Time Magazine Picks 10 Best Senators

[Adam's Apple]

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

 

[Avatar4321]

How did Kennedy get on that list?

 

[jillian]

How did Kennedy get on that list?

This is how:

Ted Kennedy: The Dogged Achiever

Posted Friday, Apr. 14, 2006
Over 43 years in the senate, Democrat Ted Kennedy has fought serial battles on behalf of the working class—from defending overtime pay and workplace-safety regulations to expanding health-care availability and penalizing discrimination. But the key to his legacy is not that he is determined to stick up for his principles. It's that he is willing to compromise on them.

Late in 1990, for example, Kennedy sat red-faced as House Democrat Pat Schroeder berated him for supporting something he didn't believe in: caps on damages for workplace discrimination. But by agreeing to limits, Kennedy won over the handful of Republican and Southern Democratic Senators he needed to secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, strengthening laws that banned job discrimination. The result was a law that protects women from sexual harassment at work and has yielded a surge in lawsuits and tens of millions of dollars in damages to aggrieved plaintiffs.

Kennedy was a bit of a joke when he first arrived in Washington in 1962. When John F. Kennedy ran for President, he kept his Massachusetts Senate seat warm for his youngest sibling, placing a college buddy in it for two years until Teddy reached the constitutionally required age of 30. But starting with a 1965 bill that did away with country-by-country quotas for immigrants, and especially in the quarter-century since his failed 1980 campaign for President, Kennedy, 74, has amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of virtually every man, woman and child in the country. With a succession of Republicans, he helped create COBRA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, portable health care, the Family and Medical Leave Act and more than 15 key education programs, including the landmark 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He also pushed through the deregulation of the airline and trucking industries and the reduction of the voting age to 18. By the late '90s, the liberal icon had become such a prodigious cross-aisle dealer that Republican leaders began pressuring party colleagues not to sponsor bills with him.

Some bipartisan efforts have backfired on Kennedy. He has complained that he was taken in by Bush on the No Child Left Behind law because it was inadequately funded, and Democrats are distressed that he has collaborated with Republicans on immigration reform. Worse than that, critics say, Kennedy's inability to stop the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito show he's losing his swat. But Kennedy still finds a way to deliver the goods for the less advantaged. Over the next five years, more than 100,000 severely disabled children will become beneficiaries of a new $872 million program that continues government health-care payments to them even as they move out of poverty. Kennedy and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley managed to slip the program into last year's budget.

I'm just surprised psycho Santorum isn't on the worst list. :cof:

 

[Adam's Apple]

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?

 

[jillian]

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?

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.

 

[KarlMarx]

This is how:



I'm just surprised psycho Santorum isn't on the worst list. :cof:

Rick Santorum is a brave man for calling Lawrence vs. Texas what it was, a travesty of jurisprudence, just like Roe vs. Wade.

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!!!!!"

 

[jillian]

Rick Santorum is a brave man for calling Lawrence vs. Texas what it was, a travesty of jurisprudence, just like Roe vs. Wade.

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...

 

[KarlMarx]

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...

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)

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

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.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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

Durbin, Levin, and Kennedy, oh my! This looks like liberal propaganda to me. Hell, Biden didn't even make the list. Guess moderates don't qualify, with the exception of McCain.

 

[jillian]

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.

Have I ever commented on what my political affiliation is? While "conservatives" have been the base of the GOP, "conservative" bears no relationship to the extremists who have hijacked the party. True conservatives like Specter, Giuliani, Pataki and Whitman have been displaced in favor of a right-wing, neo-conservative, fundamentalist Chrisitan agends... which has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. Conservatism means to "conserve" or preserve the status quo. Mostly, this had to do with fiscal restraint and a slowing of social change. Whole different ball of wax from what's going on now with the spendthrifts running the party.

Do you not think Nixon was a "conservative"? My guess is you'd have called him a RINO....

 

[archangel]

is that akin to BIMBO? Your party of choice? Silly Jilly!

 

[jillian]

is that akin to BIMBO? Your party of choice? Silly Jilly!

RINO is a "Republican in name only"....

sheesh! who's the bimbo? Though I suppose if I had no actual response, I might say something like that to someone.

Nah...I wouldn't.. heh!

 

[archangel]

RINO is a "Republican in name only"....

sheesh! who's the bimbo? Though I suppose if I had no actual response, I might say something like that to someone.

Nah...I wouldn't.. heh!

I gave you my response...a 'Rino' is a bimbo...went over the head eh? And which party do you give allegiance to? or are you afraid to stand up and be counted?

 

[jillian]

I gave you my response...a 'Rino' is a bimbo...went over the head eh? And which party do you give allegiance to? or are you afraid to stand up and be counted?

No... you asked if RINO were the same as bimbo.

I can tell you I vote for both democrats and republicans and have never voted for a dem mayor.

Why would one give "allegiance" to a political party? I might be a member of a party... but fealty?!?!?!?!

 

[archangel]

No... you asked if RINO were the same as bimbo.

I can tell you I vote for both democrats and republicans and have never voted for a dem mayor.

Why would one give "allegiance" to a political party? I might be a member of a party... but fealty?!?!?!?!

so you are a Independent of the moderate persuasion...registered as what?
I for one am also a registered ultra conservative "American Independent" so I have given allegiance to the American Independent party...sorta a outcrop from the Teddy Roosevelt party! however I am conservative on all issues financial as well as social...

 

[MtnBiker]

I'm actually a little suprised Hillary's name is not on the list.

 

[5stringJeff]

Have I ever commented on what my political affiliation is? While "conservatives" have been the base of the GOP, "conservative" bears no relationship to the extremists who have hijacked the party. True conservatives like Specter, Giuliani, Pataki and Whitman have been displaced in favor of a right-wing, neo-conservative, fundamentalist Chrisitan agends... which has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. Conservatism means to "conserve" or preserve the status quo. Mostly, this had to do with fiscal restraint and a slowing of social change. Whole different ball of wax from what's going on now with the spendthrifts running the party.

Do you not think Nixon was a "conservative"? My guess is you'd have called him a RINO....

Anyone who describes Arlen Specter, George Pataki, and Christine Whitman as "conservative" is obviously left-of-center. All three are about as far left as the GOP gets.

As for Nixon, he may or may not have been considered a RINO by today's standards, but if you claimed GOP membership, I would certainly think of you as a RINO.

 

[jillian]

Anyone who describes Arlen Specter, George Pataki, and Christine Whitman as "conservative" is obviously left-of-center. All three are about as far left as the GOP gets.

As for Nixon, he may or may not have been considered a RINO by today's standards, but if you claimed GOP membership, I would certainly think of you as a RINO.

I think you're confusing "conservative" with right wing extremist. They aren't the same thing at all. I told you what my definition is of conservatism. And yes, I'd consider myself fiscally conservative, socially liberal. But that also means my government shouldn't think it can live on the "credit card" of national debt or destroy the line between church and state.

Don't worry, though.... I don't claim membership in the GOP, though, like I said, I've only voted for repub mayors. Can you say you've ever voted for a dem?