Senators Who Made Us Proud in 2005 - Mentions Kerry

[rox63]

<snip>
Think all Democratic Senators are made of the same stuff? Think again. Then, take a look at the Senators who had absolutely zero weasel-worthy votes in 2005:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

No politician can please everyone, but when you look at the sheer number of important votes that these seven Senators had to be involved with, it is commendable and somewhat astounding that they voted like real Democrats on every, single one of them.

<snip>

It's a shame we're losing Senators Corzine and Sarbanes this year – the former is the next Governor of New Jersey and the latter is retiring –and, regardless of what you think of John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, his performance in the Senate last year certainly made me feel like my support was well placed.

Kerry and Jack Reed deserve special notice for their efforts to get the GOP majority to fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help the elderly and disabled heat their homes this winter. Sadly, they failed, but they managed on three occasions to get the matter to the Senate floor for a vote, only to have it rejected each time at the hands of the GOP leadership. Likewise, Ted Kennedy attempted twice in 2005 to help working Americans by getting a hike in the federal minimum wage, which has been at $5.15 per hour for nine years.

Read the rest here: http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/01/us-senators-who-made-us-proud-in-2005.html

[Island Blue]

1. Rox, have I told you lately that I love your Senators?

Have you posted this in GD yet? If you haven't yet please do! :) This is definitely something that needs to be shared with the masses!

[jillan]

2. I second that!! This is GD worthy,

For all of those that ask
"Where are the dems?"

[blm]

4. Amen to that!

.

[rox63]

9. Just posted in GD:P

Right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2349654

[MH1]

3. I'm liking Bob Geiger more, the more I read of him.

Interesting that this doesn't include Feingold. If I search my memory banks I guess I'll remember why. Anyone want to save wear and tear on my gray matter and remind me?

[whometense]

6. John Roberts

Edited to erase my previous ????

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=23797

Most Disappointing Vote for John Roberts

Of all the votes by Democratic senators in favor of the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, none is likely to be more disappointing to progressives than that of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Feingold, a maverick Democrat whose increasingly outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq has earned him frequent mentions as a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was one of three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support the Roberts nomination on Thursday.

Along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and fellow Wisconsinite Herb Kohl, Feingold joined all of the committee's Republicans in backing the Bush administration nominee. The three Democratic votes on the committee are likely to ease the way for as many as two dozen Senate Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts when the nomination goes to the full Senate.

Feingold's stance is especially significant, as his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act in 2001 and other bold challenges to the administration have marked him as one of the chamber's more courageous defenders of civil rights and civil liberties. As such, his support of Roberts provides other Democrats and moderate Republicans who choose to back the nominee with a measure of cover.

<...>

[Dr Ron]

7. Perhaps for votes on nominees

I don't recall which case off hand, but I recall Feingold going against many liberals in voting yes on some of the high profile Bush nominees on the principle that Presidents should generally be able to pick their people.

Personally I don't think any less of Feingold for not making the list but I love the irony here. Kerry got bashed by taking some of his votes out of context (such as the IWR vote) with many claiming he was Bush-lite. Republicans did the opposite, taking only a limited number of votes during the time Kerry was campaigning to claim he was the most liberal member. Now Feingold, who certainly is liberal, fails to make a list you would expect him to be on.

How will the liberal bloggers take this. Obviously the same liberal bloggers who held certain Kerry votes against him should will also drop their support for Feingold now that he failed to make the list. :)

[ProSense]

8. Kerry also voted against Gale Norton. And here is real irony.

01/25/2001

Why I will vote against Gale Norton

By US Senator John Kerry

GALE NORTON, President George W. Bush's choice for secretary of the interior, has been labeled an extremist and caricatured as ''James Watt in a skirt.''
These words are not only uncivil, but they distract from sincere differences over principle and policy that have made this nomination troubling for those concerned about the environment.

I oppose Norton's nomination because, for a Cabinet post that demands that its occupant strike a difficult and delicate balance between conservation and development, Bush has selected an individual whose philosophy is remarkably unbalanced.

The secretary of the interior is responsible for protecting almost 500 million acres of public land, including our parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. The secretary is the steward of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Everglades, Great Smoky Mountains, Glacier, Mt. Rainier, and our other national treasures. The secretary implements critical parts of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws that protect our natural resources.

At the same time, the interior secretary manages the development of our public lands. Private companies use our nation's water, minerals, timber, oil, gas, and other public resources, contributing to national economic growth and providing thousands of jobs.

The secretary must strike the proper balance between conservation and development, yet Norton has staked out positions favoring excessive development over sound conservation.

As a constitutional attorney, Norton argued that bedrock federal environmental, public health, and other laws are unconstitutional or otherwise fatally flawed. If her core convictions were the basis for this new administration's actions, it would unravel most of our nation's environmental safeguards.

Norton has written that we should consider ''a homesteading right to pollute or to make noise in an area.'' While she has acknowledged that that statement is unclear, the policy consequence is clear: to protect the air, water, or land from pollution, we must pay the polluter to stop polluting.

Norton has argued that all or parts of the Clean Air Act and other protections are unconstitutional under her view of states' rights. She has argued that the Surface Mining Act - ensuring mines operate safely - is unconstitutional and ''threatens to destroy the federal structure of government.''

She has called for weakening environmental considerations in the National Environmental Policy Act. She has argued against the Superfund law's ''polluter pays'' provisions, a fundamental principle that protects the taxpayers from paying the cost of cleaning up toxic waste sites or enduring environmental degradation in their communities.

Norton's record as Colorado attorney general - another job in which she pledged to enforce the law - provides a troublesome perspective of how she might use the discretion of federal office.

At the same time that Norton cut her office's environmental enforcement budget by more than 30 percent, government watchdog groups report that she pursued the federal government for environmental violations but lightly prosecuted corporate polluters.

She failed to take action against a power plant repeatedly violating the Clean Air Act, a refinery discharging oil into a creek, require a strong cleanup plan from a company emitting heavy metals, or pursue action against a polluting mill that ultimately received $37 million in fines for willfully covering up violations.

At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Norton stated a willingness to rethink her views and pledged to enforce the laws of the Interior Department. But too often absolutist legal views were cast aside with little or vague explanation.

She declined comment on a range of issues in which her philosophy could play a central role in decision making, offering to review them once in office.

This is not an academic exercise. It was only six years ago that the Newt Gingrich-led Congress sought to enact the philosophy Norton has advocated. Her record as attorney general itself highlights the difference between blanket proclamations and executive discretion. Nor has President Bush explained why he has chosen Norton to implement laws she has passionately argued are unconstitutional or substantially flawed for roughly two decades.

I do not believe a citizen can or should be expected to disavow a career's record to join the Cabinet and serve this nation. Neither do I believe senators should be expected to cast away legitimate concerns about that record for the sake of an expedient transition. Bipartisanship is compromise - not capitulation.

Given the assaults on the environment of the past few years and knowing the sanctity of our public treasures hangs in the balance, I will vote against the nomination of a secretary-designate whose philosophy threatens that balance.

John F. Kerry is a US senator.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=180091&

Details on the vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010130/aponline161438_000.htm



Here's what I don't get: while the environmental groups were urging support for McCain-Feingold and urging people to oppose Norton, Feingold votes to confirm her (Correction: Notice after the vote that they began directing people to contact McCain):

I. TAKE ACTION: CALL ON SENATORS TO CO-SPONSOR REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, S. 27, sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) would eliminate soft money contributions to political parties from special interests, thereby reducing pressure from these interests to weaken environmental safeguards.

The McCain-Feingold bill is the first step toward cleaning up the election system and restoring the confidence of the American people in the democratic ideal that every person's voice counts. Unfortunately, there is a good chance that opponents to campaign finance reform will attempt to undermine S. 27 by offering an amendment that would raise the individual contribution limits to candidates, they may also offer a so called "Pay Check Protection" Amendment that is designed to either kill the bill or cripple the rights of working men and women to participate in the political process.

Call your Senators today at [phone] and urge them to co-sponsor McCain-Feingold and oppose amendments that would weaken the reforms in the bill. Tell them that "After the bitter conclusion to last year's election, many Americans' faith in our democracy has been shaken. The Senate can begin to restore that faith by closing the soft money loophole in our campaign finance laws. We urge you to support this effort by joining Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and 21 other Senators as a cosponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 and to oppose amendments that would continue to compromise our election system. Thank you."

For more information, contact Deanna White at [e-mail] or call [phone].

II. GOT PCB's???? New York City to GE -- "Clean up Your Mess!" -By Susan Holmes

Take 125 Sierra/enviro activists, 50 "Clean Up the Hudson" signs, add four TV camera's, 16 of New York's finest (that's police for you folks from CAFO country), one congressman, one famous author, and Bobby Kennedy and what do you get? An absolutely fantastic press conference and rally designed to get out our message and to make the executives at GE quake in their wingtips!!

With EPA hearings about to force GE to clean up *their* PCBs taking place in NYC, Sierra Club (along with the Riverkeeper and six environmental groups) took over the streets to show support for the EPA's plan to clean up the Hudson. While activists waved signs, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, a very cold George Plimpton, City Council Member Gifford Miller, well-known Hudson advocate Bobby Kennedy and leading enviros spoke to the crowd, slamming GE for "not cleaning up its mess" and "polluting the fish and people with PCBs" and the "airwaves with its propaganda campaign."

Field staffers Emma "do you have a press pack?" McGregor and Patrick "hold your sign high for the TV!" Shannon did an amazing job with media and crowd control. Baret Pinyoun, back at "command central" in Saratoga Springs, worked wonders orchestrating details from there. Field staff Susan "please stay behind the police barricades!" Holmes got to MC the event, while NE Field Director Chris "GE, Clean up Your Mess!" Ballantyne alternated between working the media and annoying the GE executives.

After the rally, the crowd and the media moved to the hearing, where over 250 people showed up and 82 people signed up to speak. Surprise guests included *Senator Bob Kerry* and the little pug dog from Spin City!! Despite a few GE supporters--boo, the crowd was overwhelmingly in favor of clean-up!

NYC Group volunteers including Don Carlson, Frank Eadie, Jack Hoyt and Margaret Hays-Young showed up to testify. Board of Trustees President Michael Loeb did yeoman's duty holding up the "Clean up the Hudson" banner behind the speakers! With great media (still counting) and many activists, lots of fun was had by all (except GE!!)

If you want to get involved in the fun, please visit http://www.sierraclub.org/toxics/action/hudson.asp


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2, 2001
HOLD YOUR SENATORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR VOTE ON INTERIOR SECRETARY GALE NORTON

I. TAKE ACTION: VOTE FOR REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

II. 3 PART TAKE ACTION: PROTECT OUR FORESTS FROM PRESIDENT BUSH

III. TAKE ACTION: STOP BUSH'S ATTACKS ON FAMILY PLANNING

IV. TAKE ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING ACTION: MEET WITH YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE

V. PROTECT WILDERNESS! INCLUDING ARCTIC REFUGE! COMMENTS TO FWS

VI. EPA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON NEW NATIONAL FERTILIZER RULES. ACT NOW, DEADLINE FEBRUARY 26TH!

HOLD YOUR SENATORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR VOTE ON INTERIOR SECRETARY GALE NORTON

Yes, it's true - the U.S. Senate confirmed President Bush's extreme anti-environmental nominee Gail Norton as the next Secretary of the Interior. The vote was 75 to 24. But in the strange world of politics, take heart! The huge public opposition to her nomination confirmed how out of touch her views are with the majority of Americans. Your part in this public outcry - taking the time to make your voice heard - was key! The twenty-four senators who opposed Gale Norton (twice as many who opposed her mentor, James Watt) actually took a powerful step toward making sure that her agenda goes nowhere!

What You Can Do

Go to http://www.sierraclub.org/politics/cabinet/norton_vote.asp to find out how your senator voted. We urge you to contact your senators to express your thanks or disappointment, by calling the Capitol Switchboard at [phone] or go to http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm to get direct contact information including email addresses. (Remember: A "no" vote deserves our thanks!).

Also, we urge you to write a letter to the editor to your local papers requesting that your senators keep a close watch on Gale Norton because of her extreme record.

I. TAKE ACTION: VOTE FOR REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Senator John McCain is considering a proposal that would increase the amount of money individuals can give to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. This is the same idea suggested by President Bush who raised record-breaking sums from maximum donors during his campaign. Increasing existing contribution limits by any amount is not reform. American elections are already in the hands and pockets of a wealthy few. Higher limits would just bring more big money into politics and would diminish the influence of average Americans, who do not have the financial means to contribute at such high levels. Let Senator McCain know that $1,000 is enough!

Go to McCain's website and vote against bringing more big money into politics. http://www.straighttalkamerica.com/ (The poll is on the right hand side). If you are interesting in writing letters to the editor on campaign finance reform and banning unregulated campaign contributions called soft money, contact Eli Levitt at [e-mail] or call at 202-547-1141.

http://www.ecomall.com/activism/sierra100.htm

edited to add "correction"

[Dr Ron]

15. Feingold believes in allowing a President their choices

I wouldn't use Feingold's votes on nominees as a meaningful measure of how liberal he is. I don't think Feingold considers ideology in voting for approval, believing a President should be able to pick their people.

If someone disagrees with him, this would actually be more of a reason for opposing him as a Senator than as a Presidential nominee. In theory, in case of a close vote, Feingold could be the deciding vote which allows someone undesirable to get in.

However, if Feingold was President, he would not be choosing such right wing people himself, so this is not really relevant.

[ProSense]

18. I see it differently

You vote on principle and leave room for compromise. So in the case of Bush, Feingold is willing to compromise principle, no that's not right (principled is how he considers his vote), I mean to say compromise what's right for eight years of wrong policy because Bush (or any president) deserves to have his nominees. I don't buy that argument. What other situations does such principled logic result in negative consequences? It is relevant. Boxer voted for Negroponte to give Bush his nominee, but she doesn't do blanket votes. I don't even know if that's what Feingold does, but his statement alludes to that.

Now here is what Feingold said about Roberts, and I understand that judicial nominees are in a different category (lifetime appointments):

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts
To be Chief Justice of the United States

September 22, 2005

Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.

I have often noted that the scrutiny that I will apply to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination and that the scrutiny to be applied to the position of Chief Justice must be the very highest. I have voted for executive branch appointments, and even for Court of Appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/09/2005922.html



I have take issue with this.

[ginnyinWI]

11. well didn't he vote to confirm some people

Gonzales, and Rice. Oh and John Roberts, too. Ugh.

[TayTay]

12. Feingold voted against the Gonzales nom.

Kerry and Boxer voted against Condiliar in SFRC and on the floor. They also voted against TortureBoy Gonzales. Thank goodness. (I am a bit proud of MA here. Both Sens on the list. That's very nice.)

[karynnj]

13. Both NJ ones too

I am so glad Lautenberg went back to Congress.

[TayTay]

14. I have a small crush on Sen. Lautenberg

I just love the guy. He is a straight shooter and a good man. (And I just adored his Social Security Town Hall performance in March. That was one of my favorite things of the whole year and not just because JK was there. That was a great event.)

What did Sen. Durbin do to fal off the list? I love him.

[karynnj]

16. I really thing the Democrats need to find a

way to use Lautenberg and the older gentleman in an outreach to seniors in 2006 (or 2008) because I honestly think they could deal with so many issues affecting these people.

I saw Lautenberg speak very briefly once - at our local JCC (named for none other than Senator Lautenberg) - he is cool.

It goes without saying that all of us admire, respect and love your Senators too.

[TayTay]

17. I just loved that event in March

I wish C-Span still had video of that one. Sen. Lautenberg and the older gent who 'had the saem tailor in WWII' (LOL!) were just great together. I agree totally, they should go on the road together. It was like they had been friends forever. (Plus the older gent said how proud he was to be on the stage with 'the good guys' like Kerry, Clinton, Durbin and Reid. I loved that event. I loved the girl who was paired with Sen. Kerry who smiled at him when she said she was from PA and he hugged her as he got her sly 'I voted for you in a swing state' reference. I wish we could have more forums like this. I love it when Dems work together.

[ProSense]

5. This is good stuff.

I agree about the GD-P post.

[jillan]

10. You made it to the Greatest Rox ;-p

[Vektor]

19. It has gotten a bit soiled...

but the clean-up crew is on hand.

[Island Blue]

20. It's not too bad though. Just a few bird droppings,

although those can be a bitch to clean off of your car! ;-)

[Vektor]

21. We'll need extra strength cleanser.

Maybe several squirts.

[karynnj]

22. I think your (and others') words were extra strength cleanser

Does that bird do anything other than whine about Kerry not overturning the offical results? It is annoying that they fail to understand that if a Kerry lawyer took every solid piece of information in MCM's book (a much slighter document than the book) and gave it it a judge, it would simply be rejected. I love your beautiful post that the issue of fixing it for next time has to be a major party effort. As others said, the DNC probably needs some full time permanent people who can become expert on the issues and aid the state parties. (But this would mean pushing the head of the DNC rather than Kerry)

I do think you are convincing a lot of people that a year later it's time for Democrats to look forward on this issue.