RS: 10 Worst Congressmen

Good thread, so far

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

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.

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!!!

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.

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?

Nancy Pilosi is hot for a grandma

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.

I did not realize that Nancy is a Maryland gal.

Bearman do you work on the hill?

Mary J.Bilge

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?

it doesn't matter if the gang of perverts don't outnumber the dems 9 to 1. they run ALL of the committees in the house and ALL of the committees senate. given that fact, the dems basically have no control over what makes it to the floor for a vote in either chamber. you can't pass legislation "against great odds" unless it is something that not many members "could" be against w/o some sort of election repercussions. thus, that wouldn't be legislation passed "against great odds". rather, it would probably be something like a spending bill with bipartisan support for something like kevlar vests for the troops. something only a dildo would be against.

don't worry, if the dems take over both chambers, they'll fuck shit up, just not as badly as the GOP has nor as blatantly. there would be some accountability. as opposed to almost none, with the exception of a pederast whacking it whilst im-ing with a page. what a fucking freak!