Where does your representative rank?

In a time of economic uncertainty, which is not helped by runaway government spending, you might be surprised (happily or otherwise) to learn where your Senator or House member stands when it comes to pro-growth policies.  I was not at all surprised to learn that my representatives — Woolsey, Boxer and Feinstein — are busy spending us into bankruptcy, with rankings of 0%, 3% and 3%, respectively.

The important takeaway is that the campaign speeches at home don’t often match the votes in Congress.  For example, Renee Elmers, who is running for North Carolina’s 2nd Congressional district, points out that her opponent, who talks the talk at home, walks the fiscally irresponsible walk once he’s in D.C. (coming in at 6%, behind Pelosi, who is a 7%).

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    Found my Pa. rep. just where I thought he would be – bottom of the heap at 3% and where I’d like to find either Arlen Specter or Joe Stestak after the primary results tonight.
     
    Captain Zero never showed in Pa. to support Specter, which tells me he’s more toxic than the Gulf oil spill. It rained torrents today, which translates to a low voter turnout in Philly. I guess no hiring of Black Panthers with batons at the polling  stations, just black umbrellas.

  2. Indigo Red says

    Except for Senators, I’m rather proud of my Congressman, Tom McClintock (R) with #1 ranking.

    McClintock, Feinstein, Boxer at 100%, 3%, 3% respectively.

  3. suek says

    Hey Indigo…
    I’m on your bandwagon…but my Congressman is Gallegly.  He’s at 88%.  And of course, Feinstein and Boxer.
     
    I was really surprised that McClintock came out against Whitman.  Cheney is backing Whitman, and campaigning for her (at least, doing the recorded message thing).  Have you any idea why?  As usual…what don’t I know???

  4. Indigo Red says

    Why McClintock is supporting Steve Poizner over Meg Whitman is a puzzle and I was drop-jaw shocked when his first Poizner endorsment was aired. Maybe it’s just as Tom says – he’s known and worked with Poizner for many years. Meg is an unknown outside the business world.  Truth be told, I’m in a quandry about Whitman v. Poizner myself. Both are from out of state -Poizner from Texas, Whitman from New York. Poizner got involved with state issues almost immediately after his 1978 arrival while Whitman hasn’t bothered to vote anywhere, but worked for and donated to Democrat causes and candidates. Both have supported & actively worked for issues they today oppose. Poizner is a politician and is, by definition, untrustworthy. From bitter experience, CEOs are no more trustworthy. For trustworthiness and knowing a persons position on various subjects, I would prefer voting for any number of bloggers and commenters, IDs unknown, than for any official candidate. But, I wouldn’t want that for my blog friends as power corrupts and political power just pollutes.

  5. says

    Power doesn’t corrupt. It’s a fundamental lack of integrity and leadership abilities that corrupts. People who want to do things well, but don’t know how either cause they are incompetent, weak, or just plain lacking in resources, will try to get Deals with the Devil because the offer sounded good at the time.

  6. says

    It also helps when people understand the fundamental nature of power. For example, a nuclear engineer doesn’t think the reactor is his power. The reactor isn’t his power. He is just borrowing a small fraction of the power of atoms. The power came from the atoms. Not the engineer. The engineer then doesn’t start thinking he knows how to blow up hydrogen atoms, for example, because that ain’t his power to begin with.
     
    The same is true of human hierarchies. The CEO only has power because the people below gave it to him by their compliance or agreement. In an institution, most of this is implicit. Join an institution, give power to the bosses. There’s no real recognition of this fact. But it is there.
     
    There are usually two reasons people become corrupted while wielding power. Because the power never originated from themselves, they don’t know how to handle it wisely. So they end up making sub-optimum choices and that then leads to more sub-optimum choices. They’re riding a tiger and can’t get off because the tiger would eat them. And they lack the personal power to kill the tiger, so to the external world it looks like the guy is riding and controlling the tiger, wielding power. In actuality, he is being controlled by a power not of his own.
     
    The other reason people become corrupt and evil in the use of power is when they start thinking the power belongs to them. They forget, if they ever knew it in the first place, that they only have power because people gave it to them because they put their trust in something greater than themselves. Those at the bottom gave leaders power because they couldn’t fix their own problems with the limited resources available to them, so they pooled together for a common cause. When the CEO or leader believes that power belongs to him, he starts trying to funnel the power up to him, while draining it from those below. To the leader, it looks like he is consolidating power, as any dictator believes. In reality, all he is doing is centralizing control, but his power is actually weakening because the people below no longer trust him. Thus it becomes easier for foreign elements (like the US) to invade the country and get those like Saddam executed, because he had pissed off the Kurds and the Shia. If Iraq had America’s system, we’d still be fighting a guerrilla war and we’d still be stuck somewhere beyond Baghdad because there was no way to secure the rear because the entire population is going to pick a fight using century long stockpiles of weapons. And they had those weapons because of something like the 2nd Amendment, which was designed to secure the people who were the power of the regime.
     

    But, dictators like Hitler, Leftists, and Chavez don’t work like that.
    The first situation is essentially one that happens when you put a beta into an alpha slot. Then you have an insecure alpha, otherwise known as the constantly fearful-aggressive dog that tries to run after everything bigger than him, only because he thinks he has to “chase off the competition” when in reality he couldn’t fight worth a damn. He is scared precisely because he knows the other guy is bigger, tougher, and meaner. Yet his Alpha position demands that he “do something” about it. So he’ll “do something” about it.
     
    The second situation is where you get your evil megalomaniacs, malignant narcissists, tyrants, and Democrats.

  7. says

    The trick to keeping leaders virtuous is the same as making the virtuous in the same place. Moral guides, family support, and the help of numerous other people. Surround a kid with evil Democrats and thugs, and guess what his vision of manhood will become.
     
    The same is true of those that go to DC. Because they are now surrounded by decadent freaks, that is what will make them fall. It is never power itself. It is always the people that seek it that make things bad.
     
    The Left fabricated this public myth about power corrupting because they didn’t want anybody that was 1. good and 2. that sought power. Competition in DC is not the name of the game. The more people that seek out power because it corrupts, the more buddies the DC clique has to convert any new comers trying to change the system. If the people ever got the idea that it wasn’t power that corrupts but the people using it, they might actually get in leaders able to change the people in power. And instead of protecting those leaders from power, which is what they need to survive in any DC cesspit, they instead would protect those leaders from the evil influence of Demoncrats.
     
    So long as people are erroneously focused on power, they will get the idea that they can protect the virtue of their leaders by putting them on Cold Turkey and removing power from them. That essentially destroys that person’s ability to lead or make deals. You might as well have voted in a house plant.
     
    The early Roman Republic was perhaps the most sane when it came to requiring leadership in emergencies. They elected a dictator to solve a problem, gave him a set time period, and then got out of his way. If you didn’t trust people with power in the first place, don’t give them any of yours in the first place. That is kind of obvious. Yet people become afraid because “power corrupts” supposedly. I mean look at all those other Demoncrat freaks! Obviously the way we fight powerful clans like the Kennedies is to give them even more political power while undercutting the power of those on our side.
     
    Ain’t nobody ever won a war that way.

  8. suek says

    >>…while Whitman hasn’t bothered to vote anywhere.>>
     
    Apparently that’s not true:
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/08/sacramento-paper-campaigning-against-meg-whitman-gov
     
    I’ve really been put off by the intensity of Whitman’s telephone campaigning, but fair is fair – it’s apparent that Poizner is willing to use material that isn’t accurate.  Granted he may not have known it, but Whitman’s ads have used Poizner’s own quotes saying “I’ve been pro-life all of my life” and “I’ve always been pro-choice, and have been endorsed as 100% supportive by Planned Parenthood”.  In this case, I’m afraid my choice goes to Whitman, but really – there isn’t much of anything to go on.  I’m afraid that whatever we get, it’s going to be a pig in a poke.  I find it really difficult to believe that Governor Moonbeam has a chance…but this _is_ California!
     
     

  9. suek says

    Y…
     
    I disagree with you on this point:  >>Power doesn’t corrupt. It’s a fundamental lack of integrity and leadership abilities that corrupts.>>
     
    It’s arguable that if one truly has a fundamental integrity, that one wouldn’t be corruptible, but human nature is what it is.  We all have our flaws.  If someone or something manages to detect a leader’s flaws, then those flaws can be expanded -usually by pandering to the flaws.  That’s why the sexual  thing is so common among politicians – it’s common to all of us, and difficult to deny.  Someone who know what appeals can gain influence by providing that which appeals.  It’s called “temptation”.  Some are able to resist it, too many don’t.
     
    >>They forget, if they ever knew it in the first place, that they only have power because people gave it to them because they put their trust in something greater than themselves.>>
    Another common human failing is pride – in fact, some consider this the greatest failing.  Pride allows an individual to  attribute to him/herself those accomplishments that have been achieved by many.  So an Egyptian ruler could look upon a pyramid and say “look what I have done” – when in fact, he hadn’t done any of it, even though he may have been responsible for it.
    These are the seven great sins of humanity:  wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.  We can probably omit sloth and gluttony from the list for most politicians (although discussion is possible – “The Screwtape Letters” by CS Lewis has some interesting views of gluttony as not being confined to simply everything one can put into one’s mouth!), but all of the others are probably present in most politicians, to varying degrees.   Just the process by which we elect politicians begins with a problem…they not only volunteer, they _demand_ that we elect them – through their campaigns.  And when we do, they then take pride in having won the election as if having won an election was in itself an accomplishment.   The fact that they begin by thinking they can provide leadership is in itself a pointer to the existence of pride.  It isn’t a gradual march to leadership through years of promotion – it’s jumping out of the crowd and into the bandleader’s place of honor.
    And we all instinctively know this – which is why we elect them and then don’t trust them.  But it’s the only system we have at the present.  Drawing straws might work…!  Or maybe everybody should take a turn…I could live with that.
     
    And I haven’t even started with  >>The second situation is where you get your evil megalomaniacs, malignant narcissists, tyrants, and Democrats.>>  They’re out there as well!
     
     

  10. Mike Devx says

    The lack of focus on economic issues often drives me crazy.
     
    As Roubini pointed out after today’s disgusting short-term stock market results:
    ———

    “There is that risk because the problems on the macro level are first in the euro zone. Then in China there is evidence of economic slowdown…Japan is in trouble and US economic growth is going to slow down,” he said. “There is also regulatory risk because we don’t know how financial reform is going to occur.”
    Investors then should focus on buying debt from countries that are solid economically.
    “Apart from cash I would invest in short-term government bonds of countries that don’t have a serious debt problem, countries like Germany and maybe Canada, a few other advanced economies that from a fiscal point of view are sounder than the weaker economies,” he said.
    ——–
     
    A country mired in deep debt issues is *not* a country with a strong economy.  Obama’s trillion dollar deficits, year after year, are horrifying and damning.  And no, I don’t let George W. Bush off either.  He presided over YEARS of strong economic growth and tax revenue, and still ran massive deficits himself, and that is simply inexcusable for one who claims to be conservative.
     
    We are in deep shit, and the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain – but mostly right now, of course: Greece) are just the early warning bell.  The piper is coming to call for Great Britain as well, and then France… and then the United States.  And we focus on silly crap like Michelle Obama’s fricking dress.  Sigh.
     

  11. Danny Lemieux says

    I wish that I had something to contribute to this post, but I live in Illinois. So speaking about where my representatives rank…well, how far down can deviancy be defined?

  12. SADIE says

    The lack of focus on economic issues often drives me crazy….

    And we focus on silly crap like Michelle Obama’s fricking dress.  Sigh.
     
    Nothing more than a momentary diversion from the economic and political horizons.

  13. says

    “And we focus on silly crap like Michelle Obama’s fricking dress.  Sigh.”
     
     
    That’s why you are stressed. Focusing in on the evil of the enemy doesn’t mean you will wish it away.
     
    Humans are not automatons. We have down times, and they ain’t called “maintenance periods”.
     
    Problems aren’t fixed by a cookie cutter solution of More this, More that. Diversified resources are what it takes to fix problems. The fact that you can’t handle silly crap like Michelle Obama’s Totalitarian self-awareness, implies you lack the internal fortitude and resources to fix the real problems, the Big problems, the ass busting questions posed to this generation.
     
    Stress is always an indication that somebody can’t handle things. It is what leaders seek to handle and mask, both in themselves and in others.

  14. says

    “It’s arguable that if one truly has a fundamental integrity, that one wouldn’t be corruptible, but human nature is what it is. ”

    It is precisely because human nature is what it is, that integrity prevents corruption of those that wield power. Integrity wouldn’t be required if hard wiring was present that tolerated no deviation.

    “If someone or something manages to detect a leader’s flaws, then those flaws can be expanded -usually by pandering to the flaws. ”

    If someone has such weaknesses, he should not be entrusted with power. Or rather, people are entrusted with power even though people are aware of such weaknesses, probably because they have nobody better to offer as a replacement. That’s a problem with human stupidity and lack of talent, though.

    “Someone who know what appeals can gain influence by providing that which appeals.  It’s called “temptation”.  Some are able to resist it, too many don’t.”

    Integrity is not the ability to resist temptation. Integrity is the ability to understand one’s place in the universe and how people are related to you. It gives you the strength to stand by your principles, but is not in itself simply being firm in your committments.

    A person without integrity is not so much weak, as he allows others to exploit his weaknesses. He himself exploits his own weaknesses, even, for personal pleasure or profit.

    “And no, I don’t let George W. Bush off either”

    Btw, Mike, it’s time to focus on Obama, not George W. Bush. He ain’t even in the equation now a days. This constant need to talk about George Bush is not going to get you anything you need to survive in these economic times.

  15. says

    “Just the process by which we elect politicians begins with a problem…they not only volunteer, they _demand_ that we elect them – through their campaigns.  And when we do, they then take pride in having won the election as if having won an election was in itself an accomplishment.   The fact that they begin by thinking they can provide leadership is in itself a pointer to the existence of pride.  It isn’t a gradual march to leadership through years of promotion – it’s jumping out of the crowd and into the bandleader’s place of honor.”
     
     
    The question of ambition is an interesting one. Leaders need to have the self-confidence to jump out there and demand that others follow them, explicitly or implicitly. At the same time, if you don’t trust that leader or think he has ulterior motives, it puts you in a spot.
     
    But I don’t think that’s what is really wrong with the US election system slash democracy. Our problems are created and maintained by the Left. Democracy works fine on the small level and even somewhat well at the macro and large level. But the Left makes sure it fails and does so consistently in a way that favors the Left. The popular idea that elections can be stolen by vote counting, does not exactly tell the whole story. Elections are stolen because one faction was better at grassroots mobilization than the other one. But isn’t that a legitimately won contest? Not if the grassroots use illegal means such as intimidation or assassination.
     
     
     

  16. says

    When Steyn and Book talks about happy warriors, they are talking about people who want to fix problems, but also are at the same time mentally balanced and healthy.
     
    Stress is the result of a person not being able to handle an issue. Humor and playfulness then becomes the direct result of somebody that is carefree or confident in his ability to solve the problem. In fact, the problem may already be solved in the eyes of the Happy Warrior.
     

    Making a joke out of everything could be translated as being a fool or piro (clown), but someone that obsesses over every detail of the plan and is always talking about problems, is not the solution.
     
    In the fight against the Left, the ultimate evil born of human fallibility which Islam also shares, there are only two choices available to you. You can either cry over the human tragedy these demonic souls laugh, party, and drink themselves to oblivion over. Or you can laugh at them, at how you’re going to utterly destroy them.
     
    I prefer the latter, if only because mayhem is very funny to me when applied against the guilty. But other people choose to cry themselves into frustration unlimited over the Left. That’s ineffective. It ruins your health and morale. It makes you look uncertain and unable to perform to others.
     
    The economic issue in America is already solved, in my view. The solutions are already here. The people ready to implement them may not be, but there are various candidates already available. All of these I am certain in. The only thing that remains is to remove the Left’s obstruction and active attempts to sabotage The US Constitution with the Obamas and Bidens and PillowCs.
    It makes a complicated problem very very simple.
     
    Those that were aware of Iraq from 2003 to 2007, should already know by now that we have what it takes to solve any problem. All we have to do is to prevent the Left from cutting us off at the knees while laughing at our crippled futility. How to do that? Destroy the Left first.

Leave a Reply