TPMDC
Lynch: I Could Vote For Health Care Bill 'If They Put Reform Back In'
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Share
Send to a friend!
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), who has already declared his opposition to the Senate health care bill in its current form, vocally aired his criticisms of the bill this afternoon -- and this was before a scheduled meeting with President Obama.
"There's a difference between compromise and surrender, right? And this is a complete surrender of all the things that people thought were important to health care reform," Lynch told reporters. When asked what might cause him to vote for the bill, Lynch said: "There's one thing. If they put reform back in the health reform bill, that would change my position."
"We're paying the ransom, but at the end of the day, the insurance companies still hold the hostages, even after this is all done," Lynch added. "This is not meaningful reform."
Lynch shied away from criticizing the grand health care reform package -- that is, the Senate bill plus a reconciliation bill -- but said he has significant doubts about whether the Senate would be able to push a reconciliation bill through successfully.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) fired back at Lynch's criticisms. "They're not going to have a better reform if this goes down. They're not going to have reform at all if this goes down," said Waxman, who also added: "In fact we're also going to show him how well the state of Massachusetts does with all the breaks that they're going to get. They have a system to cover people and a lot of federal dollars are going to flow into that system.
Reporting by Brian Beutler.
Comments (69) | 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.
JohnW1141
March 18, 2010 3:36 PM
Lynch and a few others are seeeking their 15 minutes of fame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
satrap
March 18, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to JohnW1141
I don't mind him having his 15 or even 72 hours, if he settles down and votes "Oui"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
March 18, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to satrap
I'm with you. And I think that's the way it'll play out. He'll come in at the last minute saying he's gotten enough assurances that the reconciliation fix will really happen, and then support the bill.
I expect that's the case with several of the hedged no voters. Sure does make me nervous though...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
InmanRoshi
March 18, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to JohnW1141
15 minutes of fame or $178k in campaign contributions thus far from the health industry. You take your pick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
March 19, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to JohnW1141
Yes, no one could possibly have any reasonable concerns about this finely crafted piece of legislation. Anyone who opposes it, or mildly disagrees for that matter, is just an attention grabbing, evil and awful human being. We will no longer tolerate decent in the Democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
March 19, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to henk
dissent
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 18, 2010 3:40 PM
Yes but he is right, kill the damn thing and in a decade or so the Ins Co's will die off, there are only so many people you can kick out while raising rates on the rest...let them kill themselves...better than a bailout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stan_1036
March 18, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to madmatt
That's right. The insurance companies have spent $20 million to kill the bill because they think the bill will help them. They really want to be subject to the legislation's requirements for transparency, non-discrimination against people with health problems, devoting a specified percentage of premiums to health care costs, mandatory appeal rights for consumers, prohibition of annual and lifetime limits, and mandatory coverage of preventive care without copays.
Anyone who thinks this bill won't make an enormous difference in the lives of everyday, working people (as well as insurance companies) hasn't been paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to stan_1036
That's just what the insurance companies want you to think. You see, it's the super-secret, double fakeout, hidden ball trick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 18, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
You're right. I can't believe anybody is faked out by the insurance companies' multi-million dollar effort to kill HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 18, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to stan_1036
The reason that insurance companies have been fighting the bill so hard is that they've made great gains by doing so, and the Democrats have bent over backwards time and time again to water it down to their liking. This really isn't a difficult concept.
$20 million is chump change compared to the massive windfall that the mandate will bring them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
InmanRoshi
March 18, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to NR
What a moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
InmanRoshi
March 18, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to NR
Who needs Fox News when you have the ignorant far left out there to parrot misinformation about the "mandates" and "insurance industry handouts" and "insurance industry windfalls". But it's lethal combination of sheer stupidity and piousness that's the most maddening. At least I can deal with the far right's outright bigotry and dismiss it for what it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to NR
My apologies. You state the obvious:
"$20 million is chump change compared to the massive windfall that the mandate will bring them".
and many here don't get it. What can I say?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
March 19, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to Cornelius
Isn't there also a stipulation regarding maximum profit?
If their profits are capped, then if they get a huge infusion of cash from healthy people, meaning their costs don't rise much, then they'll have to cut rates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 18, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to stan_1036
You're wasting your breath.
Madmatt breathes the crazy FDL air, where only the pure draw breath... nothing more than part of the elitist class that can afford to wait 10 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
March 19, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to stan_1036
Here we go again with the "they tried to kill it" so it must be good bullshit.
Have you been involved in the lobbying efforts and discussions between insurers and politicians? Have you been in the backrooms listening? So they spent 20 million, tell me exactly what they spent it on, could they maybe have spent a penny or two on pushing a requirement that everyone buy insurance? Hmmm?
Instead of talking bullshit about how much they spent lets look at the results of their spending, umKay?
No Public option to compete with them and 30 million new customers.
20 million is less then a buck each. They'll make that up, in the first few minutes the new customer is enrolled. Money well spent I'd say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
March 18, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to madmatt
I would love to kill off the insurance business as well but think of the hundreds of thousands of people suffering and dying to get to the endgame on this. It is kind of like a war where you assess casualties in the logic of how many people you must sacrifice to save even more. I am hoping that some states are allowed to go single payer and that sets the example for the rest of the country. Americans are such greedy ignorant people I never get my hopes up anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 18, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to hollywood
Bah! What are their miserable little lives when measured against the great and noble goal of destroying a hated capitalist-oppressor industry? We'll build a memorial to them or something after we finally get single payer. Their families will make speeches of gratitude at the dedication.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
March 18, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to madmatt
I wonder how it happens that the 3% of liberals who oppose the bill are so well-represented in the comments around here? Oh, that's right...it's because 90% of them are faking the "liberal" part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 18, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to madmatt
There's a flaw in your reasoning: The Clinton HCR bill was killed 17 years ago and the insurance companies are stronger than ever, raking in record profits and denying more people coverage.
Oh, wait. That's not reasoning; that's bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lok52
March 18, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to madmatt
Let's see, current estimates are that 45,000 people a year die due to lack of health insurance. While that number is only going to rise as more and more people lose their insurance due to higher rates, we will go with that. Are you really okay with telling 450,000 people they should die so that the insurance companies will go broke in 10 years? (Assuming they do, which I have very serious doubts about.)
Personally, I would rather we get something started now, then work to improve it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
March 18, 2010 3:41 PM
By the way, a new report says Gutierrez is now a "yes".
Mr. Lynch is Gutierezing us.
If you live in his district, CALL HIM!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
satrap
March 18, 2010 3:42 PM
"I could vote for health care if they put reform back in" Oof. It's like a funhouse in here...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to satrap
I have a feeling we haven't seen anything yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
k1maynes
March 18, 2010 3:46 PM
Please reconsider your recently reported negativity about the healthcare reform legislation now pending. We need to proceed this weekend, but you can sponsor and promote a bill that will obviate the tax on high-end health plans.
Just as Social Security was very limited at the outset, and was enhanced by numerous additional legislation, we have a historic opportunity to proceed for the benefit of every American now threatened by a pre-existing medical condition... even acne.
This course is the principled one; your vote should be for this reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 18, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to k1maynes
This bill creates no public program. There is nothing to "enhance."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to NR
NR, How do you deal with the Maynes of the world.
There is nothing to enhance. And who's going to "enhance" it if if there is something there!!
And as I have to repeat and repeat when someone states "this bill provides coverage for ..." It "provides" NOTHING. And all the pols use it bec it implies the government is going to "give" you something. The world is cruel enough but if this bill passes, those in need 3-4 years down the road will find out that they "misunderstood" the legislation, that they may or may not be be "eligible". And either way they will be mandated to purchase the premiums or be fined with the federal government (IRS) as the bill collector for the government's corporate sponsors. Yes, it can and will get worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 18, 2010 3:48 PM
Anti-choice liar hiding behind pseudo-left-wing rhetoric.
Is there still time to file a primary challenger against him?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
March 18, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to mcc
If I'm reading this right the filing deadline is 6/1. Plenty of time...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 18, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to mcc
Am I reading this right that Lynch could technically receive a primary challenger anytime before April 27?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 18, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to mcc
But do we really want to make things more difficult for a fellow Democrat in the fall?
Yes we do. Lynch is in a D+10 district. While that's not a sure win in a tough election year, there's no time like the present to jettison useless reps. Pass the damn bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 18, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to mcc
Bulls-eye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 18, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to wbgonne
He's racing Shadegg to be the most full of shite.
Shadegg: I'll see your desperation and raise you a public option.
Lynch: Oh yeah? Well I call you raise, and go all in on a 'progressive' smokescreen for my anti-choice, anti-women wankery.
Too bad Madame Speaker is holding the inside straight.
The vote on this bill is list time... far as I'm concerned, I don't care how tough a district, how tight a race - and I generally eschew the Bushian black and white, with me or against me crap... but this is one of those rare exceptions to the rule.
It's come down to a simple "who's side are you on?" matter.
For all the grief DK got, he came down on the right side, and I DO believe he had to go as far as he could to compromise his own principles to make that right choice.
If he can do it, there is not a single Democrat in the House (or the Senate - but we already know who all those wankers are) who cannot do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lord Mike
March 18, 2010 3:54 PM
Another tantrum form the left.. except that this guy isn't a leftie... I'm glad that Waxman is involved... He's good at these things...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 18, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Lord Mike
Lynch is a Reagan Republican who runs as a Democrat only because almost everyone in Massachusetts does. He isn't close to being "Left."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
March 18, 2010 3:58 PM
Maybe if the bill included subsidies for pomade he would change his mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
erica
March 18, 2010 3:58 PM
So pass the thing and then work for more meaningful changes. If Dennis Kucinich and the Catholic Nuns can get behind this bill, so can Congressman Lynch, especially since he is in a fairly liberal district.
(I speak as one who has been very critical of how non-progressive the bill is, but the moment has come and this is what we have. Let's get it done.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
March 18, 2010 3:58 PM
Kiss my ass, Lynch. Vote for the damn bill and quit Hamshering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
satrap
March 18, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to Weeferdog
Word of the year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 18, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to Weeferdog
I don't even think he even means the Hamsher talk. Earlier today his office was telling people that he'd vote for the bill if the Democrats did not use "deem and pass" to pass it. I think he's just casting around for excuses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
satrap
March 18, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to mcc
Like Obama (and anybody whose been alive for more than a few years) believes, who cares exactly how this passes. If it is within defined parliamentary procedure, it's all the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 18, 2010 4:17 PM
Lynch isn't even close to a Progressive. He's aiming for the Scott Brown crowd and looking for any excuse to vote no.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
March 18, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to wbgonne
The community that makes up a huge amount of Lynch's votes is South Boston, an Irish Catholic bastion that still hasn't gotten over losing the Mayor's office to Tom Menino. It's his home. They are conservative to the core, are anti choice as well, and as for government intervention in their affairs go, just remember the antibusing riots of the '70s that focused on South Boston. These people were ripe targets for Brown, just waiting to be picked. Lynch toyed with running for the Kennedy seat, probably thinking his South Boston voting numbers would translate across the state, but soon learned that wasn't the case, and decided not to run "for family reason". Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 18, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to acf_ma
Excellent analysis. I think you hit the nail on the head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ched
March 18, 2010 4:32 PM
If the choice provisions are good enough for Bob-freakin-Casey and 60,000 nuns, they're good enough. Something else is up here, and with the suddenly front-and-center back benchers cooking up excuses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 18, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to ched
You know what?
that's a great point.
Bob Casey is perhaps the most famous of the anti-choice Dems, and if he can quietly cast his yes vote, then dammit - no excuses for the rest of them.
Enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 18, 2010 4:40 PM
If you guys keep puncturing the notion that this guy is legitimately liberal, we won't have yet another thread in which all of the other people who are pretending to be liberal can make a peacock-like display of their batshit craziness...
(I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just sayin'...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
March 18, 2010 4:56 PM
IMO it's time for the more centrist amongst us to recognize the general wisdom, decency and sense of responsibility amongst the left flank of the Democratic Party. I had thought that they might bolt this initiative and support its downfall due to the painful compromises they've been asked to make- and frankly I wouldn't have forgiven them for that- but they haven't.
Instead, they've circled the wagons and come out fighting. En masse as all of the polling and vouches of support from left wing politicians have clearly indicated. And it's time to give credit where credit is due. It gives me some hope that Dems can still win the important battles and make real progress against the huge problems we as a nation confront.
That doesn't of course preclude abject jackass opportunists like Lynch from still screwing us. But there are answers to that, and they involve taking this clown to the woodshed for a good talking to, and ending his career if he stays obstinate. I personally am 100% behind any such effort.
Even if it doesn't work out, at least I won't feel like I've been stabbed in the back by the people whose concerns I share. Quite the opposite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 18, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to Majorajam
Bravo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to Majorajam
See, that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans have one viewpoint: more for us and screw everybody else; which makes it a lot easier putting legislation together. Democrats are more pluralistic. This, inevitably, is much messier. But the end result is legislation that has input from many different viewpoints, and tries to take the best from each. There are inevitably compromises along the way, and everyone can find something about it they don't like. But the end result is still better than the monolithic approach.
Mostly, we're in pretty good agreement about where we want to go. We just differ in how to get there. But I'd sure as hell rather be us than them...even though it drives me crazy sometimes.
I don't think anyone really believes this bill is the end of the line. There's probably going to be a breather for a while because I don't think anyone quite has the energy to take up healthcare reform again right away. But hopefully it won't be long before there's a movement for improvement. And it will be easier next time because we'll have some momentum from this time. Not easy, but at least easier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
March 18, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to Majorajam
Yes. And I thought I was the only one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
March 18, 2010 5:05 PM
Lynch edited his own wikipedia page last time around: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Lynch_%28politician%29&action=history
He's unbearably vain. Seriously. Who edits their own page under their own pseudonym?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 18, 2010 5:28 PM
Lynch is a definite no.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/03/lynch_will_vote.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
March 18, 2010 6:01 PM
47,000 people die each year because they have no health insurance. If it takes another 16 years, that means more than 3/4 of a million Americans will die because of this man and others like him. To think that dems can do this to all those people is despicable, not to mention what traitors they are to their own political party.
752,000 lives!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to Andreams
What an twit. Why don't you just round it off to 1,000,000 and call Rep Lynch a murderer! You sound like one of those hysterical woman Freud talked about. And where did you come up with the 16 years? This President is shilling for corporate America and this bill has been sooo marginalized. It offers almost nothing. And the sick people you're sooo concerned about have to wait 3-4 years to become "eligibe" for premiums they can't afford. The Pres is mandating citizens to pay to legislated corporate monopolies premiums w/o cost controls for health insurance they may be "eligible" for, or not. Nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
March 19, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to Cornelius
16 years is a comparable time line based on the last time we had a chance. The number of lives lost (or people murdered, if you prefer) is based on the current statistic. As an accountant, I do not believe in rounding so I'll stick with actual numbers. I did not factor in population increase and the corresponding death increase. I am not hysterical, I am analytical.
As for 3-4 years, what's that compared to a lifetime? I don't want to wait, I'd prefer universal care, but I'm realistic. Anything is better than nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 6:26 PM
A real lovefest here this afternoon.
KILL THE BILL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
March 18, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to Cornelius
It is nice, isn't it? Not as nice as the love-fest that was stroking Kucinich a few days ago, though. Where are all the screamers? Oh...yeah. I forgot. He wised up and realized that this is progress. Something we've been waiting for for generations.
Wait...were you trying to be sarcastic?
And...no. We're not going to kill the bill. Get used to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to WaitWut?
You kinda got me. Dennis was very convincing the other day. You know,I would Dennis some slack if this bill was to be effective the day after the Pres signed it. Understand the pressure he would be under then. But these poor people having to wait 3-4 years to find out if they'll be eligible or not makes me suspicious and disgusted with the President. To me he sold out this great opportunity (and it is)to his corporate bosses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
March 19, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to Cornelius
"if this bill was to be effective the day after the Pres signed it"
Several helpful provisions will go into effect this year.
How many children will be born with, or develop early in life, conditions that as of now would preclude them from EVER getting health insurance? We can put a stop to that RIGHT NOW.
The guy in the office next to me had a son about five years ago, and he was born with heart problems. The family went bankrupt and lost everything because of the costs. They are still struggling, years later, just to survive.
This problem has millions of faces, and you're spitting in every one of them by saying this bill 'does nothing'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ranger11
March 18, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to Cornelius
Go fuck yourself!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 18, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to ranger11
nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GermanyOrFlorida
March 18, 2010 6:41 PM
I live in Lynch's district and his "kill the bill from the left" nonsense is utter bullcrap. He's a moderate pro-life Democrat focused on defense issues, he's not Dennis Kucinich. He has absolutely no credibility in opposing the bill from the left. I am going to tear his office an earful tomorrow morning.
Usually his office is so wishy-washy that they never take a position on anything before a vote, I am pretty shocked that he came out against this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
March 18, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
I don't think of South Boston as "Obama Country" -- to put it charitably.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GermanyOrFlorida
March 18, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to Subliminability
And yet he voted for the bill the first time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
satrap
March 18, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida
Argh! This country has had enough of a focus on "defense" issues for the past decade. Defense stuff is the last refuge of the lazy pol: uber easy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
March 18, 2010 11:22 PM
Probably, like Guiterrez, he has something in particular he wants and thinks this is a good time for extortion. He might just want some help raising campaign contributions: His war chest weighs in at a puny $120,000.
I reckon he'll be back in the fold soon, because he's likely very vulnerable to a labor backed primary challenge. He's in a D+10 district, he doesn't have very much money, the filing deadline isn't until May, and probably peeing on Ted Kennedy's grave is not the best way to endear yourself to Democratic primary voters in Massachusetts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 19, 2010 8:57 AM in reply to philogratis
The speculation is that he's going to run statewide, either for Brown's senate seat or for the governorship. Lynch is a Repulblicrat by nature and he's probably hoping to steal Brown's anti-Obama voters.
If you're in his district please call his office and tell them he's making a big mistake no matter what he's thinking.
202-225-8273
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?