Sam Graves' re-election targeted as one of Congress' 'Dirty Dozen'

...campaign AGAINST Obama, I am uninterested in what or who opposes Sam Graves. I am interested in hearing what are the POSITIVE reasons I should vote for Kay Barnes.
I don't care what bad things McCain has to say about Obama.
I don't care what bad things a particular interest group has to say about Sam Graves.
I do care why McCain/Obama is a viable option.
I do care why Barnes/Graves is a viable option.

Further, I don't think I am unique in wanting to hear this type of political advertising and commentary. I'm tired of the fruitless name-calling. I want facts that will help me determine the best options when I exercise my vote.

If the interest groups want to have a say in this election, give us that information. In this case, tell me why Barnes is better for the environment without wrecking the economy (the key concern of most Americans regarding environmental issues).

PM, I understand your point and in a perfect world, perhaps we could look only at the reasons to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST their opponent.

But rather than telling us why Graves should be supported, his own spokesman brings up caribou. How about a rule that they keep the campaign focused on issues that affect the district they represent? Bringing up caribou is their way of supporting drilling in ANWR, which has absolutely nothing to do with NW MO. Drilling in ANWR may produce oil that may reach our gas pumps in 10 years - maybe, but probably longer than that.

So instead of focusing on the needs of his constituents, Graves' spokesman brings up a partisan Republican talking point. Now how smart is that? How wise is it for Graves to support Bush 95% of the time?

Graves is a partisan Republican who supports Bush and his failed policies. He is more interested in caribou than NW MO. Isn't that enough to reject him? Barnes was a good mayor who revitalized downtown KC, something no other mayor in my lifetime had been able to do. I honestly don't understand why the choice is this race would be difficult for anyone.

I have a very long history of opposition to Graves on this blog and in other arenas. I know he sucks...
Unfortunately, I have been terribly, terribly disappointed with Barnes. She has had her head up her anal orifice this entire campaign.
She is clueless about the issues and is failing to connect with the people.
That's the issue I have...
Convince me Barnes is an improvement. So far, I haven't seen evidence.

Remember the Hypen left KC in debt over it's eyeballs, and a huge budget shortfall. Plus she does not know what the hell her name is!

Go SAM GO!

...please share what GOOD Sam Graves has done for this district.
Tearing down Kay Barnes is easy.
Share with us what positive contributions Sam has made in his eight years of opportunity.
I think that is a bit more difficult, but worth the effort.

This link will take you to the bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Sam.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d110:FLD003:@1(Rep+Graves):

Of the 25 Bills that Graves has sponsored or co-sponsored of the past 8 years, here is what he has to show:

> Passed H.R.5819 Amendment to strike and replace Title II, regarding venture capital investment standards. (introduced 4/23/2008)

> Passed . H.RES.1130 : Recognizing the roles and contributions of America's teachers to building and enhancing our Nation's civic, cultural, and economic well being. (introduced 4/22/2008)

Everything else either failed or is in committee.

Graves has served for how many terms now yet can't get a bill through committee and onto the floor. You don't even need to look at what his bills are. He has no power in Congress.

But he did honor teachers. Why? That's one of my pet peeves with Congress, the amount of time they waste naming post offices and honoring people. Talk about a waste of time.

I don't know what's funnier:

* The fact that after eight years in Congress Graves has contributed only a resolution that ostensibly honors his school teacher/ethanol magnate wife.

* Or the fact the one time Rogue links to something as proof it doesn't help his case in the least.

Cue the rabid lapdog yapping ...

Nancy "I-want-to-save-your-planet-and-the-one-I'm- on-too" Pelosi has successfully stifled any Republican successes in the House of Representatives.

She and only she decides what gets out of committee and what doesn't. If Sam Graves hasn't passed much it is not because he or other Republicans haven't made the effort. They likely have.

It's because Nancy Pelosi is a ruthless dictator who can cherry pick bills to assure that Democrats look good and Republicans look bad in this session of Congress.

Because the House can't filibuster, Senate Republicans then delay bills until the Democrats reach across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion.

The Democrats in Congress clearly do not have any intent toward bipartisanship in the 110th. Gridlock is the failure of the party in power (in Congress) to deliver for the good of America.

Those failures are the Democrats in Congress.

(This post is not a plug for Sam Graves. It is a plug for intelligently understanding how Congress is an incumbent's heaven if you're in the majority.)

What bills did Graves sponsor and bring to the floor when his party was the majority?

If Sam Graves hasn't passed much it is not because he or other Republicans haven't made the effort. They likely have.
========================
Just a sampling of ground-breaking legislation that Graves has sponsored, without success:

> H.CON.RES.404 : Supporting the goals and ideals of Complaint Free Wednesday. (introduced 7/31/2008)

> H.RES.871 : Opposing the United States Sentencing Commissions decision to reduce crack cocaine sentences. (introduced 12/12/2007)

> H.R.4057 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and expand the deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers. (introduced 11/1/2007)

> 9 Resolutions to suspend the duty on such things as: N-Y(2-Chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-yl)methyl -- none of which had a single co=sponsor

In sum, a miserable failure.

Because your mule blinders are showing up loud and clear.

Joe Pescado clearly confirms my post on majority incumbents with his last post. Thank you "Manhattan" Joe.

By the way Manhattan Joe. Why don't you read those bills and see if they are actually worthwhile.

Then read the one that Pelosi allowed to the floor for debate.

I imagine if Sam Graves sponsored a bill that said "Nancy Pelosi is the greatest Speaker on our planet" that it would be fast-tracked to passage.

Cause every one of those bills listed at Rogue's link are from the last year and a half. I asked for bills he sponsored while his party was in the majority. That would be PRIOR to 2007.

Said Jeetz at the end of his post:

(This post is not a plug for Sam Graves. It is a plug for intelligently understanding how Congress is an incumbent's heaven if you're in the majority.)

What liberal socialist instead decides:

1. The maven can't defend Pelosi.

2. Understandable.

3. Because the maven can't defend Pelosi, the maven backtracks to the 107th-109th Congress.

4. I wasn't talking about those Congresses.

5. The Maven wants links for post-Dame Nancy sessions. I wasn't talking about them.

6. The Maven should lift her dainty little mouse and look for them. (It's not Jeetz's job to think for the Maven)

7. I'm sure if liberals work hard at it that they can eventually get back to when Sam Graves was in student Senate at his junior high school and whether any of his bills were passed then, too.

8. Back when Sam's ancestors were anti-Federalist members of Congress, representing the Missouri Territory...

What bills did Graves sponsor and bring to the floor when his party was the majority?

Seems simple enough. Most of us here understand how Congress works. His bills would have a far greater chance of reaching the floor for a vote when his party controls the House. So what legislation did Graves promote that has been successful and helped the people of his district?

We were asked for reasons to vote FOR him rather than against him. Seems like the best place to start is his legislative record. I have already looked it up. I am asking his supporters to do so.

Said El Jeetzo:

(This post is not a plug for Sam Graves. It is a plug for intelligently understanding how Congress is an incumbent's heaven if you're in the majority.)

aaaaaaaaand again.

If you want to know Sam's prior House record, I suggest you trot your little mouse out there like a good little liberal and search for it.

Comprendo, chiquita?

No offense to liberal socialist or joepescado, but you're wasting your time trying to reason with Jeetz, the resident dunderhead.

Jeetz is just killing time before the magic hour when the lime jello and meds are served at the old folks home. Until then, he'll impart whatever passes for "clever" repartee in his mind, never mind what anyone else says.

If they visited this blog, real Republicans would be painfully embarrassed by this dumbass. Unfortunately that side has a shallow bench that was dealt a raw hand in the shame and intellect departments (see Rogue, realista, bobcat, et al).

Tell me more oh "pronoun" -ced one. See into my future for me. Gawd, you are funny!

And dumbass? ...now that takes the cake. Don't ever stop posting, Greased Lightning.

Never, ever.

PS: As for Republicans, if they want to be wimps, that is their choice. I want nothing to do with any Republican who may feel sorry for themselves because of George Bush.

That kind of Republican needs to become a liberal. Because liberals have cornered the market on feeling sorry for themselves.

Hell -- look at you.

I did not intend to engage him in any conversation since his opinion has been proven over and over to be less than informed. But since he apparently has nothing better to do than surf the net looking for libruls to trash, he was the first keyboard commando to reply to my request. And since this blog has no ignore feature, I unfortunately get to read his replies.

But to get back to the topic at hand, I think it is a good suggestion to vote FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST their opponent. So I am encouraging all of Sam's supporters to cite specific legislation sponsored by him which proves he is an effective representative for the 6th district in MO. And here's a hint - it is a quick and easy task. :-)

I am also promoting the self-discovery method here - that's why I am not posting the info myself. As much as I disagree with Rogue, I have to give him credit for actually posting a link to useful information regarding Graves. I am merely asking for more.

Now I do not live in the 6th district but I did send money to Kay Barnes. My reason for supporting her is the transformation of downtown KC while she was mayor. I think it is a remarkable achievement. I am merely asking Graves' supporters to do the same thing.

Are we having a little pity party, kids? Woohoo! Gawd, you two are entertaining.

This is what passes for entertainment when you are a close minded, bitter grandmother.

Dinner time for the blue hairs.

Now don't you go drinking and driving tonight, ok? I was really concerned about pedestrians the other night when you were on the road.

Besides, I wouldn't want some pretty little undercover cop to nail you. (smile)

Oh, and I don't have blue hair. But I imagine the people you are slamming are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet and wouldn't do a thing to harm you. But aren't you just a big ol' toughie putting down an older person.

My, my, my. Such children we've raised this past generation. Don't you be afraid of older people. Ok?

I tend to agree that the Downtown Revitalization project was an essential effort to reverse a decades old lethargy of vision that reinforced the perception within the Metro area and across America that KC was truly a one horse town..
As with any "investment" the initial cost appears staggering. Over a period of time, these type of projects look better and better as the revenue curves loop upward and ratios neutralize or turn positive.
Kay worries me because she seems so...well, so much like Sam. Lacking a grasp of the issues and the ability to help be a part of creating solutions. I fear she'll be a ruber stamper without respect within Congress.
I'm desperately hoping to see some positive comments that will reassure me that I am wrong about her. My personal research into this issue certainly doesn't yield fruitful results.

I know you don't read well but I'll type slowly. I have never driven my car or rented a vehicle in NYC.

I know back in your day, if you wanted to go anywhere, you'd jump on your horse or in your pick up. Nowadays, big cities have public transportation.

Be sure to gum your food real good so you don't choke and leave us too soon.

I call Jeetz junior. So the smug comments about old people sweep in a host of people.
This proves how stereotypes are just wrong.

Old People Stereotypes.
Gender Stereotypes.
Racial Stereotypes.
Ethnic Stereotypes.
Religous Stereotypes.
Sexual Orientation Stereotypes.

Stereotypes are not acceptable.