Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

[Jim Nickerson]

I hate politics. It seriously depresses me. Just how bad off really is this country? Does anyone actually know? If the thesis that "American politics is tremendously screwed up" is correct, who are the people that could change things? I have what probably are little more than vague opinions, and I'm sure others (perhaps infinitely informed) here do too as to those elected officials that seem not to be in the pockets of the monied interests of this country.

I'd like anyone who is interested and thinks this is important to put up information on who in elected national government might be different from the rest and indicative of the sort of politician this country needs comprising the bodies (House and Senate) that to my reckoning likely determine the future of this country.

I'll be back later with a couple who I think are good people.

[ggirod]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

Since "good" might be subject to some interpretation, I would advise that you simply go to opensecrets.org and look around at various people. Those getting money from healthcare, finance, real estate, defense, agriculture, and other special interests are likely to support those interests in spite of the nation's or even their supporters' best interests. Comparing their voting records and the money is even more effective as a measure of goodness. It has been my observation that "good" congresscritters seem to be those who lack support from any special interests. Your mileage may vary.

[D-Mack]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

I think it's dangerous not tow the line and they will always find some dirt.

I always ask myself if that's the real reason a scandal brings someone down

Bush is also angry with Craig, a conservative who joined with Democrats in a filibuster to defeat permanent renewal of the Patriot Act. As a meeting recently, Bush referred to Craig as �a goddamned traitor� and told the National Republican Senatorial Committee to start recruiting someone to run against the Idaho Senator in 2008.

Such anger against those who dare oppose him is typical for a President who all too often launches into obscene tirades when his policies are questioned. Bush, on many occasions, has called political opponents �traitors' and, in private, refers to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter as a �lily-livered bastard.�

Craig, however, is unfazed by all this and says the Patriot Act �doesn't do enough to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans.�

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...usionment_.htm

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

Since "good" might be subject to some interpretation, I would advise that you simply go to opensecrets.org and look around at various people. Those getting money from healthcare, finance, real estate, defense, agriculture, and other special interests are likely to support those interests in spite of the nation's or even their supporters' best interests. Comparing their voting records and the money is even more effective as a measure of goodness. It has been my observation that "good" congresscritters seem to be those who lack support from any special interests. Your mileage may vary.

There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. No one I know has the time to seach the details of that many elected officials.

Surely some readers here must have done some digging or even have biased opinions about just which politicians they think are acting in the best interest of the people of the US vs. the best interests of the oligarchs. But maybe not.

Forget "good" and think about those whose agenda might be:
1. honesty, integrity in running this country
2: the best interests of the entire population of this country
3. how history will judge them
4. how their Parties will judge them
5. whether or not they get re-elected
6. accumulation of personal wealth from having the power of an elected congressperson.

Or you can add your own list which might be better, or add to or re-order my list.

I think opensecrets.org is a good source of information as is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...onal_districts from the small amount of time I've spent looking at it.

[Jim Nickerson]

DENNIS KUCINICH, Democrat, Representative, Ohio

So far, no candidates who might be suitable elected representatives--I guess that is mostly correct.

Here's one for whom I'd vote. Dennis Kucinich, about whom I first ever heard when he was elected youngest Mayor of Clevelandat age 31.

Here is the "about Dennis" page from http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/

Having been elected to Cleveland's City Council at age 23, Dennis J. Kucinich was well-known to Cleveland residents when they chose him as their mayor in 1977 at the age of 31. At the time, Kucinich was the youngest person ever elected to lead a major American city. In 1978, Cleveland's banks demanded that he sell the city's 70 year-old municipally-owned electric system to its private competitor (in which the banks had a financial interest) as a precondition of extending credit to city government. When Mayor Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light, the banks took the unprecedented step of refusing to roll over the city’s debt, as is customary. Instead, they pushed the city into default. It turned out the banks were thoroughly interlocked with the private utility, CEI, which would have acquired monopoly status by taking over Muny Light. Five of the six banks held almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock; of the 11 directors of CEI, eight were also directors of four of the six banks involved. By holding to his promise and putting principle above politics, Kucinich lost his re-election bid and his political career was temporarily derailed. But today, Kucinich stands vindicated for having confronted the Enron of his day, and for saving the municipal power company. "There is little debate," wrote Cleveland Magazine in May 1996, "over the value of Muny Light today. Now Cleveland Public Power, it is a proven asset to the city that between 1985 and 1995 saved its customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid CEI." He also preserved hundreds of union jobs. In addition to being Mayor of Cleveland, Kucinich has served on the Cleveland City Council (1970-75, 1981-82); served as the Clerk of Courts for the Cleveland Municipal Court (1976-77); been an Ohio State Senator (1994-96); and in November 2008, was elected to his seventh term as a Member of the United States House of Representatives (1997-present). Kucinich was born in Cleveland, Ohio on October 8, 1946. He is the eldest of 7 children of Frank and Virginia Kucinich. He and his family lived in twenty-one places by the time Kucinich was 17 years old. Kucinich graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters in Speech Communications from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio in 1974. Kucinich has held many jobs outside of politics including being a hospital orderly, newspaper copy boy, teacher, consultant, television analyst and author. Since being elected to Congress in 1996, Kucinich has been a tireless advocate for worker rights, civil rights and human rights. In Congress, Kucinich has authored and co-sponsored legislation to create a national health care system, preserve Social Security, lower the costs of prescription drugs, provide economic development through infrastructure improvements, abolish the death penalty, provide universal prekindergarten to all 3, 4, and 5 year olds, create a Department of Peace, regulate genetically engineered foods, repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, and provide tax relief to working class families. Kucinich has been honored by Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the League of Conservation Voters as a champion of clean air, clean water and an unspoiled earth. Kucinich has twice been an official United States delegate to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (1998, 2004) and attend the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. In his district, Kucinich has been recognized by the Greater Cleveland AFL-CIO as a tireless advocate for the social and economic interests of his community. Kucinich led the effort to save Cleveland's 90 year-old steel industry and the thousands of jobs and retiree benefits it provides. While hundreds of community hospitals have been closed throughout the country, Kucinich led a community-based effort to reopened two Cleveland neighborhood hospitals. Kucinich worked with the nation's largest railroads to create a merger agreement that improved rail safety while diverting a heavy volume of train traffic away from heavily populated residential areas of his district. In Cleveland, Kucinich has been honored by the Cleveland AFL-CIO, the Ohio PTA, the NASA Glenn Research Center, the Salvation Army, the United States Post Office, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services, Ohio’s Boys Town, and the Human Rights Campaign. Kucinich is a current member of The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States (IATSE), an AFL-CIO affiliated union. Kucinich is the chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He is also a member of the Education and Labor Committee. In November 2008, Dennis Kucinich was reelected to a seventh term in Congress. Below shows how much he spent in continuing to be re-elected since 2000.

Both those tables are from links at of which one is http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...0003572&type=I

As many or all of you know Kucinich ran for President in 2008. I tend to think Presidential aspirations are first and foremost are ego driven, which may or may not be a good thing; perhaps I am wrong and it is all about money and power. I don't think Kucinich fits into either group, of course that is an uninformed opinion.

Here is a decent bit of information about Kucinich from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kucinic...ntial_campaign


And his platform:





On December 11, 2006 in a speech delivered at Cleveland City Hall, Kucinich announced he would seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for President in 2008. His platform^[2] for 2008 included:

• Creating a single-payer system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Care Act.
• The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
• Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
• Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
• Immediate repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.
• Fostering a world of international cooperation.
• Abolishing the death penalty.
• Environmental renewal and clean energy.
• Preventing the privatization of social security.
• Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
• Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
• Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
• Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
• Protecting a woman's right to choose while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
• Ending the War on Drugs.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage.
• Strongly promoting worker's rights.
• Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
• Restoring rural communities and family farms.
• Strengthening gun control.
• Legalizing medicinal marijuana and decriminalizing non-medical possession.

[ggirod]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

You can add Alan Grayson to that list, he similarly is funded primarily by unions and does not have huge PAC funding at all. He also seems to use a lot of his own money. That frees him to actually represent some real organic (not corporate) citizens. I most appreciate his ability to speak the truth when it comes to the Fed and to healthcare.

[Jim Nickerson]

ALAN GRAYSON, Democrat Representative, Florida

Grayson has been in the news a lot recently, which I expect will continue for the rest of his first term (hopefully not his last). He got some discussion here in this thread http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12282 and the video put up by cjppjc was entertaining http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL5Hjn6xMmU

This is from http://grayson.house.gov/about/index.shtml

There is right, and there is wrong. We in Central Florida have sent someone to Washington who fights for what’s right.

Our Congressman, Alan Grayson, grew up in the tenements in the Bronx. It was a hard life. He had to be a fighter to survive.

His parents were teachers. They made great sacrifices, to make sure that Alan received the best education.

Alan was a sick child. His mother took him to the hospital four times a week, for treatment. Without health coverage, he would not be alive today. He remembers that.

Alan rode the subway to school each day, and he worked hard. He was the valedictorian of his junior high school. By passing a test, he was admitted to an exclusive public high school. In high school, he achieved the highest test score among almost 50,000 students who took the test. Harvard College saw something in him, and admitted him.

For Alan, life at Harvard wasn’t easy. Alan cleaned toilets, and worked as a night watchman. Yet he earned a bachelor’s degree in only three years, with high honors, and he was Phi Beta Kappa. Alan graduated from Harvard in the top two percent of his class.

Alan took economics classes at Harvard, and he worked as an economist after college. But he felt a calling, to learn more. He returned to Harvard. In only four years, Alan received a J.D. with honors from Harvard Law School, and a master’s degree from the Harvard School of Government, and Alan finished all of the course work and passed the general exams for a Ph.D. in Government.

Alan’s master’s thesis was on the important subject of gerontology – how to improve the health of older people. Alan called for the creation of an organization to support research on the health of seniors. Shortly after he left school, Alan formed such an organization: the Alliance for Aging Research. Alan served as an officer of the Alliance for 22 years. Alan’s Alliance has increased federal support for aging research by 500%, leading to breakthroughs in the treatment of blindness, weak bones, Alzheimer’s disease, and other afflictions of the elderly. The motto of the Alliance is “Living to 100 – and Loving It.”

Wall Street firms recruited Alan heavily when he graduated from Harvard Law School, but Alan chose to be a judge’s assistant instead. For two years, he worked with such luminaries as Judge (now Justice) Ginsburg, Judge (now Justice) Scalia, Judge Mikva, Judge Bork, and others. After that, he accepted an invitation to join the law firm where Judge Ginsburg’s husband was a partner.

From the beginning of his legal career, Alan gravitated toward the important question of how the Government spends the taxpayers’ money. He mastered the incredibly complex rules regarding government contracting, and represented hundreds of clients in that field.

In the early 1990s, Alan took leave from the practice of law, and started a business. Alan was the first President of IDT Corp., a telecom/internet company. The business started on the second floor of a funeral home. It grew to be a $2 billion-a-year business, on the Fortune 1000 list, and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In short, Alan has lived the American Dream, starting a successful business and seeing it grow.
Later, Alan decided to leave that business, and return to the practice of law. Alan and his wife also decided to move to Orlando, and raise a family. Their first child, Skye, was born in 1995. Now they have five children: Skye, Star, Sage, Storm and Stone. Storm and Stone, twins, were born in 2005.

After Alan went back to the field of government contracts law, he began to represent whistleblowers, who witnessed fraud against the Government. Alan brought more and more False Claims Act cases on behalf of those whistleblowers, against fraudulent contractors. After the war in Iraq began, Alan was the only attorney who was willing to pursue such cases, in the face of hostility from the Bush Administration.

Congress called on Alan four times to testify about contractor fraud in Iraq. Taxpayers Against Fraud named Alan Grayson its Lawyer of the Year. Public Justice also recognized Alan for his work. The Wall St. Journal lauded Alan, saying that he was “waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq.” And Vanity Fair published an 11-page profile.
Alan’s mammoth struggle against contractor fraud has been applauded by liberals and conservatives alike. And now that he is in Congress, he can do even more to protect the taxpayers. He has joined the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittees of both the House Financial Services Committee and the House Science and Technology Committee. There, Alan does what he has been doing for decades – “keeping ‘em honest.” And furthermore, with a quarter century of experience in how the Government spends its money, Alan can help to direct more of that money to Central Florida, where we need it.

It seems to me that Grayson is someone with enough educational background and experience to take on a lot of the crap that exists in the Federal Government right now. He has started out well if one in inclined to admire "mad dogs," but I imagine there are many people in both parties who do not appreciate what he might do that would lead to a change in the status quo in Washington.

From http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...0028418&type=I







And here is a Wikipedia link updated to include Grayson's characterization of the Republican health care plan, "The Republican health care plan is this: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Grayson

Health care policy debate

On September 29, 2009, Grayson made a speech regarding health care proposals in the U.S. House. During it he said, "The Republican health care plan is this: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.'" His remarks drew angry and immediate calls for an apology from Republicans.^[24] Longtime Republican Congressman Jimmy Duncan called the outburst, "the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I've ever heard made on this floor." ^[25] Grayson responded the next day from the House floor saying, "I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.” Grayson cited a Harvard Study released the same month as his comment in which 44,000 Americans die each year because of being uninsured.^[26] Grayson's comments drew sharp criticism from the National Republican Congressional Committee, “This is an unstable man who has come unhinged. The depths to which Alan Grayson will sink to defend his indefensible comments know no bounds.”^[27] His comments have been compared to those of South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who was widely criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for shouting, "You Lie!" during President Barack Obama's address to a Joint Session of Congress in September 2009.^[25]

On September 30, 2009, during an interview on CNN's news program, "The Situation Room," Grayson added to his rhetoric against Congressional Republicans, calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism" —borrowing a phrase written by William Safire for Spiro Agnew to describe the media— and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth," because he claims Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising and thereby stopping progress, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believes Congressional Republicans are now proposing or have previously proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the latter points said "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"^[28][29] On October 1, 2009, Grayson referred to Congressional Republicans as "'no' mongers" and added, "They've got 'no' answers for anything."^[30]

[kartius919]

Re: ALAN GRAYSON, Democrat Representative, Florida

So again, money speaks! Our political system is a joke.

[cjppjc]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

Of course Ron Paul is a good man. A good man and a good elected official. Even when he was being made fun of by Borat, if I remember correctly he said he was upset that he was tricked. He said it's easy to be tricked when you trust someone.

The man has won the battle with his ego it seems.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

I don't think simply looking at how they raise their money is a good indicator. You have to follow it up with how they cast key votes, and if those votes consistently align with the money.

How we pay for political campaigns in this country helps screen out the good candidates for the corrupt ones. But those are the rules everyone has to play by and is why campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing the nation.

So how do you find the good candidates? Look at those who are opposing the FIRE interests.

Campaign reform: Anyone who opposes meaningful campaign finance reform, or who says money in campaigns = free speech, They're out! That's almost the entire Republican party and about 30% of the Dems.

Health insurance reform: Who are the congressional people standing with the insurance companies? Again, All the Republicans and about 30% of the Dems.

Finance reform: Who is opposing meaningful reform? Again, All the Republicans and about 40% of the Dems.

Until we get absolute control of the money in campaigns, what we think on any subject is irrelevant. The big contributors will almost always prevail. This is not to say that they are all simply being bribed. Maybe 40% will not let the contributions effect their votes on major issues. Another 20% might feel very guilty about casting a vote against their conscience, but will do so to get elected. And maybe another 40% simply don't care and will even (as with the last administration and Republican congresses) allow the industry to write the legislation.

As for Ron Paul, I disagree with almost everything he says, but he speaks his convictions and I think under very special circumstances I could even find myself voting for him.

As for Grayson, go to youtube and look at the way he questions Bernanki and the Feds head of accounting. This guy is great. I just hope it doesn't go to his head.

EJ has started a thread asking about a 3rd party, I don't think that is the way to go. The corrupting money doesn't care about party affiliation. I would much prefer a movement for a constitutional amendment to clean up the campaign process and get rid of the corrupting money.

Most campaign money goes to media buys, and people really get sick of all the lies from the campaigns and Pacs that dominate the air waves for many months before an election. I think a constitutional amendment, sold as a way to get rid of all the negative TV and Radio campaign commercials, could pass in both red and blue states.

Once we have elected officials who don't owe their contributors anything, and who don't have the money to repeat a lie so often that they can make the voters believe anything, then we'll get a congress that will be free to talk about ideas, and a voting public who will have the opportunity to make informed choices about important issues.

$.02

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

Good note, toast, and worth much more than a few cents.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

I don't think simply looking at how they raise their money is a good indicator. You have to follow it up with how they cast key votes, and if those votes consistently align with the money.

How we pay for political campaigns in this country helps screen out the good candidates for the corrupt ones. But those are the rules everyone has to play by and is why campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing the nation.

So how do you find the good candidates? Look at those who are opposing the FIRE interests.

Campaign reform: Anyone who opposes meaningful campaign finance reform, or who says money in campaigns = free speech, They're out! That's almost the entire Republican party and about 30% of the Dems.

Health insurance reform: Who are the congressional people standing with the insurance companies? Again, All the Republicans and about 30% of the Dems.

Finance reform: Who is opposing meaningful reform? Again, All the Republicans and about 40% of the Dems.

Until we get absolute control of the money in campaigns, what we think on any subject is irrelevant. The big contributors will almost always prevail. This is not to say that they are all simply being bribed. Maybe 40% will not let the contributions effect their votes on major issues. Another 20% might feel very guilty about casting a vote against their conscience, but will do so to get elected. And maybe another 40% simply don't care and will even (as with the last administration and Republican congresses) allow the industry to write the legislation.

As for Ron Paul, I disagree with almost everything he says, but he speaks his convictions and I think under very special circumstances I could even find myself voting for him.

As for Grayson, go to youtube and look at the way he questions Bernanki and the Feds head of accounting. This guy is great. I just hope it doesn't go to his head.

EJ has started a thread asking about a 3rd party, I don't think that is the way to go. The corrupting money doesn't care about party affiliation. I would much prefer a movement for a constitutional amendment to clean up the campaign process and get rid of the corrupting money.

Most campaign money goes to media buys, and people really get sick of all the lies from the campaigns and Pacs that dominate the air waves for many months before an election. I think a constitutional amendment, sold as a way to get rid of all the negative TV and Radio campaign commercials, could pass in both red and blue states.

Once we have elected officials who don't owe their contributors anything, and who don't have the money to repeat a lie so often that they can make the voters believe anything, then we'll get a congress that will be free to talk about ideas, and a voting public who will have the opportunity to make informed choices about important issues.

$.02

Right now I surmise there is zero chance of enough pissed off people to instigate a constitutional change on anything perhaps other than codifying the illegality of abortion and maybe even birth control medicines.

And it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will further promote corporations having greater free speech in campaign financing.

I wish I could find something that made me optimistic about the future of this country's government.

from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

The United States

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states. The method of proposal by national convention has been attempted twice, but never succeeded. The method of proposal by Congress requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses; this means two-thirds of those members voting in each house—assuming that a quorum exists when the vote is cast—and not necessarily two-thirds of the entire membership. Amendment proposals generally contain a deadline before which the ratification by states must be completed, but the legal status of such a deadline remains unsettled. To become valid, an amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, that is, by 38 states, either by their legislatures or by ratifying conventions. States choosing the convention method usually hold elections specifically for the purpose of choosing delegates to the convention. Once certified by the Archivist of the United States, the amendment takes effect according to its provisions and the other rules of the constitution.

[Rajiv]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

I think you will find this article interesting -- Bought and Paid For

Lobbyists from the financial industry have paid hundreds of millions to Congress and the Obama administration. They have bought virtually all of the key congress members and senators on committees overseeing finances and banking.
This is easy to confirm in black-and-white. See for yourself: here, here, here, here, here and here.
Manhattan Institute senior fellow Nicole Gelinas says:

The too-big-to-fail financial industry has been good to elected officials and former elected officials of both parties over its 25-year life span

And economic historian Niall Ferguson says:

Guess which institutions are among the biggest lobbyists and campaign-finance contributors? Surprise! None other than the TBTFs [too big to fails].

No wonder two powerful congressmen said that banks run Congress.

No wonder two leading IMF officials, the former Vice President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, and the the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City have all said that the United States is controlled by an oligarchy.

With the exception of a couple of handful of Congress members who have the American people's interest in mind, Congress is bought and paid for.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

I think you will find this article interesting -- Bought and Paid For

Interesting my ass! It is repulsive, vomit-inducing, abhorrent (thought it is an excellent link for those tough enough to tolerate the information). In my opinion any person is the United States who votes for re-election of anyone except maybe the twelve mentioned in the first "here" in Rajiv's post is an ideological idiot or just a plain idiot.

"These bottom twelve include Rep. Maxine Waters, who has received no money from the sector, and Rep. Ron Paul who has pulled in only $1,000 or 3% of his 2009 campaign haul. The other members in the bottom ten are Reps. Steve Driehaus (8%), Keith Ellison (8%), Mary Jo Kilroy (8%), Frank Lucas (9%), Carolyn McCarthy (11%), Alan Grayson (12%), Adam Putnam (12%) and Al Green (12%)."

[Rajiv]

Re: Who are the good Congress people (if any)?

I would also add Dr. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to this list. Also as alluded in one of the prior posts was Cynthia McKinney (who of course was hounded out of congress) -- all three of course ran for President.