My Letter to Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)

Beacause I kinda feel pandered to and sent on my way. Maybe it was because I am still learning how Congress actualy works.

What amazes me is your Senators.  Maryland is liberal, but I do not put them in the category of Taxachussetes or Taxifornia.  Yet your senators rival those 2 states in the liberal extremism.  At least ours are better - not a lot, but better.

Eh, what I am reading is "Based on these concerns, I voted against the motion to prematurely conclude debate." Doesn't that mean he was voting against prematurely killing the effort? To me it looks like he is pointing to a similar instance (S. J. Res. 40) of when he supported what you were hoping to accomplish.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is what it seems to be saying to me. Isn't the cloture vote the vote to stop debate? I just got up, maybe I am cornfused. Anyway, I find it difficult to believe you'd expect a New England (D) to ever vote for a protection of marriage amendment. Kudos to you for trying, though.

Oh, wait, brain fart. Does he mean 'close debate' e.g. to go directly to a vote? In that case you'd see him wanting more debate as a stall tactic? To me, since it failed anyway, maybe more debate would have been the way to go. Either way, he's a Dem, and not even the Republicans are comfortable with this passing, if you ask me. I don't see much hope of Dems supporting it.

"Based on these concerns, I voted against the motion to prematurely conclude debate." Doesn't that mean he was voting against prematurely killing the effort? To me it looks like he is pointing to a similar instance (S. J. Res. 40) of when he supported what you were hoping to accomplish.

That's what got me thinking that he wasn't talking about the same piece of legislation. From the Senate voting record, record listed on washingtonpost.com, the vote for "Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment" on 7 June 2006 saw both Mikulski and Sarbanes voting NAY, along party lines, meaning the debate was over and the measure was killed.

To me it looks like he is pointing to a similar instance (S. J. Res. 40) of when he supported what you were hoping to accomplish.

And me.

I find it difficult to believe you'd expect a New England (D) to ever vote for a protection of marriage amendment. Kudos to you for trying, though.

I knew it was a Quixotic effort, at best. Conversely, I wouldn't have to petition my Senator on this topic if I was living in Utah, Idaho, Texas...

Either way, he's a Dem, and not even the Republicans are comfortable with this passing, if you ask me. I don't see much hope of Dems supporting it.

Well, sure, but I live in a notoriously blue state. I'm not in a constituency where my alignment feels represented.

I'm writing back... stay tuned.

My response to Sarbanes' office:

Dear Sen. Sarbanes,
Thank you for your recent response to my email about your then-upcoming vote on the marriage amendment. I know that you are very busy, especially with the Senate in session, and I appreciate the time and effort it took to respond personally to my email.

I have to admit, however, that your response puzzled me. I was referring to the 6-7 June 2006 vote regarding the introduction of a marriage amendment bill to the Senate. In doing some research (which is always a good thing) I discovered the actual vote to which I wanted some support from my senators: 109th Congress / Senate / 2nd session / Vote 163, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment.

As reported in the Washington Post, you voted NAY on the cloture motion, along with Sen. Mikulski and pretty much everyone from your party.

On the same day, your email reassured me that S. J. Res. 1 had been "referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Although I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will be sure to keep your views in mind in the event that this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration."

Umm, I'm not a politician nor a Congressional expert, but the voting on the matter seemed to be past the Judiciary Committee. It appears to have been sent to the whole Senate for a motion on cloture. And you voted against it, effectively killing the issue without having to actually take an official side on the amendment.

Again, I know that you are busy, but since it seems as though we are talking about different pieces of legislation, and that you cited another bill that you happened to support in the past as proof that your efforts in this arena are aligned with mine, I would appreciate some clarification on the matter. Because, honestly, I do not feel that I got a straight answer from you.

Thanks again for your time and effort, and I really do appreciate the response I got from your office.

Very sincerely,
(singrdave)

Let's see if I get a response this time, too... it's our representative government in action!

Let's see if I get a response this time, too... it's our representative government in action!

Well, wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles... I got a definitive response from the office of Sen Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)!

Dear (singrdave):

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this issue.

As you may know, S. J. Res. 1 was introduced in the United States Senate on January 24, 2005. A cloture vote regarding the Motion to Proceed to the consideration of this amendment occurred in the Senate on June 7, 2006. Because I had serious concerns about this proposed constitutional amendment, I voted against the motion to prematurely conclude debate. The motion required 60 votes to cut off debate and failed by receiving only 49. I will be sure to keep your views in mind in the event that this or related legislation comes before the full Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other matters of importance to you in the future.


In the future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than clicking reply.

With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator

This reply sounds remarkably similar to his previous letter...

as if the elf of indecision had hijacked Bush's typewriter and is answering in his stead

The elf of indecision is probably some intern who got the short straw for the week.

God forbid they actually read or listen to what we mere mortals have to say.

Yep, I am realizing that they don't actually read mail from their own constituents.

My intro to the follow-up email:

Dear Sen. Sarbanes, Thank you for your recent response to my email about your then-upcoming vote on the marriage amendment. I know that you are very busy, especially with the Senate in session, and I appreciate the time and effort it took to respond personally to my email.

... was unintentionally ironic.

Couple of points...

thus killing the bill before it ever was voted upon

Voting against cloture does not kill a bill, technically. It continues debate. The bill is still alive until it is voted down.

New England (D) to ever vote for a protection of marriage amendment

Maryland is not part of New England. Never has been, never will be.

As for why your getting the same letter--it's a system, like LW said. No one on staff has time to individually respond to letters--everyone wish they did, but no one does. Some offices get thousands of letters a day--Senators would be able to do nothing else but read mail. Therefore, certain words and phrases in a letter will trigger certain language to respond to it. A more orgnanized office would have caught that your letter was a follow on and you would have gotten a different response.

If you really want to get heard--call the office and TALK to someone on staff.

The entire house motto is 'SHINE EM ON,THEY WILL NEVER know the difference"

The feeling I came away with (because I can't make heads or tails of this) is that he patted me on the head and went about his own agenda.

Welcome to My World

Seriously, you understand correctly, and that is precisely what happened to you, and has happened to me on every issue I ever bother to communicate to the (Dis)Honorable Senators from Maryland about. They completely ignore my requests, go on with their own agenda and screw over the people they are supposed to be representing, in the name of serving the people.

It's enough to make one puke, and it's been going in Maryland for as long as Democrats have ruled the politics in the state. Thankfully, there's a chance, slim though it may be, that the soon to be retired and former senior Senator from the State, Sarbanes, will be replaced with a member of the GOP, but don't count on it. Dead men do tell tales, or at least vote, if needed in Maryland politics, and way too many idiots in the state are plenty prepared to vote for the Ass-hat candidate of the party of the Donkey just because he has a (D) after his name on the ballot.

If you really want to get heard--call the office and TALK to someone on staff.

Won't make a bit of a difference, the answers will be the same as the Senator and his staff have their agenda and they aren't gonna change off it to save their butts, especially not when Sarbanes' staff is well aware their man is retiring and can't be harmed politically.

Oh, I could also add that calling Mikulski wouldn't change things either, as she and her staff know she is a "safe" candidate for as long as she continues to run and is registered as a Democrat. She's not even been close to losing an election yet...

Oh, I could also add that calling Mikulski wouldn't change things either, as she and her staff know she is a "safe" candidate for as long as she continues to run and is registered as a Democrat. She's not even been close to losing an election yet...

Doesn't that mean that people like what she's doing?

I guess I don't understand the problem. It's a representative democracy. Your Senators and Members of the House do not have to listen to every bit of advice you give them. You in turn, never have to vote for them. If enough people like what they are doing, they will win re-election. If they are out of touch with their constituents, they will lose.

If Milkulski is safe, it's because she's doing her job to the satisfaction of her consituents--why would you fault her that? Just because you don't agree with her position?

Doesn't that mean that people like what she's doing?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that people in this most blue state will vote for an admitted murdering rapist if that individual has a (D) behind their name, and will excuse any abuse or sins as long as that (D) continues to promise that they have the answers, feel their pain, and are just being stymied by the mean old nasty republicans otherwise they'd really be making improvements.

To be fair, there are some things that Mikulski has done that are positive, but for the most part she has been ineffectual for many years (especially during the time in the minority party) and gets stuff done only by making deals on issues that add to the pork we keep seeing our government dole out.

Oh, I should also clarify and add that I'm not saying Mikulski is guilty of any heinous crimes, just that in this blue state the only thing that matters to (unfortunately) a majority of the voters is that you have that (D) or Democrat designation behind or in front of your name on the ballot.

We've sent judges to positions that have been called on the carpet for doing absolutely horrible jobs (see for example, this link) and the main reason they hold those jobs to this day are that the voters here vote party lines.

It has changed slowly but surely over time, as evidenced by the Republican Governor in the state house, and a few jurisdictions that have become solidly republican in their voting patterns, but the poorer areas -- those that have so long been promised help, compassion, assistance, etc., and for so long have received public funds at the expense of others who are more fortunate -- continue to vote in droves for the (D)'s on the ballot, assuming of course that those people really did vote and didn't just have their votes decided for them automatically by the big (D) machine that controls polling places where far too many shenanigans have been pulled. (See, for example, link here, or here, or here)

Even now, Maryland's Democratic party is pulling strings in the state legislature to liberalize voting requirements and make voter fraud even easier than it ever has been. Most outsiders, looking in, realize it's a recipe for disaster, setting up exactly what that poor lady from California that lost the recent election there (after commenting that you don't need to be in this country legally to vote, don't need papers, etc.) blatantly hinted at: stealing elections is ok, as long as Democrats win.

Welcome to My World Seriously, you understand correctly, and that is precisely what happened to you, and has happened to me on every issue I ever bother to communicate to the (Dis)Honorable Senators from Maryland about. They completely ignore my requests, go on with their own agenda and screw over the people they are supposed to be representing, in the name of serving the people.

Welcome to Maryland? Thanks, Congress and Senate for receiving me with a warm embrace.
Seriously, though, I think this is indicative of the congressional detachment they have with the rest of society. If their responsiveness to correspondence is just a nice, patronizing form letter (that references the wrong legislation in the first place) then they have a serious problem.

Hopefully if change is in the wind, another asshat... I mean, bunghole... I mean, sloth... I mean, oh what was I saying in the first place?

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Actually it does, you just don't happen to be one of those people. If everyone hated her they wouldn't vote for her. The Dems in your state like her/her policies. You unfortunately do not, but you and singerdave are two among many--and two that never voted for her in the first place. You aren't the constituents she's concerned about.

They completely ignore my requests

You request has to be coupled with the requests of everyone else in your state--that's the point of a representative democracy. You know, President Bush never listens to a word I say either--but then, I don't expect him to, I'm not in his voting base.

Actually it does, you just don't happen to be one of those people. If everyone hated her they wouldn't vote for her. The Dems in your state like her/her policies. You unfortunately do not, but you and singerdave are two among many--and two that never voted for her in the first place. You aren't the constituents she's concerned about.

Actually you are wrong about not voting for her. I have at times crossed party lines and voted my conscience in voting for her.

As I've said, on some issues she has been somewhat effective, but for the vast majority of issues she's delivered nothing but empty promises and blocking tactics to prevent any policies put forward by the republicans that control the House and Senate. On many of those very same issues she has absolutely and completely sold her constitutents up the river and absolutely and completely ignored the MAJORITY BY POLLING results that show that even her party feels her approach is wrong.

The same with Sarbanes, who again, I'm glad to see retiring. He has been effective in some areas, but for a long time now he's been nothing more than someone that has "worked with" his co-conspirators in the minority party in the congress to obstruct any and all things that come from the majority. To be fair, I think that is part of why he wants to retire, because deep down he's a relatively good man that doesn't like playing such politics. He knows that there is a good chance his seat could be going to a Republican this time, and he's still giving it up and moving on. For that I somewhat /salute him.

BTW, I should also say that what these people at the top really believe and may want to work for really doesn't matter as it all comes down to what their handlers and staff decide for them anyway. They are really no more than mere puppets any more, doing what the party machinery tells them to do and ignoring completely or obstructing at all costs any thing that comes from the other side.

You aren't the constituents she's concerned about.

You request has to be coupled with the requests of everyone else in your state--that's the point of a representative democracy.

See, there's a blatant disconnect between these 2 statements. And it has to do with the bolded word in the first statement. In our version of a representative democracy, the Senators represent the ENTIRE state, not just the people that voted for them. If Senators Allen and Warner do something that I disagree with (and they do on a semi-regular basis) then they deserve to hear from the person they represent. If I hadn't voted for them, that doesn't make my concerns any less applicable. From what you said in the first quote, it is my understanding that you think it's perfectly okay for the Senator to ignore the remainder of her state - for the sole reason that they didn't vote for her. And that idea (on the Senator's part) is despicable.

And that idea (on the Senator's part) is despicable.

It may be despicable, but it's reality. A senator can't vote both ways on an issue--so chances are, he/she is going to vote the way that their voting based wants them to vote. If you aren't voting for her then it's not a loss if you are upset. However, the offices will still work on constituent issues for you--ie, rushed passport, flag requests, need someone to check with some agency about something. They are still working for you--but their policies don't have to line up with yours (and they can't possibly line up with everyones).

There's no disconnect between my two statements. Your concerns are applicable and will be heard, but chances are wont' sway the Senator (and for the record, they will only be able to guess whether or not you voted for them by the things you say).

What I am saying (because I don't think that I have been clear) is that if a Senator is voting on something and you support side A, but the majority of your state supports side B--of course the Senator is going to vote side B. Their job is to get re-elected.

he/she is going to vote the way that their voting based wants them to vote. If you aren't voting for her then it's not a loss if you are upset. However, the offices will still work on constituent issues for you--ie, rushed passport, flag requests, need someone to check with some agency about something. They are still working for you--but their policies don't have to line up with yours (and they can't possibly line up with everyones).

Or the party, or the lobbyists...