying to defend the republicans, but give moderate republicans (clinton Republicans)who are not happy with Bush/ congress either a reason to vote democrat other than just they're not Republican.

[Relaxer]

Originally posted by d20001:
  Of course the democrats have a plan and message:
 George Bush...Bad
 
 Iraq war...bad
 
 Economy...Iraq War bad
 
 Terrorism...Iraq war Bad
 
 Education....Did we mention... Iraq War Bad
 
 How do you differ from your opponent?...He republican, Bush Republican...Bush Bad..Iraq bad.
 
 Okay agreed we shouldn't have gone to Iraq... Dems Future Plan for Iraq...Iraq War, George Bush Bad.

This is a clear example of someone whose knowledge of current events is no deeper than the news crawl on CNN or Fox News. The Democrats are not in total lockstep opinion on every event of the day, but they have offered up bills, proposals, and plans on how better to run Congress, how to salvage George Bush's war, how to address corporate malfeasance, etc. They may not be the best or most practical ideas, but they are examples of trying to solve problems rather than just staying the course and allowing a shit situation to get much shittier.
 
 But the Republicans refuse to allow any of them to be considered, and its left to news analysts like Broder, Novak, Brooks, Dionne, and others to shed light on them. But if you don't actually read the paper, you wouldn't know this and would instead come up with cute lists that portray the Democrats as simply nay-sayers.
 
 Nancy Pelosi herself offered up a very common sense plan on how Congress should work, instead of the completely fucked up way that the GOP has done it. Her thing describes a system of power-sharing, where the majority has clear authority but the minority is allowed a voice and a participatory role. Under Dennis Hastert, Democrats have virtually no say whatsoever in any legislation that is being considered on the floor or in the main committees. The reason no action has been taken on the main events of the day (health care, immigration, Bush's war, corporate and contractor abuse) is because Republicans refuse to involve any Democrats, and in this, Bush and his administration is completely to blame. He has never even attempted to be bipartisan, and instead paints Democrats as cut-and-run defeatocrats.
 
 How exactly are Democrats supposed to do more then? Seriously, I would like to know what you think. If the Democrats are powerless, because of GOP policies, to introduce legislation or have any role in the shaping of legislation, how exactly can they actively promote an agenda?

[edbert]

Nancy Pilosi is hot for a grandma

[Barcelona]

Originally posted by d20001:
  You couldn't have posted a better reply to prove the point. Foley's bad and he's republican... yeah no kidding.  That, of course completely clarifies the Democratic stance on their future plans.
   Not trying to defend the republicans, but give moderate republicans (clinton Republicans)who are not happy with Bush/ congress either a reason to vote democrat other than just they're not Republican.

My point was pretty much the same as yours, but the other way around. I see Republicans only criticizing Democrats and telling people how catastrophic the consequences of Democrats regaining both the Senate and Congress would be. But really, if the news in Irak and other parts of the world are not explicit enough to make people think about voting for an alternative to improve the current situation, then there is something wrong with voters in the United States. Democrats are not perfect, but look at how many innocent people are dying in Irak on a daily basis. Yes, most Democrats supported the war, but seeing how things are going there, I can't see how people could vote to continue with the same policies of the last five years.

[Sir HC]

I did not realize that Nancy is a Maryland gal.

[Sir HC]

Bearman do you work on the hill?