TPMDC
GOP Sees 2010 Window, Gloat That Dems Who Opposed Health Care Will Take Dual Heat
(Top, L-R), Rep. Boucher (D-VA), Rep. Shuler (D-NC), Rep. Ross (D-AR). (Bottom, L-R), Rep. Altmire (D-PA), Rep. Nye (D-VA), Rep. Tanner (D-TN)
Share
Send to a friend!
Much like Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Sen. Ben Nelson, looks like the 39 Democrats voting against the House health care bill Saturday are getting squeezed from both sides.
We've been writing about all the left-leaning campaigns going after Democrats on health care, and plenty of efforts to hit Republicans as party of "no."
TPMDC has been chatting with Republicans who want to pick off vulnerable House Democrats in 2010 and they (not surprisingly) are pleased as punch by the internal warfare.
The GOP believes the Stupak amendment on abortion really has potential to blow up the health care negotiations permanently, so they are holding their powder to see what happens. (And of course there's the robust v. opt out public option fight to return to.)
Even though they were glad for the support, Republicans have no plans to thank the Democrats who opposed the bill Saturday since that could help the members back home. Instead, they will exploit Democratic divisions.
"They ended up pleasing no one," Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, told TPMDC.
Republicans use as their example former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), who lost his seat last year. He had a conservative voting record within the Democratic caucus and was defeated amid an Obama tidalwave when Democrats picked up seats all over the country.
Already left-leaning groups aren't happy with the 39 Democrats, and GOP aides we spoke with think that plus anti-incumbent sentiment across the country will help them next fall.
"They can vote against the party all they want," Lindsay said.
Republicans also plan to use the parliamentary dance known as the motion to recommit the bill against Democrats. Some had wanted the debate to be on immigration but they chose Medicare, and plan to use video of the Democrats arguing against it to pain the party as over-friendly to trial lawyers.
Another line they have been using is that Democrats voted against "fiscally responsible" health care by opposing the GOP plan.
Comments (43) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 11, 2009 5:57 PM
The failure of either party's self-appointed purity police to be even a little bit disturbed by how much they resemble the other party's self-appointed purity police is a souce of unceasing amazement to me. The only thing that's different is the ideology and, in each party they think that difference in idology means their own urge to purge is rightous and just and in the best interest of both the party and the country, while the other party's urge to purge is evil and unholy and a strategic catastrophe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 6:30 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
that don't see your own "fall in line" attitude is a purity test is utterly hilarious to me
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 11, 2009 9:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
A touch, a touch, I do confess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 11, 2009 6:37 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
If this bill said that it was only going to pay 85% for the health care of men between the ages of 14 and 54 and 100% for the health care of everybody else would you be yammering about purity police saying this is wrong or would you be yammering about how wrong such a bill was?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to AJM
heck no. He's a pure democratic member of the party. He'd salute it!! He's pure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 11, 2009 6:47 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Well as far as I can tell he believes that the people should be for the Democratic Party rather than vice versa.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 7:34 PM in reply to AJM
He does. That's his purity test. Whatever issues affect you, or are important to you are not important.
A pure democrat looks beyond such things, and to the power of the party only. I think he's silly.
Also, the primary process is what it is. Saying people shouldn't advocate for what they want in a representative is anti-democratic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 11, 2009 8:57 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Wow, can only people other than me tell everyone what I believe or do I get to play too?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 11, 2009 9:20 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
well, I'm being tongue in cheek. I don't seriously think you'll always choose party over your own interests. Atleast, I hope not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 12, 2009 1:25 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Tongue in cheek as it may, you made a valid point. No one should be voting because of party loyalty. However, the question remains, how far would HCR have gone in a GOP controlled Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Orlando
November 12, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You believe in the church of baseball...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
November 11, 2009 7:57 PM in reply to AJM
It is clearly a two way street..The repubs offered NOTHING and the weak kneed Dems are less than what would be considered 'FOR THE PEOPLE"!
Shameless...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 11, 2009 6:49 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
As I thought I'd made clear to you, yesterday: "purity" in the Democratic ranks, does not have the same negative impact on its electoral fortunes that "purity" does in the Republican ranks, to their election prospects.
The track record is clear: NY 23 vs. a seemingly-liberal... and Black!.. Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008. As the annoying cliche goes: "Do the math".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 11, 2009 8:58 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Must have missed the response. Link?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 12, 2009 5:59 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Purity? Ideology? That's not our beef. Progressives, liberals, whatever you want to tag them, they are are calling out this bill on substance. The House bill builds on the current unsustainable system (if you can call it that) and reforms around the fringe. It's wasteful and unjust.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 12, 2009 9:25 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
hear. hear!
and everyone acts like there is nothing anyone can do about it.
They act like the conference report has been delivered. It's too late now. And dems around here have been acting like that for a while now. Before the House even voted. Shut up and go along with the industry giveaway.
They (democrats) act like even if child labor laws get repealed as part of the process, that's awesome because now the insurance industry will have to cover everyone, as if AHIP isn't quite happy with the mandates. They are fighting for stronger penalities in the mandates. What they dont want, is what we don't have, some sort of check on what they charge.
When this comes around and bites democrats, they'll deserve it, because this is their attitude now. No one is responsible for their own piece of crap reform, but them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 11, 2009 6:14 PM
Stupak went and celebrated with the Republicans after his amendment passed. Pitts played him like the fool he is.
These guys are going to get routed. As Obama warned - Republicans are going to run against you regardless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
November 11, 2009 8:30 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
true! Prez Obama did warn them.....there is no reason for a democrat to vote against healthcare...you can be a fiscal hawk or pro-life or whatever, but healthcare? a bill that will not add to the deficit? and you vote against it? and you're a democrat? bad bad move.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 11, 2009 9:49 PM in reply to elle a
Not add to the deficit? LMAO... You do know the this is the govt were talking about right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
November 11, 2009 6:25 PM
This bill is joke. It basically gives a very small number of people (2%?) a public option because their pre-existing conditions and financial status make them unable to afford private so-called health care, and it makes up for it (and much more) by mandating that everybody buy private insurance. I'm with Dennis. It's a scam.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jzap
November 11, 2009 6:37 PM
AIUI, a big chunk of the House Dems who voted against the bill are freshmen. They don't realize their biggest peril lies in an anti-incumbent backlash against a do-nothing Congress. Or that reps from swing districts would be most affected by that peril.
They weren't around in 1994. Or, for that matter, in 2006 when the Dems were in the minority in the House. They have no idea of how miserable that can be.
It might help if a few grizzled House veterans shared their personal horror stories with those naïve newbies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
November 11, 2009 7:31 PM
If I recall correctly, in 1994 the Dems who voted against health care reform were disproportionately represented amongst those who lost their seats.
It's like Lindsay said, the GOP is going to go after them no matter how they vote, simply because of the "D" after their names. Now the question they need to be asking themselves is, how many Democrats do they want to piss off in a futile attempt to make the Republicans like them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calterp
November 11, 2009 7:41 PM
Heath Shuler was just awful in his previous job as a NFL quarterback. He's even more God-awful in his current job as a Democratic Congressman. He needs to be sacked via a 2010 primary challenge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
November 11, 2009 7:54 PM in reply to calterp
Gotta be honest with you, Calterp. Looking back at the early Norv Turner years, is lookin' pretty good compared to now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
November 11, 2009 9:12 PM
For about 70 years Dems keep doing the same thing. They think they are in trouble in a swing district and they move to the right, thinkin Republican lite will be what gets tehm reelected, like Repubs will actually go easy on them. We are political junkies, regular everyday Americans DON'T GIVE A FUCK what party you are if you are doing right by them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drubs
November 11, 2009 9:26 PM
"They ended up pleasing no one," Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, told TPMDC.............Yup.
Blue dog and conservative Dems, dance with the one that brought you, if you try to be republicans your constituents will simply vote for the GOP.
Duh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike flugenn0ck
November 11, 2009 9:30 PM
Something I learned early in the Reagan Years was that when some walking scum on Capitol Hill starts talking about "reform" legislation, it's time to look the fuck out. The current healthcare "reform" legislation, a.k.a. corporate giveaway, is no exception. Corporate giveaways? A weak, paltry "bone" in the form of "public option"? Imprisonment for poor schlubs working at McDonald's who can't even afford rent on a decent apartment, let alone decent health insurance? Single-payer supporters shut out of the debate? What the hell kind of "reform" is that?
I don't know exactly where most of the Donkeycrats stood who voted against it, but I do know that Dennis Kucinich is a hero for not supporting this steaming shit sandwich of a healthcare "reform" bill. Hell, I don't even know why the guy is still a goddamn' Democrat. Myself, I learned my lesson from eight years of Bill Clinton; in 2000, I turned my back on the Democratic Party and never looked back, and I felt great about it.
And as much as I detest Joe Lieberman and hope that he dies in a fire, I'm actually glad to hear him promising to filibuster this pile of crap to death. This bill is a shabby, rusting-out, overloaded old pickup truck that's stuck in the mud so goddamn' deep that we're better off just getting out and walking. You go, Joe!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 11, 2009 10:07 PM in reply to mike flugenn0ck
I heartily agree this bill is junk... 2000 pages of junk. Can anybody really break down the end state here? 1.2 trillion dollars and what exactly is everyone getting? Higher taxes, higher premiums, no methods to control HC costs and still 12 million with out coverage. And the big idea is um stick it to the rich, f over businesses who in turn will just pass all new costs on to us anyways. We are all being taken for a very expensive ride.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 11, 2009 10:27 PM in reply to mike flugenn0ck
Buh-bye. Hope the door didn't hit you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 11, 2009 10:29 PM in reply to mike flugenn0ck
Buh-bye. Hope the didn't hit you. Politics isn't bean bag. Um, just about out of homilies. Wait, wait ... don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 11, 2009 10:30 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Sorry about the double post. Slow internets tubes tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
November 11, 2009 10:19 PM
Yeah, it's a good thing we didn't need those Nader votes in FL in 2000....
Thanks for sticking us with W, btw.
Odel Roo, you and shooter242 need to get a room to yourselves. If you're not the same person of course...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 11, 2009 10:23 PM in reply to gonzo
Nope not the same... and the question remains... what is the end state? What are the American people getting for a 1.2 trillion+ dollar investment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
November 12, 2009 12:17 AM in reply to Odel Roo
As a start:
1) Near universal coverage.
2) No exclusion for pre-existing coverage.
3) No yearly or lifetime caps.
So at a minimum, less people dying of untreated diabetes, high blood pressure, or cancers.
Will it cut costs? Not as much as it could, but history in this country shows laws like this only ratchet one way. Look at minimum wage, civil rights, workers comp., medicare - they all got stronger over time. Once people have universal care, no one will be able to take it away. The government will then have no choice but to get a handle on costs, and you do that incrementally, or if necessary, by then adding a robust public option available to everybody, with set rather than negotiated rates, or simpler, make medicare available to everybody.
And, you know what, after 1-3 are signed into law, then cost is just cost, and that not only can be addressed through reconciliation, but it is exactly what reconciliation is designed to address, the budget. And that only needs 50 + JB, and can't be filibustered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 12, 2009 9:57 AM in reply to Mr.E.
"after 1-3 are signed into law, then cost is just cost"
Cost is just cost??? What in the world does that mean... so I guess if everyone's tax and/or mandated HC premiums equates to say 60% of your income your cool with that?
So what again is exactly the "HC Crisis"?
Is it the uninsured and the are still 12 mill without? Make it affordable yet even the public option will be costlier than the private sector and most certainly the private plans will increase in cost. Almost certainly any business that is mandated to pay to provide more coverage or penalized will pass it all on to consumers anyway.
Joe Public that will be penalized for not wanting this and/or go to jail.
Medicare gets cut on the cusp of a huge influx of baby boomers.
Oh and ratcheting up mean more $$$ on the back of everyone.
And all this does what exactly to reduce HC costs which is supposed to be the end state of the massive bill? I say not a dayum thing.
As the CBO stated "estimates are all subject to
substantial uncertainty"
This is a very dangerous and expensive road they are driving us down. Be careful of what your asking for... you just might get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
November 11, 2009 10:29 PM
Harry Truman's old line about running as a Democrat rather than pretending to be a Republican as a better way of winning is even truer today than in his time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 11, 2009 10:37 PM
To my fellow veterans, thank you for having my back, and I am simply glad that for a short while, I had yours too. Good Veterans Day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
November 11, 2009 11:22 PM
Heath "freakn'" Shuler! The number of times he broke the hearts of those of us who bleed burgundy and gold. He was arguably the worst qb in long history of the Redskins!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 11, 2009 11:22 PM
I know off subject - but WTF - "President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday."
Nothing like leaving our guys hanging in the breeze and blow off every expert calling for increasing troop levels.
He has big enough balls to tell the troops he will give them everything they need and when they ask for it he blows em off.
Gee i wonder why there are so many reports of low troop moral when their own commander in chief won't support them who will?
Truly disgraceful -
here is the link - http://tinyurl.com/ydgd6v4
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Orlando
November 12, 2009 3:26 PM in reply to Odel Roo
Wait, you mean he's demanding an exit strategy before he commits to putting 40,000 more American soldiers in harms way? The nerve of that guy. Where's Rummy when you need him. He could turn down a request for more troops without ever even thinking about exit strategy. Boy oh boy, do I miss him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
November 12, 2009 1:01 AM
Happy Holidays to the Insurance industry! The Dems just handed them an early Christmas present, by way of a blank check. Like his lieutenant Rahm Emanuel, Obama has shown himself to be a total corporate whore. And "progressives" fell right in line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
November 12, 2009 8:21 AM
Shuler instructed his staff to use deception to the many people who called his office to find out where he stood on health care reform. I called his office 37 times and was always told by his staff that he was undecided on the bill. Now he says that leadership and the White House knew he opposed the bill all along. What gives, Heath? you lie to your people of NC-11and deceive us all along? Shuler is the worst kind of politician by playing games with people lives and the many people who die every year because they have no health care insurance. Christian values, to lie and ask others to lie on your behalf!!! I hope you have trouble sleeping at night while people suffer and die! Karma will bite your behind! I hope there will be a primary opponent to your selfish misguided way of representing our district! I will be actively working to remove this horrid kind of politician who says he is a Christian. Still living at "C" street, Shuler? Keep up the lies, Shuler!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Used Deal
November 12, 2009 10:34 AM
We needed FDR and got BHO.
Post Reagan incrementalist approach:
If people don't support your plans, it's never because you haven't created trust.
Don't stand behind plans - make them flexible so that you can sneak out the back door when necessary.
No need to bring conviction and courage to the job. Get elected, and then make constituents take the lead and offer it to you.
There are trillions to fight wars and bailout corportations - but never enough to provide things like healthcare and better schools.
Our mantra: Less crazy than the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?