Here are the ten most progressive members of the House of Representatives (as measured by lifetime Progressive Punch scores on crucial votes):
- 1. Grijalva, Raul D AZ-7
2. Schakowsky, Jan D IL-9
3. Baldwin, Tammy D WI-2
4. Edwards, Donna D MD-4
5. Sánchez, Linda D CA-39
6. Olver, John D MA-1
7. Conyers, John D MI-14
8. Lee, Barbara D CA-9
9. Payne, Donald D NJ-10
10. McDermott, Jim D WA-7
The ten least progressive Democratic House members:
- 244. Teague, Harry D NM-2
245. Altmire, Jason D PA-4
246. Murphy, Scott D NY-20
247. Adler, John D NJ-3
248. Donnelly, Joe D IN-2
249. Kratovil, Frank D MD-1
250. Nye, Glenn D VA-2
251. Minnick, Walt D ID-1
253. Childers, Travis D MS-1
255. Bright, Bobby D AL-2
The ten most progressive Republican House members:
- 252. Paul, Ron R TX-14
254. Alexander, Rod R LA-5
256. Hall, Ralph R TX-4
257. Cao, Joseph R LA-2
258. Castle, Michael R DE-AL
259. Ehlers, Vernon R MI-3
260. Johnson, Timothy R IL-15
261. LoBiondo, Frank R NJ-2
262. Smith, Chris R NJ-4
263. Duncan, Jimmy R TN-2
And the ten least progressive Republican House members:
- 422. Brown, Henry R SC-1
423. Nunes, Devin R CA-21
424. Neugebauer, Randy R TX-19
425. Shuster, Bill R PA-9
426. Marchant, Kenny R TX-24
427. Latta, Robert R OH-5
428. Fallin, Mary R OK-5
429. Jordan, Jim R OH-4
430T. Austria, Steve R OH-7
430T. Olson, Pete R TX-22
You can check the Senate scores here. Here are the highlights:
Most progressive Democratic senator: 1. Al Frankin (D-MN): 100%
Least progressive Democratic senator: 59. Arlen Specter (D-PA):30%
Most progressive Republican senator: 60. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): 27%
Least progressive Republican senator: 100. Jim Risch (R-ID): 0%
Is Ron Paul considered the most “progressive” GOP House member because he basically votes no on everything, in-cluding GOP bills, amendments, etc?
Also, I reiterate that when all is said and done, progressives owe Roland Burris a debt of thanks. He did what he was asked: showed up, punched his time card, stayed in the background with no drama, and apparently is second only to Al Franken in his progressive voting record.
Yeah, when you do a lot of ‘statement’ voting it winds up skewing your score pretty badly. There are no good models for that kind of pol because you have to look at each individual vote to determine why they did what they did. It’s also why Kucinich ranks something like 78th. He votes against his party on crucial votes pretty regularly.
So right about Burris. I was dead wrong about him, as I guess many of us were. Wouldn’t it be nice right about now if he were the Dem candidate for the fall election?
Well yeah, except that anyone nominated by Blago was going to be irrevocably toxic. Electorally, and because no other politicians would want to be seen working with him or her, making deals, etc. There’s a funny article about the latter issue, which I can’t be bothered to find right now, from around the time that Burris was appointed. If I recall correctly it contained an anecdote of Dick Durbin either, literally, running away from Burris in the halls of the Senate, or giving some kind of “whoops, sorry” gesture to Burris instead of holding an elevator door open for him. And that’s the other Senator from Burris’s own state! So really, the best you could ask from Burris is that he keep quiet and vote the right way (bit of a disturbing thing to say about the only African-American Senator, but so it goes). And guess what, he did both to near perfection.
That’s the irony, Lodus, that with all of the problems with Blago he eventually did seem to make a good choice for not only Illinois but for liberals in the Democratic party.
If you have been following his trial, the case against him may not be as black and white as it was made out in the press, either. Several of the telephone tap transcripts show him calling for MORE people’s names to be given to him as candidates. He considered Oprah Winfrey (against the advice of his top political adviser); he at one point says he wants to appoint a “Mother Theressa type” and he says at another point we need a “Black Einstein” type. Those comments do not fit into the argument that he was seeking nothing but financial return for himself.
So yes, the Burris pick was actually quite a good one and it is likely the Democrats will lose that seat in November.
Interesting, thanks. No, I haven’t been following the trial really. It seems like a local issue at this point and I’m not from Illinois. Please fill us in as things develop.
Good coverage of the trial (including lots of original court documents) over at the Chicago Trib website. The Sun Times is not as good because they simply rehash what the prosecution says.
Your concern trolling is getting old.
No, it is not likely the Democrats will lose that seat in November.
Nothing wrong with Alexi G. except for Republican hatchet jobs. Didn’t pay any taxes last year because his family business was totally destroyed, that’s supposed to be a black mark? Lots of years I didn’t pay any income tax. I would much rather have made enough money to pay taxes on. But then, I’m not a “war hero” like Kirk.
I never would have voted for Roland Burris in a straight up open primary. I just don’t like his personality. But, I agree that I would have cheerfully voted for his re-election. The man has done his job and done it well.
As for Blago, even with all his warts I would rather vote for him than that bumbling clown, Pat Quinn. At least Blago did things for ordinary people, like pushing hard for Illinois KidCare. Too bad he was as anti-tax as the Republicans, because those things needed to be paid for as Illinois doesn’t have fiat currency.
They gave Perriello a 1? That’s ridiculous, imo. He’s damn near the bottom at number 234, nearing Glenn Nye. What a load of crap. Perriello has been there for every vote of Obama’s agenda and is in a Republican +5 district in a hard year.
I never get tired of saying this: I love my Congressman.
(Grijalva)
Thanks for that link Booman. The Senate rankings show Feingold as the 22nd most progressive Senator? Nonsense. I would put him ahead of Franken and with Bernie Sanders and Brown. The trouble with such rankings is that if one votes against a bill deemed liber/progressive (as Feingold did with the financial services bill) it counts against them even though that person, Feingold, has repeatedly said the bill is too weak. Such polls do not show nuances and hence the realities of what they are attempting to do.
you have a good point. No ranking system does well with ‘statement’ votes (essentially, protest votes on principle) because they look like votes with the opposition.
But you’re wrong about Feingold. He has voted with McCaskill, Webb, and Bayh repeatedly against anything that raises the debt or that involves any earmarks. They’ve formed a little rump, and these are the votes that drove down Feingold’s rating during this Congress.
I think over time Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders have been THE progressive champions in the Senate. Yes, it’s true that Feingold has been a stickler on the debt but I don’t hold that against him especially he is running for reelection this year, the year of the anti-incumbent and that issue is high on voter’s minds, especially in the Green Bay-Fox Valley area of Wisconsin.
Remember that Feingold is the ONLY senator who voted against the Patriot Bill. He also was amongst just a handful of senators to vote AGAINST repeal of Glass-Steagall. He is one of a handful of senators who has complained about Obama’s Afghanistan escalation (saying that it achieves little because it would drive AQ to Pakistan and destabilize that country–which has been proven out). He is a stickler not just on the budget but also on the constitution.
If he votes against the party line, it is generally because he sees a bill as threatening or undermining essential principles of the constitution, or because it does not go far enough to help average Americans.
To lump him with Bayh (a true Blue Dog) and Webb (proving himself to be a Blue Dog) and McCaskill is really a disservice to Feingold.
I’m not lumping him with those other senators to characterize him as some non-progressive. I’m telling you a fact that explains why his rating is 22nd currently. It isn’t because of the one vote against the Wall Street Reforms, which is so recent it may not even be reflected in his ranking. It’s because he’s voted with Webb, Bayh, and McCaskill (as a group) against earmarks and bills that aren’t paid for. They have banded together over those issues, and I’m telling you that so that you understand his ranking properly.
Which is all the more reason that the “rankings” are essentially meaningless. That was my original point, remember?