Time Magazine Picks 10 Best Senators

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Apr 17, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    America's 10 Best Senators
    By Massimo Calabresi and Perry Bacon, Jr., Time Magazine
    April 17, 2006

    Time spoke to dozens of academics, political scientists and current and former Senators to pick the 10 best of the 109th Congress. One made it because he puts unsexy but important issues on the national agenda, another because his backroom negotiating turns conflict into consensus. A third got on the list for his diligent bird-dogging of Enron, Homeland Security and the Pentagon. Then there's the prodigious across-the-aisle dealer, the fierce defender of her constituents and the expert who sees around corners. As with any all-star team, we sought a broad range of gifts rather than settling on 10 great pitchers or middle linebackers.

    They say the Senate is the world's most exclusive club. But the real elite is made up not of those who break in but of those who make a difference once they get there. Here are 10 who do. (From the Apr. 24, 2006 issue of TIME magazine)

    The Best Senators
    Thad Cochran
    Kent Conrad
    Dick Durbin
    Ted Kennedy
    Jon Kyl
    Carl Levin
    Richard Lugar
    John McCain
    Olympia J.

    The Worst Senators
    Daniel Akaka
    Wayne Allard
    Jim Bunning
    Conrad Burns
    Mark Dayton

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184028,00.html
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    How did Kennedy get on that list?
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    This is how:

    I'm just surprised psycho Santorum isn't on the worst list. :cof:
     
  4. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Keep in mind that this list was composed from a liberal point of view. Kennedy, Durbin, Levin--all ultra-left, with Conrad not far behind. There are only two on the list that I would put on my admired list. Thad Cochran (MS), although a Republican, is a joke. He never saw a spending bill that he didn't like. I guess they threw in a few Republicans to make it look like their list was fair and balanced. Ho-hum. How representative of the Republican Party are Olivia Snow and Arlen Specter?
     
  5. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Actually, it doesn't seem to be a "liberal" list at all. The Republicans chosen seem to represent the Republican party as it has always been -- moderate and restrained. Self-serving gifts to Republicans like the "bridge to no where" up in Alaska certainly aren't indicative of a party that doesn't like spending.

    Extremists may have hijacked the Republican party agenda, but they aren't the party, as some still know.

    See: http://www.mypartytoo.com/

    As for spending, this admin and it's rubber stamps in Congress have spent money like drunken sailors. So that kind of shoots your fiscal restraint argument in the foot. It just seems to me that if Richard Nixon were president today, you'd be saying the same things about him that you just said about Arlen Specter and Olivia Snow.

    To me, it looks like the people they picked on both sides of the aisle are the folk who have earned the respect of their colleagues and learned how to accomplish things -- unlike people like Santorum who only know how to rant about an agenda that has nothing to do with what Congress is supposed to do.
     
  6. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    Rick Santorum is a brave man for calling Lawrence vs. Texas what it was, a travesty of jurisprudence, just like Roe vs. Wade.

    [​IMG]
    Martin: "... and this week's fickle finger of fate award goes to, not one, but three Senators!!! The so-called Honorables ....Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer... a drunk, a carpetbagger, and an obstructionist. None of them met a spending bill they didn't like, a conservative jurist, regardless of their ability that they did like and couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. Hillary Clinton who represents her state like Hitler represented the Jews. Ted Kennedy who not only drinks and drives at the same time, but swims too. And of course, Chuck "Filibuster" Schumer, so called chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committe who single handedly made the nominations of justices in this country a basket case!!!!!"
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    So abortion and sodomy are the only two things you care about? RAFLMAO!! Those issues belong in Chuch, not in the statehouse.

    But what do you have against oral sex?

    Most people in this country know that Santorum is a corrupt nutter who's in bed with lobbyists and his "agenda" is only supported by a few extremists.

    BTW, Schumer isn't chariman of the judiciary committee...
     
  8. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    You may be right... Schumer may not be the chairman, my mistake, but he was on it in 2005 and was the biggest reason for the hold up of many qualified jurists nominated by Bush. So for that reason, Schumer is obstructionist of the year, in my book.

    Most people in this country agree with Senator Santorum. "Extremist" is the label you lefties apply to anyone who has a position that a) is anywhere to the right of Mao-Tse-Tung's or b) you don't agree with.

    I don't have anything against oral sex. However, deriving a right from a crazy quilt of invented rights found in the Constitution by a bunch of judges reading tea leaves, ouiji boards and star charts. If the courts continue down this path, soon we'll have a right to cannibalism.

    BTW... Lawrence vs. Teaxas was decided by the Supreme Court, not the Congress. This is the same body that decided that slaves are property (Dred Scott decision) and "separate but equal" (Plessey vs. Fergusson)
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I think Schumer was right to try to keep Alito off the Court. He doesn't belong there. And the radical right hated Harriet Miers, so forced her to withdraw from the process.

    Actually, the vast majority of people in this country DO NOT agree with the right wing radical agenda. That's wishful thinking on your part.

    The Court has, since Marbury, been construing the Constitution. It has never been a literal document, except when distorted by cases like Dred Scott and Plessy...and those have always been remediated when the political climate changed.

    Yes....and the chief Justice on the Dred Scott case was a southerner who wanted to make sure that slavery could extend to the territories without obstruction. His misjudgment moved this country more than a step closer to the Civil War. And as for Plessy, it was a stupid decision, later remedied by Brown v. Board of Ed, Topeka, Kansas. But, based on your comments, I suspect you would have cheered for Dred Scott and Plessy as championing "states' rights" and Brown as an unreasonable pandering to "liberal" interests. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm right.

    Now..talk about University of California Regents v Bakke and we might have some agreement.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I'm sorry, I must have missed it: what exactly do you know about the internal politics of the GOP??

    Conservatives have been the base of the GOP since the 1910's, and will continue to be the base well into the 21st century.
     

Share This Page