Top Rated Democrats in Congress, Based on the Constitution

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/web/freedom.png (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/)



The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages below are cumulative scores are based on key votes from 1999 through 2013.


Top Rated Democrats in Congress, Based on the Constitution


Minnesota: Collin Peterson: 46% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000258)
North Carolina: Mike McIntyre: 45% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M000485)
Michigan: Daniel Kildee: 40% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=K000380)
Hawaii: Tulsi Gabbard: 40% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=G000571)
Wisconsin: Mark Pocan: 40% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000607)
Minnesota: Richard Nolan: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=N000127)
West Virginia: Joe Manchin: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001183)
Pennsylvania: Matthew Cartwright: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001090)
Utah: Jim Matheson: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001142)
California: Jared Huffman: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=H001068)
New York: Hakeem Jeffries: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=J000294)
California: Eric Swalwell: 35% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S001193)
West Virginia: Nick Rahall: 34% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=R000011)
California: Gloria Negrete McLeod: 33% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=N000187)
California: Janice Hahn: 33% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=H001063)
Oregon: Peter DeFazio: 32% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=D000191)
Georgia: John Barrow: 31% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001252)
Massachusetts: Joseph Kennedy: 31% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=K000379)
California: Tony Cardenas: 31% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001097)
Washington: Suzan DelBene: 30% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=D000617)



Lets look at the Republicans just for fun.


Kentucky: Thomas Massie: 100% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001184)
Texas: Steve Stockman: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000937)
Texas: Ted Cruz: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001098)
Kentucky: Rand Paul: 94% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000603)
California: Tom McClintock: 93% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001177)
Michigan: Justin Amash: 92% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=A000367)
Utah: Mike Lee: 91% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=L000577)
Oklahoma: Jim Bridenstine: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001283)
Georgia: Paul Broun: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001262)
Idaho: Raul Labrador: 89% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=L000573)
Kansas: Tim Huelskamp: 88% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=H001057)
Florida: Bill Posey: 88% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000599)
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson: 86% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=J000293)
South Carolina: Jeff Duncan: 85% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=D000615)
Florida: Ron DeSantis: 85% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=D000621)
Florida: Ted Yoho: 85% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=Y000065)
South Carolina: Mark Sanford: 85% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000051)
Idaho: James Risch: 85% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=R000584)
Arizona: David Schweikert: 83% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S001183)
Louisiana: John Fleming: 82% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=F000456)

[mosquitobite]

Go Thomas! :)

Loved the Christmas card! :D

[TaftFan]

Break free from the two party duopoly. There is no difference between the two. These scores prove it. Also, chemtrails.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Take scores from when Republicans controlled the three branches of government. Repbulicans look much worse, and democrats a bit better.

[FrankRep]

Take scores from when Republicans controlled the three branches of government. Repbulicans look much worse, and democrats a bit better.

The score is comprehensive based on their entire time in office.

Nice try though.

[Natural Citizen]

Also, chemtrails.

What about them? Weather and atmosphere modification is an interesting subject. I think I posted links to several companies who now do this and advertize their services.

Some place around here...

[Feeding the Abscess]

The score is comprehensive based on their entire time in office.

Nice try though.

Almost all of the republicans who scored top marks have accumulated their scores since 2006, when democrats held both houses of congress. The vast majority, if not all save Sanford, have accumulated their scores since Obama took office in 2009.

Haven't gone through any of the democrats aside from Collin Peterson, but compare his scores from when democrats controlled the house to when republicans controlled the house. It's a pretty significant difference.

EDIT 2: The same applies for DeFazio.

[TaftFan]

What about them? Weather and atmosphere modification is an interesting subject. I think I posted links to several companies who now do this and advertize their services.

Some place around here...

I was making a little joke.

Often when somebody says Republicans and Democrats are the same, they throw in some non-related subject along with it.

[TaftFan]

Almost all of the republicans who scored top marks have accumulated their scores since 2006, when democrats held both houses of congress. The vast majority, if not all save Sanford, have accumulated their scores since Obama took office in 2009.

Haven't gone through any of the democrats aside from Collin Peterson, but compare his scores from when democrats controlled the house to when republicans controlled the house. It's a pretty significant difference.

EDIT 2: The same applies for DeFazio.

Since 2010 new and better types of Republicans have been elected.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Since 2010 new and better types of Republicans have been elected.

Go look at DeMint, Graham, Cantor, Boehner, etc scores when Republicans ran the show and compare them to Obama's run. When democrats, and especially Obama, took control, their scores skyrocketed.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Is every vote graded equally? For example, if someone voted for indefinite detention but voted against farm subsidies, would there be a wash, so to speak?

[FrankRep]

Go look at DeMint, Graham, Cantor, Boehner, etc scores when Republicans ran the show and compare them to Obama's run. When democrats, and especially Obama, took control, their scores skyrocketed.

Look at the Scores. They all suck.

Name: Jim DeMint (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=D000595)
Senate: South Carolina, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 68%

Name: Lindsey Graham (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=G000359)
Senate: South Carolina, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 63%

Name: Eric Cantor (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001046)
Congress: Virginia, District: 7, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 56%

Name: John Boehner (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B000589)
Congress: Ohio, District: 8, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 53%

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Look at the Scores. They all suck.

Name: Jim DeMint (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=D000595)
Senate: South Carolina, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 68%

Name: Lindsey Graham (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=G000359)
Senate: South Carolina, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 63%

Name: Eric Cantor (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001046)
Congress: Virginia, District: 7, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 56%

Name: John Boehner (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B000589)
Congress: Ohio, District: 8, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 53%

If you compare DeMint's scores during the Bush and Obama administrations, you'll notice that his scores dramatically rose during the Obama administration. And no, I don't buy that he saw the light and became a disciple of Ron Paul.

[TaftFan]

Go look at DeMint, Graham, Cantor, Boehner, etc scores when Republicans ran the show and compare them to Obama's run. When democrats, and especially Obama, took control, their scores skyrocketed.

Part of it was dishonest. Part of it was some of them, like DeMint I believe, saw things getting out of hand.

But a lot of people have been elected since 2010 who had nothing to do with the Bush era.

[klamath]

There is no doubt the scores of republicans came up after Obama was elected however republican scores were still higher than any democrat. Kucinich used to be the highest at around 45%. There are and were democrats at 10%. The scores were NEVER reversed based on who held the presidency.

[Brett85]

Yep. Even the best Democrat in Congress doesn't vote the right way 50% of the time.

[enhanced_deficit]

It is pretty amazing that a guy with un-Constitional "Christian Zionist"/neocon Foreign Policy scores so high.

Texas: Ted Cruz: 95%

[FrankRep]

It is pretty amazing that a guy with un-Constitional "Christian Zionist"/neocon Foreign Policy scores so high.
Texas: Ted Cruz: 95%

Ted Cruz has an excellent voting record. You can review it here:


Ted Cruz: 95%
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001098

[TaftFan]

It is pretty amazing that a guy with un-Constitional "Christian Zionist"/neocon Foreign Policy scores so high.

Texas: Ted Cruz: 95%

The doctrine of a foreign policy in and of itself is not a Constitutional issue.

[Brian4Liberty]

Tulsi Gabbard has been on our side several times. Too bad she didn't score higher.

[MichaelDavis]

This site is crap. Let's look at a vote that both Paul and Amash got "wrong":

"On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."

Require, as we already know, really means force. This site advocates allowing authoritarianism through state government.

[TaftFan]

This site is crap. Let's look at a vote that both Paul and Amash got "wrong":

"On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."

Require, as we already know, really means force. This site advocates allowing authoritarianism through state government.

It's actually really good overall. That is just one bad vote.

[FrankRep]

This site is crap. Let's look at a vote that both Paul and Amash got "wrong":

"On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."

Require, as we already know, really means force. This site advocates allowing authoritarianism through state government.

No one is perfect, so you disagree with one damn vote. So what?


Here's the logic though:

States are allowed to make requirements.

The real keywords are: permit States to...

The bill is re-affirming the power that states already have because ... the Federal government likes to forget the states have power.

[MichaelDavis]

Here's another bad one:



H R 2397: On Agreeing to the Amendment 54 to H R 2397 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/h/404)








U.S.-China Joint Military Exercises.
During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) offered an amendment to prohibit funds to "be used for United States military exercises which include any participation by the People's Republic of China." On September 6, 2013, after this amendment was rejected, three Chinese warships arrived at Pearl Harbor to participate in a joint one-day search-and-rescue drill with the U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser U.S.S. Lake Erie. The joint exercise was conducted on September 9, 2013. On November 12, 2013, for the first time in U.S. history, Chinese People's Liberation Army troops put boots on U.S. soil as they participated in a joint "Disaster Management Exchange" with the U.S. Army Pacific, the Hawaii Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amendment to prohibit the use of funds for such ventures was intended to prevent the U.S. military from participating in them.

The House rejected Stockman's amendment on July 24, 2013 by a vote of 137 to 286 (Roll Call 404). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because communist China is a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century; continues to persecute countless political dissenters, Christians, and other religious minorities; and has recently threatened to target and destroy U.S. cities with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Military collaboration with the Chinese regime will not diminish the security threat it poses to the United States but, if anything, heighten it.

[FrankRep]

Here's another bad one:

U.S.-China Joint Military Exercises.
During consideration of the defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2397), Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) offered an amendment to prohibit funds to "be used for United States military exercises which include any participation by the People's Republic of China." On September 6, 2013, after this amendment was rejected, three Chinese warships arrived at Pearl Harbor to participate in a joint one-day search-and-rescue drill with the U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser U.S.S. Lake Erie. The joint exercise was conducted on September 9, 2013. On November 12, 2013, for the first time in U.S. history, Chinese People's Liberation Army troops put boots on U.S. soil as they participated in a joint "Disaster Management Exchange" with the U.S. Army Pacific, the Hawaii Army National Guard, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The amendment to prohibit the use of funds for such ventures was intended to prevent the U.S. military from participating in them.

The House rejected Stockman's amendment on July 24, 2013 by a vote of 137 to 286 (Roll Call 404). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because communist China is a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the 20th century; continues to persecute countless political dissenters, Christians, and other religious minorities; and has recently threatened to target and destroy U.S. cities with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Military collaboration with the Chinese regime will not diminish the security threat it poses to the United States but, if anything, heighten it.



That's a good one.

We should prohibit funds for Joint Military Exercises, especially with China. Talk about a waste of money.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That's a good one.

We should prohibit funds for Joint Military Exercises, especially with China. Talk about a waste of money.

Did JBS also score the US-Israel JME vote?

[Christian Liberty]

Is every vote graded equally? For example, if someone voted for indefinite detention but voted against farm subsidies, would there be a wash, so to speak?

I believe the answer is yes, hence why I don't really take it seriously.


Yep. Even the best Democrat in Congress doesn't vote the right way 50% of the time.

See above.


The doctrine of a foreign policy in and of itself is not a Constitutional issue.

Yeah, but it is a moral issue. Another reason why I don't really take these scorecharts very seriously.

[FrankRep]

The doctrine of a foreign policy in and of itself is not a Constitutional issue.

Yeah, but it is a moral issue. Another reason why I don't really take these scorecharts very seriously.

What's the issue?

If troops are deployed for a military action without a declaration of war, it'll violate the constitution and the people who voted for it will lose points.

If someone votes to send foreign aid, it's a violation of the constitution and they'll lose points.

[FrankRep]

Did JBS also score the US-Israel JME vote?

What's the bill number?

[Feeding the Abscess]

What's the bill number?

H. R. 4133

[klamath]

They don't count every vote. They score only major votes. Their beliefs are pretty darn close to RP's as they almost always rated him 100% If you believe their system of judging votes is fucked up them maybe you were following the wrong guy in the last two elections.

[Feeding the Abscess]

They don't count every vote. They score only major votes. Their beliefs are pretty darn close to RP's as they almost always rated him 100% If you believe their system of judging votes is fucked up them maybe you were following the wrong guy in the last two elections.

It's clearly strange to score, and heavily weight said score, of a relatively harmless joint military exercise of two countries not tied together in regional ground wars while ignoring votes to give billions of dollars, with explicit language to keep said state a religious state and insure a regional military advantage, to a country that is tied to us in such a manner.

If nothing else, it allows Republicans to look better than they actually are.

[FrankRep]

It's clearly strange to score, and heavily weight said score, of a relatively harmless joint military exercise of two countries not tied together in regional ground wars while ignoring votes to give billions of dollars, with explicit language to keep said state a religious state and insure a regional military advantage, to a country that is tied to us in such a manner.

If nothing else, it allows Republicans to look better than they actually are.


Which Republican Congressmen do you have problems with?


Kentucky: Thomas Massie: 100% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001184)
Texas: Steve Stockman: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000937)
Texas: Ted Cruz: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001098)
Kentucky: Rand Paul: 94% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000603)
California: Tom McClintock: 93% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001177)
Michigan: Justin Amash: 92% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=A000367)
Utah: Mike Lee: 91% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=L000577)
Oklahoma: Jim Bridenstine: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001283)
Georgia: Paul Broun: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001262)

[klamath]

It's clearly strange to score, and heavily weight said score, of a relatively harmless joint military exercise of two countries not tied together in regional ground wars while ignoring votes to give billions of dollars, with explicit language to keep said state a religious state and insure a regional military advantage, to a country that is tied to us in such a manner.

If nothing else, it allows Republicans to look better than they actually are.Like I said you may have been following the wrong guy the last two elections. It must have made Ron Paul look a lot better than he was.

[dillo]

I thought Wyden or Sanders would be up there for the democrips

[FrankRep]

I thought Wyden or Sanders would be up there for the democrips

Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, FYI.


Name: Bernie Sanders (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000033)
Senate: Vermont, Independent
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 27%

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yep. Even the best Democrat in Congress doesn't vote the right way 50% of the time.

That's why the Liberty Movement focusing on the Democratic party is a fundamentally flawed proposition. They don't understand liberty in all spheres.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Like I said you may have been following the wrong guy the last two elections. It must have made Ron Paul look a lot better than he was.

Fixed that for you.

[klamath]

Fixed that for you.
Fixed it for you

[dillo]

Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, FYI.


Name: Bernie Sanders (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000033)
Senate: Vermont, Independent
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 27%

I know, I just trust him and Wyden more than Mike Lee on civil liberties. Though its a very thin trust

[MichaelDavis]

H R 5120: On Agreeing to the Amendment 8 to H R 5120


Cuban Embargo. During consideration of the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill (H.R. 5120), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds made available in this bill "to implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba."


The House rejected Rangel's amendment on July 23, 2002 by a vote of 204 to 226 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

[Christian Liberty]

=
They don't count every vote. They score only major votes. Their beliefs are pretty darn close to RP's as they almost always rated him 100% If you believe their system of judging votes is fucked up them maybe you were following the wrong guy in the last two elections.

I'm not sure what questioning the WEIGHTING of the votes has anything to do with the fact that Ron Paul voted correctly almost every time.

That fact doesn't change the fact that Dennis Kucinich is, in my mind, less evil than Lindsey Graham, because I'd weight the issues differently than they would.



Which Republican Congressmen do you have problems with?


Kentucky: Thomas Massie: 100% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001184)
Texas: Steve Stockman: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000937)
Texas: Ted Cruz: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001098)
Kentucky: Rand Paul: 94% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000603)
California: Tom McClintock: 93% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001177)
Michigan: Justin Amash: 92% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=A000367)
Utah: Mike Lee: 91% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=L000577)
Oklahoma: Jim Bridenstine: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001283)
Georgia: Paul Broun: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001262)

Ted Cruz being higher than Rand Paul is a joke. Ted Cruz is a Zionist shill, which in and of itself makes him pretty much worthless in my mind. Which goes back to what I was saying about the weighting.

Mike Lee said Snowden was "probably" a traitor. That did it for me as far as Mike Lee was concerned. Its not a vote so I'm not blaming JBS for this, but I'd never support someone who was so constitutionally ignorant and anti-freedom even if they voted the right way most of the time.

Paul Broun showed in his explanation of voting for NDAA '14 that he cared more about "the troops" than he does about real liberty. Another one I've dismissed.

Thomas Massie is great. Rand Paul is good. Justin Amash is great. Don't know much about the others.


That's why the Liberty Movement focusing on the Democratic party is a fundamentally flawed proposition. They don't understand liberty in all spheres.

Neither do Republicans. Neither do you ("the state is inevitable") for that matter.

BTW: With regards to the "anarchist" thing, I'm one. I'm currently willing to compromise to where Rand Paul is, but not much further than that. I understand some people here feel differently, which is fine.

[Christian Liberty]

I know, I just trust him and Wyden more than Mike Lee on civil liberties. Though its a very thin trust

I don't trust Mike "Snowden is a traitor" Lee AT ALL. I'd gladly vote "guilty" at his Nuremberg Trial if God ever blessed us enough to get us that far. He's a part of the regime, plain and simple. That he happens to be a little better than some other Republicans doesn't change the fact that he's not really for actual liberty.

I don't know much about Sanders and Wyden. I mean, I know Sanders is a socialist, and Wyden a moderate Dem, but I don't really know what their other principles are or how seriously they take them.

H R 5120: On Agreeing to the Amendment 8 to H R 5120


Cuban Embargo. During consideration of the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill (H.R. 5120), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of funds made available in this bill "to implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba."


The House rejected Rangel's amendment on July 23, 2002 by a vote of 204 to 226 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

Not that I'm a fan of Rangel, but why the crap was he wrong on this one? Americans have a right to do business in any country. Even Gary Johnson understood that one. I don't know the Constitution by heart, so maybe there's a stupid provision that allows something like this to be enforced, but it sure as heck has nothing to do with "liberty."

[dillo]

Sanders and Wyden voted against the patriot act and sanders voted against both iraq wars. Even being a socialist that makes him better than 90% of republicans in my book.

[Christian Liberty]

Sanders and Wyden voted against the patriot act and sanders voted against both iraq wars. Even being a socialist that makes him better than 90% of republicans in my book.

That's my point. Not to say that I'd actually vote for either of them, but this is basically what I'm getting at. Voting for a tax increase, while a serious issue, is not nearly as bad as voting for war in Iraq, IMO.

[Anti-Neocon]

That's my point. Not to say that I'd actually vote for either of them, but this is basically what I'm getting at. Voting for a tax increase, while a serious issue, is not nearly as bad as voting for war in Iraq, IMO.
This! These ratings are almost all about economic issues.

Does someone have a good scorecard for foreign policy or civil liberties issues? If someone comes up with suggestions on bills, I can even help make a list of my own.

Ron Paul always talked about making a coalition of liberals and libertarians to end wars and support civil liberties. It'd be interesting how the Democrats and Republicans break down on those issues. As shown in the Amash NSA vote, the Democrats voted slightly more on the right side but it seems the Republicans have greatly improved from where they were during the Bush admin with the Dems getting worse.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This! These ratings are almost all about economic issues.

Does someone have a good scorecard for foreign policy or civil liberties issues? If someone comes up with suggestions on bills, I can even help make a list of my own.

Ron Paul always talked about making a coalition of liberals and libertarians to end wars and support civil liberties. It'd be interesting how the Democrats and Republicans break down on those issues. As shown in the Amash NSA vote, the Democrats voted slightly more on the right side but it seems the Republicans have greatly improved from during the Bush admin with the Dems getting worse.

John Ashcroft, Bush's attorney general in his first term, was a leading voice opposing Clinton's wiretapping in the late 90s.

Ponder over that one for a few minutes.

[Anti-Neocon]

John Ashcroft, Bush's attorney general in his first term, was a leading voice opposing Clinton's wiretapping in the late 90s.

Ponder over that one for a few minutes.
Dear Booz Allen Hamilton,

Pardon our harsh words about the NSA, but rest assured, we just need to get the Democrats out of power so that we can enact our own more intensive national security programs. Your checks will grow to amounts never seen before in the history of our now meek apparatus. We the GOP believe in the robust national security in the history of the world, and if you have anything in particular you would like to offer, we will have the money. Our only opposition may be a few quixotic gadflys in are ranks, but do not worry, we are in the process of squashing them in order to teach a lesson to the rest of our noble crew.

Signed,
John "NSA gives me a" Boehner

[Keith and stuff]

There aren't any national level Democrats that win races. There used to be when political parties were a lot more regional based. For example, there used to be some decent Democrats in Congress from the South.

In other to look at good Democrats in high ranking positions, we have to look pretty low on the sales to state rep. races. And even then, we have to look to only 1 state - New Hampshire. Even then, there are only 3 that actually were elected in November. Even them, only 1 of them has proven to be able to get elected over and over again. So yeah, it's not looking great but at there is hope for pro-liberty Democrats getting elected, at least in NH. Maybe it will eventually spread to other states?

[Brett85]

No one is perfect, so you disagree with one damn vote. So what?


Here's the logic though:

States are allowed to make requirements.

The real keywords are: permit States to...

The bill is re-affirming the power that states already have because ... the Federal government likes to forget the states have power.

There was a lot more to that bill than that. There were also a bunch of reporting requirements in it and big government regulations. Voting "no" was the correct vote.

[PierzStyx]

This site is crap. Let's look at a vote that both Paul and Amash got "wrong":

"On the Amendment S.Amdt. 965 to S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013): To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."

Require, as we already know, really means force. This site advocates allowing authoritarianism through state government.

The Constitution is not an anarchist document. Just the opposite in fact since it created a national state where none previously existed. It reserves to teh states what could be extraordinary powers as "all powers not delegated" are "reserved to the several states." The Constitution is a measure of national power not local state power.

[FrankRep]

There was a lot more to that bill than that. There were also a bunch of reporting requirements in it and big government regulations. Voting "no" was the correct vote.

S.Amdt. 965 is an Amendment, not a bill.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SP965:



S.AMDT.965
Amends: S.954
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT]

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Neither do Republicans. Neither do you ("the state is inevitable") for that matter.

BTW: With regards to the "anarchist" thing, I'm one. I'm currently willing to compromise to where Rand Paul is, but not much further than that. I understand some people here feel differently, which is fine.

You're about 238 years late, the U.S. is a republic.

So go create anarchtopia somewhere instead of posting on the internet about how much of anarchist you are. My challenge to you, is to actually go live it, like Thoreau.

[Brett85]

S.Amdt. 965 is an Amendment, not a bill.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SP965:



S.AMDT.965
Amends: S.954
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT]

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.

Right, it was an amendment that had a lot of different parts to it, including reporting requirements that would cost taxpayers money.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'd vote for a centre-left Democrat if he/she was anti-war and pro-civil liberties (that includes the Second Amendment).

[Acronies]

Break free from the two party duopoly. There is no difference between the two. These scores prove it. Also, chemtrails. But the Republicans are clearly the least worst half of the one party system.

[Keith and stuff]

But the Republicans are clearly the least worst half of the one party system.

On a national level, it's pretty much the only option. 3rd parties also have some use, to help remove bad Republicans. The Democratic Party is only useful to us on a state level, and then only it NH so far, it seems.

[surf]

Which Republican Congressmen do you have problems with?


Kentucky: Thomas Massie: 100% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001184)
Texas: Steve Stockman: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=S000937)
Texas: Ted Cruz: 95% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001098)
Kentucky: Rand Paul: 94% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000603)
California: Tom McClintock: 93% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M001177)
Michigan: Justin Amash: 92% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=A000367)
Utah: Mike Lee: 91% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=L000577)
Oklahoma: Jim Bridenstine: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001283)
Georgia: Paul Broun: 90% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=B001262)Cruz - he is not a liberty candidate - though he gives liberty candidates a bad name. when it comes to foreign policy, he is just another Senator from Israel in my opinion.

freedom and bombing the crap out of Syria do not go together in any way.

i'm not doubting the study or how these guys may have scored it. but Freedom Index?

[Brett85]

Cruz - he is not a liberty candidate - though he gives liberty candidates a bad name. when it comes to foreign policy, he is just another Senator from Israel in my opinion.

freedom and bombing the crap out of Syria do not go together in any way.

i'm not doubting the study or how these guys may have scored it. but Freedom Index?

Cruz stated publicly that he was against President Obama's proposed intervention in Syria.

[ZENemy]

http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose/dp/145075063X


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLwtZdLedFc

[ZENemy]

Cruz - he is not a liberty candidate - though he gives liberty candidates a bad name. when it comes to foreign policy, he is just another Senator from Israel in my opinion.

freedom and bombing the crap out of Syria do not go together in any way.

i'm not doubting the study or how these guys may have scored it. but Freedom Index?

Don't question the narrative slave, you may get a visit from the "peace keepers"


http://rosalinehampton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/peacekeepers2.png

[FrankRep]

Cruz - he is not a liberty candidate - though he gives liberty candidates a bad name. when it comes to foreign policy, he is just another Senator from Israel in my opinion.

freedom and bombing the crap out of Syria do not go together in any way.

i'm not doubting the study or how these guys may have scored it. but Freedom Index?

Please list Ted Cruz' bad foreign policy votes.

[Anti-Neocon]

Cruz stated publicly that he was against President Obama's proposed intervention in Syria.
He didn't oppose the idea of intervention in Syria, but rather Obama's specific proposal. He made hints that he favored an even more aggressive approach involving bombing Syrian weapons sites, which doesn't exactly jive with freedom. He's also 1 of 26 Senators to support new sanctions on Iran. Cruz is more hawkish than most Senators and I don't know how people don't see this.

[Anti-Neocon]

Please list Ted Cruz' bad foreign policy votes.
Not sure what your point is: the lack of foreign policy votes to include in a scorecard, or that Ted Cruz doesn't support a bad foreign policy.

I think the former is definitely true - S. 2165 (the AIPAC bill) never had a roll call vote, but Cruz has definitely made comments that show he's certainly not on our side. I think this is all about the limitations of an objective scorecard rather than the scorecard itself being poorly decided.

[surf]

He didn't oppose the idea of intervention in Syria, but rather Obama's specific proposal. He made hints that he favored an even more aggressive approach involving bombing Syrian weapons sites, which doesn't exactly jive with freedom. He's also 1 of 26 Senators to support new sanctions on Iran. Cruz is more hawkish than most Senators and I don't know how people don't see this.what he said.

for FrankRep, I said in my post that I didn't question the index itself or his "95%" rating. but his warmongering leanings just throw him out of the liberty-candidate category and don't jive with any index i'd consider a "freedom" index.

i'm happy when he's on the right side of things and pleased when he can do so w/o appearing comical.

[Anti-Neocon]

To be fair though, within the constraints of a voting scorecard, there aren't really any votes which can be used to quantify a Senator's non-interventionist leanings.

[Brett85]

He didn't oppose the idea of intervention in Syria, but rather Obama's specific proposal. He made hints that he favored an even more aggressive approach involving bombing Syrian weapons sites, which doesn't exactly jive with freedom. He's also 1 of 26 Senators to support new sanctions on Iran. Cruz is more hawkish than most Senators and I don't know how people don't see this.

I don't think that Cruz ever said that we should "bomb" Syria though. That's what I objected to. He was just talking about some kind of special ops mission where we would go in and destroy the WMD's and then get out. That said, I disagree with him and think that Rand is quite a bit better on foreign policy issues.

[Anti-Neocon]

How would we destroy the WMD's. With love?

Looks like the quote says "secure or destroy" the WMD's, which means an invasion of some form.

[Brett85]

How would we destroy the WMD's. With love?

I don't know. I don't think he thought that through. I think it would be a lot harder and a lot more expensive than he thinks it would be.

[Anti-Neocon]

I don't know. I don't think he thought that through. I think it would be a lot harder and a lot more expensive than he thinks it would be.
If you ask me, it sounds like another Iraq mission.

[Tywysog Cymru]

It's depressing to see "liberty" candidates act more hawkish than the average Senator. You can't have (non-defensive) War and freedom, you can't have war and true capitalism.

[Christian Liberty]

He didn't oppose the idea of intervention in Syria, but rather Obama's specific proposal. He made hints that he favored an even more aggressive approach involving bombing Syrian weapons sites, which doesn't exactly jive with freedom. He's also 1 of 26 Senators to support new sanctions on Iran. Cruz is more hawkish than most Senators and I don't know how people don't see this.

They don't see what they don't want to see, and they pretend Ron's endorsements are infallible.


Not sure what your point is: the lack of foreign policy votes to include in a scorecard, or that Ted Cruz doesn't support a bad foreign policy.

I think the former is definitely true - S. 2165 (the AIPAC bill) never had a roll call vote, but Cruz has definitely made comments that show he's certainly not on our side. I think this is all about the limitations of an objective scorecard rather than the scorecard itself being poorly decided.

Yep.

I don't know. I don't think he thought that through. I think it would be a lot harder and a lot more expensive than he thinks it would be.

If he thought it through, do you really think he'd side with liberty over zionism?


It's depressing to see "liberty" candidates act more hawkish than the average Senator. You can't have (non-defensive) War and freedom, you can't have war and true capitalism.

Very true.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I don't know. I don't think he thought that through. I think it would be a lot harder and a lot more expensive than he thinks it would be.

He's not stupid, considering what his credentials reveal. And even though crisis was averted in Syria (for now and no thanks to Cruz), the guy is clearly not for peace when he's making speeches like this to these types of audiences:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZtHac9w-QE

[surf]

in the video above it's pretty clear that this guy is really no different from Lindsey Graham or John McWar....

this dude is not a liberty candidate - just another (R - Tel Aviv)

"the US of America to stand alongside Israel..."

[FrankRep]

Must be some kind of difference.

Lindsey Graham - Freedom Index Score: 63%
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=G000359

John McCain - Freedom Index Score: 63%
http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=M000303

[Brett85]

in the video above it's pretty clear that this guy is really no different from Lindsey Graham or John McWar....

this dude is not a liberty candidate - just another (R - Tel Aviv)

"the US of America to stand alongside Israel..."

He's not any better than McCain and Graham when it comes to Iran. He's still better than them on other aspects of foreign policy and every domestic issue. And I don't necessarily think that anyone ever called Cruz a "liberty candidate," but just someone who's a strong ally on many issues.

Edit: After watching the video, he does sound absolutely aweful on that issue, even worse than most members of Congress. I don't know, if he's that bad on this issue than perhaps that disqualifies him regardless of how good he is on other issues. Shoot, even Rubio isn't as hawkish as Cruz when it comes to Iran.

[TruckinMike]

Counting their their votes that fall inside the Constitution says one thing, but comparing their votes to a known evil is another. (btw who was doing the counting?..I'm sure it wasn't done by a strict Constitutionalist.)

A comparison/contrast of their voting records with the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto would be much more telling. I would presume that the repugs would fall slightly behind the dems in percentage of votes ---> that would generally support one or more of the ten planks.

http://members.tripod.com/lebanon_2/round_ha.gif

[FrankRep]

Counting their their votes that fall inside the Constitution says one thing, but comparing their votes to a known evil is another.
(btw who was doing the counting?..I'm sure it wasn't done by a strict Constitutionalist.)

The Freedom Index is transparent. You can see the votes the congressmen were graded on.

[jkob]

I don't understand how you can think Ted Cruz is the devil incarnate and still like Rand.

[Brett85]

I don't understand how you can think Ted Cruz is the devil incarnate and still like Rand.

I think Rand is quite a bit better on foreign policy issues than Cruz. (Although I wouldn't call Cruz the devil incarnate either.)