TPMDC
Against It: A Look At The 34 Dems Who Voted No On Health Care Reform
Clockwise: Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Share
Send to a friend!
The 34 Democrats who voted against health care reform last night are by and large a familiar set. They overlap significantly--though not entirely--with the 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill in November. Just as in November, most hail from contested districts, in the south and the midwest. But just as in November, there are some surprises--members you wouldn't normally expect to see voting against legislation so closely associated with the Democratic party.
Most of the Democratic "no" votes are as you would expect: conservative members from conservative districts, in many cases facing difficult re-election challenges. Blue Dog chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) is one such member. So is Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA).
Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) has opposed reform all the way, as has Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), but not because their seats are being threatened. Both men are abdicating their seats in pursuit of higher office--Davis is seeking the governorship of Alabama; Melancon is hoping to unseat Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Their votes against reform are, at least in part, calculated to boost their odds of victory in those races
But not all conservative Democrats are created equal. Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Colin Peterson (D-MN) are powerful committee chairmen (Skelton heads the Armed Services Committee, Peterson the Agriculture Committee). And though life isn't as easy for them, electorally speaking, as it is for other chairmen, it's not very common for Democratic leaders to oppose their party's own legislation.
Then there are the real head scratchers. Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) and Stephen Lynch (D-MA) famously abandoned the reform push late in the game, after having voted for the House bill. Lynch, in particular, went on a very public crusade of opposition to the bill from the left, and cast his vote despite pleas from President Obama and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka that he vote with the party.
Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) is also an odd case. He's one of three House Democrats who opposed reform in November to have announced his retirement in the months since then. Tanner's opposition was easy to explain in November. But with nothing to lose, there had been some expectation that he would back the bill. In the days before the bill passed, the other two retiring reform skeptics, Reps Brian Baird (D-WA) and Bart Gordon (D-TN) fell into line. But Tanner did not.
Ultimately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't need the votes of these unexpected opponents. But if reform had failed by a small margin, these latter members would be, perhaps, the greatest culprits. A full list of Democratic no votes follows below.
John Adler (D-NJ)
Jason Altmire (D-PA)
Michael Arcuri (D-NY)
John Barrow (D-GA)
Marion Berry (D-AR)
Dan Boren (D-OK)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Ben Chandler (D-KY)
Travis Childers (D-MS)
Artur Davis (D-AL)
Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
S. Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Larry Kissell (D-NC)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Jim Marshall (D-GA)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Michael McMahon (D-NY)
Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Glenn Nye (D-VA)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Mike Ross (D-AR)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)
Zachary Space (D-OH)
John Tanner (D-TN)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Harry Teague (D-NM)
Comments (125) | 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.
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 10:08 AM
Artur Davis had been a big supporter of the president and his agenda until he decided to run for governor.
He represents a district in Alabama that voted for Obama by 48 points yet became an opponent of every Democratic initiative in the mistaken belief that those mouth-breathing racists in Alabama would elect him governor.
He is going to feel like such a fool when he loses after having sold out his principles and the people he represents for nothing. What's it going to feel like for a black legislator from Alabama to be on the wrong side of history in this historic fight?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to FreeRider
Scary how easy it is that they slip out of the comfort of credibility and sensibility when the larger prize looms up ahead. Stupak was punked, both sides of the argument have a beef with him now and his thoughts of Governor of Michigan are smoke. He came back to the fold but looks like a sell-out for the reasons and grandstanding bullshit way he did. He played that hand way too long.
Davis won't come anywhere near even 45% in running for Gov. of Alabama. He sold out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I think Stupak will be fine within the Democratic party now because of what he did and said on the House floor in standing up to the right wing attacks by declaring "the Democratic party is the party that embraces life."
It also helps that he was called a baby killer.
The fact that he settled for less than he wanted because he wanted to vote for this bill does him good. He lost some face but he earned more support from his caucus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to FreeRider
I dont think that's going to stop Saltonstall in a primary bid. He's vulnerable now, looks shaky and egotistical and they have a lot of ammunition for ads. He settled for less and also gives off the aura of being punked.
There's many people who want him unseated even tho he voted Yes. He is pretty much going to campaign alone in November, as he's sort of useless now to the admin. If he stays, fine, if he goes, Saltonstall, to his left is even better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I disagree. I think his primary challenge has evaporated. She might run against him but it won't be much of a challenge.
Since we won, I doubt there will be a serious challenge to Arcuri who still voted no.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to FreeRider
I guess we will have to wait and see, but I suspect that because Stupak was far more high profile than Arcuri, that Stupak will suffer as a result of that profile. Even Michael Moore, who resides in his district is pissed off and has the money and gravitas to help Saltonstall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 22, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Did you really just suggest Michael Moore has gravitas? Really?
Sure he might have a few bucks and certainly he can attract some media attention, but selling crazy does not equal gravitas. Just ask Glenn Beck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to truth > spin
Just ask Glenn Beck? I might as well ask three peckered billy goat on meth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 22, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Sort of my point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to truth > spin
I disagree with you on Moore's $$ and influence. It's not like he's some gadfly, he has been here for a long time and has taken on and highlighted some serious problems, and if you disagree with him and see him as a Beck-like raver, I cant waste any print over it. That's your lookout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 22, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
It's not just that I disagree with him; there are plenty of very serious, credible people of influence and gravitas whom I also disagree.
Although parody and sarcasm are elemental and long-used methods of social criticism, to me his shtick has pivoted from being socially-based and to self-promotion. Thus the Beck comparison.
Nevertheless, fair enough. We'll agreeing to disagree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
And you think his right to life supporters are going to vote for him? Or the pro-choicers?
Yep, Obama will campaign for him but he's probably toast in the general against a pro-life Republican who is semi-sane.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to AJM
Stupak will get the same votes he's always gotten.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to FreeRider
Connie Saltonstall's? I doubt it. He needs to keep the votes of pro-choice Democrats if he is to prevail in the general. Highly unlikely. Too obvious that he is likely to try it again.
Being called a baby killer is not going to help him with the anti-choice groups who will desert in droves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to AJM
Pro-choice voters have supported Stupak for the past 20 years knowing his views but if you say they're through with him, then OK. Whatever you say. To date, you've been right about . . . . nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
downburst
March 22, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I don't agree. Stupak may lose to a Republican but he's pretty untouchable in the primary. He's represented a huge swath of the state and been pretty popular (and well-known locally if not nationally) for a while. Unless you have some polling information that indicates otherwise, I think Saltonstall's candidacy is a Michael Moore fantasy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I think his primary challenge is still very real. Saltonstall will get a lot of support from around the country. Stupak was indeed punked. The Executive Order says nothing more than what is in the bill--it was to save face. While the "party establishment" may agree to support him, I think it will be half-hearted because he caused them a lot of unnecessary grief, and there's a strong progressive movement out there getting stronger every day. We are done with this kind of nonsense!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to Wise Woman
This is Exhibit A in why progressive always fuck themselves. Instead of going after "Democrats" who voted against HCR and everything else on the president's agenda, you go after a guy who has been a loyal Democrat for 20 years and ultimately voted the right way?
The fact that Stupak folded while only getting a fig leaf proves that he really did want HCR. Others, like Nye, Altmire and Tanner used bullshit excuses to vote no because they never wanted reform.
Pick your battles. This one is over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
We can do more than one thing at a time. Continuing to support the Saltonstall challenge does not preclude supporting viable, targeted progressive challenges to many of the key no-voters on HIR--it's really primarily insurance reform, not health care reform. Rome was not built in a day. Saltonstall came forward on her own and she is an impressive candidate in her own right who's already raising money and viable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
downburst
March 22, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Wise Woman
I have no problem with Saltonstall--I'm not in M-1 but would happily vote for her in the general if I could--but what makes her a "viable" candidate? She's completely unknown outside Charlevoix and the blogoverse. What do we know about her besides that she's (a) pro-choice and (b) not Stupak? Of course, here in Michigan we have a history of electing candidates I would have thought unelectable (*cough* Stabenow *cough*), so my instincts may be way off here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
downburst
March 22, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
+1. Support Saltonstall if you want to see a Repub representing Northern Michigan. And recognize that support "from around the country" only goes so far. Ask Ned Lamont and Elwyn Tinklenberg. Any of you actually from Michigan? In Marquette and Petoskey they really don't give a shit about Michael Moore and the netroots--it's an R+3 district, and polarizing the D's will just hand it over to the enemy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to downburst
Will have to defer to people who actually live there and know the lay of the politics. You bring up some good points...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to downburst
Stupak polarized the district when he chose to attempt to deny women the right to choice. If they want to reduce abortions they can make the birth option more attractive, but denying women their choice of medical care is unethical.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
downburst
March 22, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to AJM
Did Stupak polarize the district? How do you know? Where's the poll data? We know he polarized the blogosphere, that's true.
I dunno, this feels like a Dem version of teabaggers primarying Repubs for not being sufficiently conservative and getting Dems elected. When that happens, we think their tactics backfire, don't we?
For me, the practical point is, Stupak is a (D) in a Republican-leaning district. He's willing to play ball with the leadership, even if he stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes big time on HCR, and he counts toward a Dem majority that leads to committee chairmanships, etc. He's not an ideal candidate, and if one came forward who had a real chance to win in an R+3 district, I'd support her. I'm not convinced that Connie Saltonstall is that candidate, and if her candidacy leads to a Republican replacing Stupak in Congress (and you know there are lots who are ready to go), then supporting her seems counterproductive to me.
I'm hearing a lot of (justified) anger at Stupak, but anger has to be tempered by some cold political calculation. I would rather see energy going to get my rep (Mark Schauer, who voted yes and is in real jeopardy because of it) re-elected than get Stupak (who also voted yes) un-elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
downburst
March 22, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to AJM
I should add--I hear what you're saying, and I understand your anger. I'm just doubtful that a primary challenge is the best way to effect change, based on my experience of his district.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to FreeRider
I smell what youre cooking, brother, but I think he damaged himself quite a lot. The political battlefields are littered with guys who voted party for twenty years. As fierce as those asshole teabaggers are so are left of center Dems, and Saltonstall may get more support from NOW and other women's groups as well. Like you said, Arcuri is a shoe-in, but my hope is my rep, Nye, is primaried. There's a huge block of Dem veterans here in Hampton Roads who will call him on this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I feel your pain about Nye. My Rep. Kissel voted against the bill, too.
Why, oh why must my congressman be a gutless asshole?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thats too funny even as sad as it is. Gutless wonders. I still cant figure Nye out as he was holding out all week, and I had called his office as well. My take is that he never intended to vote anything but No and just sent out smoke for people calling or e-mailing. He's done some good local things for military dependents but this was the doozy, this bill, and he stood on the other side of the aisle. Its as if he is greenlighting all the bullshit, lies, and racist comments by standing apart. Any primary challenger on your rep's horizon?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
There won't be a primary for Kissel. He defeated one of the worst Republicans in Congress for that seat. With the HUGE exception of HCR, he's voted with the party faithfully since being elected. He said he voted no because he made a pledge never to vote for a medicare cut and this bill cuts medicare.
Whatever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yes, but were the cuts to Medicare cuts that needed to be made...for parts of Medicare that were money pits? Who did he unseat? Nye unseated this old bitch who had milked the military bloc here every year yet also voted against any veteran's programs during the Bush years when they choked the money and downsized any Vet care. When Nicholson was head of the VA, he might have a been a Viet era vet, but he was a hack doing a job that needed expertise...sort of like old Brownie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
We all know that the cuts were made to the Medicare gravy train, not Medicare benefits.
Kissel beat Robin Hayes, an absolutely deplorable walrus-head fat fuck of a disgusting corpse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
Im enjoying that visual...sounds like he's right out of 'dead and bloated.' Was he a mini-Helms? I lived in both Hawaii and Viginia during Helm's tenure and he was just a despicable old hack. That teaming up with Bono over AIDs was sort of weird. Like did he think he needed some humanity injections before he croaked?
Ever travel up Virginia Beach way?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I've been to Virginia a lot, and not just northern Virginia.
Hayes aspired to be another Helms but that's quite hard to achieve. Hayes was on stage with McCain/Palin and said "liberals hate people who achieve things, succeed and love God."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to FreeRider
...sorry, just threw up. So he was THAT asshole? What a turd.
I usually have a couple of rides down the OBX and hang at Awful Arthur's for oysters & beer when the weather is hot, and try to make the bikefest stuff farther south.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
The reason choice was in trouble this session was that pro-choice voters have bought that argument for too long.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to FreeRider
I'm with you on this FreeRider. I think Stupak redeemed himself and the party will back him against Saltonstall
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
March 22, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Agree. His speech went beyond what he had to do - he basically accused the Repubs of exploiting the unborn by cynically pretending that their self-serving political act was on behalf of helpless babies. He called them on it. For that alone he deserves to be cut some slack. I don't agree with his position on choice but he stuck his neck out for this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 23, 2010 2:14 AM in reply to bvd
I still don't like Stupak because he never should have been pushing the lie that the Senate bill contains abortion funding in the first place. But the verbal beatdown he gave self-serving "pro life" Republicans should be very useful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to lousgirl84
I'm with you and bvd. Stupak was like Kucinich: when he came on board, he went above and beyond.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
* Stupak is like a boyfriend who starts saying all the right stuff after you've decided to break up with him.
The faster we can whittle the Stupak block down the better, there are other -- and better -- places to keep up Democratic numbers: Natalie Mosher, M-11 running against Thaddeus McCotter News | Op Ed on the Healthcare Vote for example.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to AJM
Listen, stop this "we" shit. OK. There is no "we" with assholes like you who have tried to kill HCR. It's an open board so you can post whatever you want but I'm not interested in having a conversation with you firebaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 23, 2010 2:05 AM in reply to FreeRider
I belong to the 13% who believe that HCR is not liberal enough.
I did try like hell to kill HCR earlier on because it is basically a very bad idea. Then it dawned on me that Obama did not have the skills to get anything better and that he had so badly mismanaged public option, let alone single payer or a Medicare buy in that he was going to take the whole Democratic Party down with him if this moldy crust of a bill did not pass. So I started arguing on the blogs that not passing it would cost lives in the near term -- which is true. My initial assessment had been that not passing it now would allow a better plan to be passed somewhat latter saving more total lives.
You may not want to think of what you call firebaggers as 'we' but Obama will need our votes.
I gather that you are more interested in supporting Stupak over Saltonstall than in supporting Natalie Mosher over Thaddeus McCotter which tells me all I really need to know about you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Carter
March 22, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to FreeRider
Stupak, with the aid of the national media, estalished the public perception that the national healthcare bill would promote federal funding of abortions. Prior to Stupak's campaign many Republicans doubted that this was a pro-abortion bill, attributing it to partisan politics by elected Republicans. Stupak gave legitimacy to this issue by making it a bipartisan truth that will be constantly in the mix as national healthcare is refined in the coming decade. The fact that Stupak, in the final analysis, voted for it is small potatoes compared to his role in making abortion a central issue in all future legislative efforts on national healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to Carter
Reason enough to support Saltonstall. Wrongheaded does not begin to describe Stupak's actions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
March 22, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I think your prediction of a low-showing for Davis in the gubernatorial race is a very real one.
Davis has turned his back on major Democratic initiatives, and voters; he's a Democrat in one of the few remaining solidly red states; he's an African American running in a state that still struggles significantly with race relations.
To call Davis a long-shot candidate is a severe understatement. The sad part is that he's deluded himself into thinking that he has a real shot in AL. I applaud his desire to be a trailblazer, but he didn't have to burn bridges while charting this new course. The methods he's chosen in this endeavor will ultimately be his undoing. You can't simply alienate your core constituencies -- Democrats (specifically African Americans) -- and expect to win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 10:39 AM in reply to hewhohasnoname
True dat. Alabama is one of the poorest states in the country and blacks there make up a disproportionate share of those in poverty. So he votes against their interests?
He could have skipped the vote but he made a big show of saying, "I will be in Washington to cast my vote against HCR."
Democrats don't get elected in the south without huge support from the African American community. Black democrats REALLY don't get elected in the south without it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
March 22, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
Wait and see.
If Davis faces off against Roy Moore, he'll edge by. No question that a large segment of Alabama would never elect a black, ostensibly progressive, Democrat as governor. The concept of an outright theocrat like Moore still scares the hell out of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 10:39 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
I dont know...the political condition is ripe for a wingnut like Moore to actually make a bid. Especially against someone who is easily, not only in party, but also racially identifiable with the President. He could easily make a call for the teabaggers to invade Alabama and whip the base into a frenzy.
Moore is one creepy turd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
March 22, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to FreeRider
Something to keep in mind about Alabama.
While the majority of voters might be old school racists ... the money is from a very different sort of Republican and as we know, it is the money that drives the politics.
In North Alabama you have NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center, Redstone Arsenal (with The US ARMY Missile Command, The Army's Robotics/UAV programs, The Army's Flight Center (just moved from St. Louis), Anniston Army Depot ... and other military installations. Plus all of the major Defense Contractors that support these efforts. This represents nearly a 100 thousands (mostly upper middle class,white, men) residents who are feeding off of BILLIONS of Government dollars poured into traditional Republican feed troughs.
I have friends who work for some of these companies and they report that the pressure to tow-the-Republican-line is strong. They are expected to contribute to Republican candidates and (if they want to succeed in these companies) attend Republican/conservative dinners and events. Some of them even have TV's located in their lobbies and break rooms that play FAUX News 24/7
This BTW, is the district that Congressman (and failed human being) Parker Griffith Represents.
Then you have Birmingham and Montgomery ... home to national and large Regional Banks, Insurance companies and Health Care providers. Care to guess which party THIS money is allied with?
So if you've wondered what the deal with Alabama is ... it's not so much the backward rednecks that hold any sway, it's the Military/Financial/Corporate money that flows through there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bama Belle
March 22, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to justaJ0e
Excellent point. The majority of Alabama Republicans are of the Bush Sr. variety, which, of course, has its own problems, but it's better than Palin by a long shot. It's partially practical, but I think it's also because we have been and are forced to confront our prejudices in a way that a lot of the country has resisted. We know the venality and nastiness of which people are capable, and we'd rather not go there again. Accordingly, the tea party movement has just really not taken off here like CW forecasted. The attitude, at least among most of my Republican friends, is that they've already done the Palin thing (see, e.g., George Wallace) and would just rather not go there again. Tellingly, the Alabama GOP had a big convention the same weekend as the Nashville Tea Party thing - and all the frontrunners blatantly eschewed the tea party right up the road.
All of which leads me to how the Dems can actually come out way ahead here - by denouncing the tactics and rhetoric used by the teabaggers and providing a home for the thoughtful moderate conservatives. We show, by this vote, that you *don't* have to agree with everything the Democratic leadership says to have a place in our party. We show, via the Stupak example, that we're willing to work with you. We prove to people that we really are the party of ideas, and we welcome all reasonable people who want to debate issues in good faith to our party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peg
March 22, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
good on ya...vote his arse out of office!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike m
March 23, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen.
>Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD
>practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN. Here is a letter I sent to Senator
>Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives.
>-- Stephen Fraser
>
>
>
>Senator Bayh,
>
>As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before
>Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the
>government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very
>idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly
>not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every
>physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but
>the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster
>if passed.
>
>I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling
>lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals
>are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.
>
>Page 22 of the HC Bill:
> Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!
>
>Page 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
>
>Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC Bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
>
>Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have
>no choice!
>
>Page 50 Section 152 in HC Bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
>
>Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID
>Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)
>
>Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)
>
>Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community
>organizations (ACORN).
>
>Page 84 Sec 203 HC Bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
>
>Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!
>
>Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translators for illegal
>aliens.)
>
>Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for
>Govt HC plan.
>
>Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL
>be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC
>Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
>
>Page 124 Lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
>
>Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what
>salary you can make.
>
>Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
>
>Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers
>will be forced to reduce work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such
>a huge expense.)
>
>Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option
>will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option
>will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
>
>Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed
>2.5% of income.
>
>Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)
>
>Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can
>'deduct' their fees)
>
>Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes,
>it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC
>Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income
>and the poor are affected.)
>
>Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill:
>Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all
>be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
>
>Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally--
>the value of humans.)
>
>Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private"
>HC industries.
>
>Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power
>driven wheelchairs.
>
>Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT AT CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer
>patients - welcome to rationing!
>
>Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt
>deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
>
>Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission
>that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
>
>Page 317 Lines 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells
>doctors what and how much they can own!)
>
>Page 317-318 Lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt
>is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 Lines 2-13:
>Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required.
> (Can you say ACORN?)
>
>Page 335 Lines 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The
>Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing
>people into the Govt plan)
>
>Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!'
> Unbelievable!
>
>Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory
>Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
>
>Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult."
> (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
>
>Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living
>wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25,
>426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding
>you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.') (Sounds like Soylent Green
>to me.)
>
>Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt
>mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how
>your life ends!)
>
>Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently
>as a patient's health deteriorates.
>
>Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care
>consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE
>FROM THE GOVERNMENT?)
>
>Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify
>which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before
>God after getting paid for THAT job!)
>
>Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide
>what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
>
>Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations.
> (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
>
>Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy.
> (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
>
>Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental
>Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those
>services.
>
>
>Senator, I guarantee that I
>personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians
>about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.
>
>Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on
>the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Stephen E. Fraser, MD
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
March 22, 2010 10:23 AM
Collin Peterson (D-MN)is one of those Blanche Lincoln types who thinks that, by treating his own party as the enemy, he'll win over Republicans and the Dems won't have any choice but to vote for him. He could use a primary opponent, too, but the guy's a juggernaut at this point. Maybe next time around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
March 22, 2010 10:25 AM
They are cowards or should i say republicans
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leoklein
March 22, 2010 10:28 AM
Lipinski is a national disgrace. You'd think he was representing a district in Alabama instead of one part of which is on the Southwest side of Chicago.
Machine politics at its very worse -- that's what got him into office and what keeps him there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
March 22, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to leoklein
Lipinski inherited his seat from his dad who retired after the primary in 2004. Lipinski Jr. came back from Tennessee as a carpetbagger from the south evidently completely out of touch with his district. The only reason he gets re-elected is because of the D next to his name. A "D" that evidently stands for dunce. The hypocrite even said in 2007 he was all for health care reform because he's a diabetic who wouldn't be able to get insurance if he wasn't a house rep.
If you live in IL-3 and are fed up with Lipinski but feel you have nowhere to devote your energies come a few miles west to IL-13 and help a real Democrat Scott Harper defeat the equally hypocritical Judy Biggert. Biggert claims to be pro-choice and pro-reform but she voted for the Stupak amendment last year and then last night voted against the health care bill and for the motion to recommit on anti-abortion grounds which even Stupak voted against.
Let Lipinski see if he can get elected without Democratic support and come help Scott Harper dump Judy Biggert along with her mindless devotion to Republican partisan politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
March 22, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to markg8
Scott Harper's website:
http://www.scottharperforcongress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leoklein
March 22, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to markg8
It's good to see he's running.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Virginia
March 22, 2010 10:28 AM
Do I have this right? - one chick, one black dude, and 30 white guys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 22, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to Virginia
All jokers
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1audiofile
March 22, 2010 10:31 AM
I think they all could have been given much better cover. I continue to be amazed how poorly the Dems try to get out their talking points. Given the OMB report they simply parroted the results instead of crafting them. Saying the program costs 840 Billion dollars but cuts the deficit by 114 Billion over 10 years and 1.3 trillion over 20 years. Instead they should have said that the the program costs $870 Billion but saves $985 Billion. So you actually get to cover 32 million people who do not have coverage today and you save money over the current program which covers none of these people. Then list the top 10 good things this reform does.
The one area the GOP beats the Dems hand down is simple slogans. There is no Frank Luntz on the Dems team. Even if they are lies the GOP pushes their message effectively.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr S
March 22, 2010 10:33 AM
Keep in mind, a few of these reps were allowed to vote no to improve their political chances once Pelosi saw that she had enough votes to pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 22, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to Mr S
keep in mind....they would have let the darn thing go down to save their mama.
Uck dem
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
March 22, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to Mr S
Yep, that is totally accurate. I bet it was more than a few though. Pelosi is an awesome leader for the dems. Awesome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
March 22, 2010 10:36 AM
Lynch thinks running against Obama and the unions will help him in 2012 when he hopes to challenge Brown for his senate seat. He seems to have forgotten about a little thing called the primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
Another absurd and completely off-base "analysis" by Walter Mitty. Last week it was "the student loan fix won't fly in the reconciliation bill because it's not healthcare."
Lynch isn't going to be primaried now or in 2012. Lynch isn't going to run for the Senate and he is not going to run against Obama or the unions. Lynch voted for the reconciliation bill last night and will be there with the unions on every other vote. So, they will kiss and make up.
Democrats aren't very good at holding grudges under any circumstances but when we win, all is forgiven.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 22, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to FreeRider
Exactly. Which is why we're not hearing about Lieberman anymore. That's what you get with a "big tent" philosophy. An incumbent is almost always safer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
March 22, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Lieberman may be out of sight, out of mind, for the moment, but now it is the Senate's turn and I am sure he will pull something to get face time in front of the media. He can't help himself. He will find some GOP argument that he can't resist embracing. He is certainly not forgotten by the Democratic base across the country. The disdain for him is always bubbling on the surface. There is simply nothing redeeming about his self serving traitorous ways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 23, 2010 2:00 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
We're not hearing about Lieberman right now because it' been several months since he was one of the Senate saboteurs of the bill originally (remember how he personally blocked inclusion of Medicare expansion down to age 55, even though it was his own idea?) and we've been focused on getting it passed in the House.
And because it's another 2 years before he's up for reelection. If he runs as a Democrat, he'll be primaried. And Connecticut election law has changed so that he no longer has the option of running in the primary and then filing as an independent if he loses. He has to pick one or the other in advance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken D
March 22, 2010 10:38 AM
I suspect Mr. S. is right. I realize this is not public information, but what does TPM hear in the Capitol as to reserve votes that Pelosi could have called on if necessary?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 22, 2010 10:43 AM
We will f them all good in november.
The fight is on
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 10:54 AM
Yes, Virginia, that was my count, too, emphasis on the 30 white guys. And to the Rahm Emanuels of this world, do not even begin to try to persuade me again it's ok to support an "anti-choice" Dem. We see how that worked out for us. They listen to the bishops, but not the nuns, who far outnumbered the paleolithic, hypocritical bishops, who have been covering up the predation of their priests for decades upon decades. Time for some serious primaries!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to Wise Woman
Actually, that should be 32 white guys, since there were 34 no votes, and I only see one woman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ken D
March 22, 2010 11:25 AM in reply to Wise Woman
True enough, and depressing. It is also noteworthy, however, that not a single Republican woman has broken ranks on this, not even Snowe or Collins in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to Ken D
Of the very, very few women who are Republican. Almost by definition if you are woman aligned Republican, you are ideological and a bit rigid in your thinking. It's not that there are no women who are not ideological or rigid and lacking empathy, it's just that there are far fewer of them than men who have similar characteristics. It's got something to do with temperament and the impact of gender on aspects of temperament. Don't get me wrong, I am truly thankful for the Democratic men out there, but I think a better balance of genders would provide a better result. As far as primaries are concerned, I'd favor more progressive candidates no matter what gender. Oh, and candidates who understand we elected them with the goal of accomplishing things, not just getting themselves re-elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
March 22, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Wise Woman
It's a shame Catholic bishops can't be primaried. It's a bigger shame they don't have competition for their jobs from half the congregation: women.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wise Woman
March 22, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to markg8
Right on! I've been wondering for quite awhile now how much longer the highly anachronistic priest/nun celibacy system could continue; and it appears that cracks are now forming due to the Irish and German predation scandals. We shall see!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
March 22, 2010 11:17 AM
How many of these Dems are getting contributions from the HC lobby? Just wonderin'...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
March 22, 2010 11:29 AM
Zack Space better be content with his Congressional district because he'll never win a statewide Democratic primary in Ohio for anything, unless he's merely a stand-in as a sacrificial lamb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
March 22, 2010 11:43 AM
The way I see it and you have to agree, they vote in FAVOR of the constitution. This bill gives them the right to enter YOUR home to make sure you are living the right lifestyle. Before you start contradicting yourselves and posting hatred towards me, READ IT. By the way, the guy that PROPOSED the damn thing said HE didn't understand all of it. It was prepared by LAWYERS! How many actual people really trust them? Especially ones working for the feds? Really? 2700 pages of legalese.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 23, 2010 2:32 AM in reply to hologram5
So we've got a wingnut among us who actually buys the nonsense about how the number of pages is a legitimate criticism?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
April 6, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to Red XIV
So I'm a wingnut. I'm a man that has children with NO insurance due to losing my job. I'm a man that's TIRED of the lies, the corruption, the buying and selling of special interest votes in congress. I'm a man that's tired of being middle class struggling to make ends meet while I watch these crooks that are supposed to be elected officials sent to represent US when all they do is pork bellied bills with special interest crap on it and travel around in private jets wearing 6-700 dollar suits paid for by my tax dollar. If I were president, I'd tell them, "IF you want it passed, write it specific and understandable or it's going right back to you without said signature. I would also ban lobbyism and enact term limits. Career politicians equal career criminals. Time we brought honor back to public service.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 22, 2010 11:47 AM
I hereby forgive anyone who voted against it from the left. I feel ya, guys. But I think there's only one of you, which is sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
March 22, 2010 11:58 AM
ben chandlers no vote has me stunned. i will never vote for hi again
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bclook
March 22, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to neesy08
In today's *Lexington Herald-Leader,* one finds this:
“As I traveled throughout the sixteen counties in my Central Kentucky district, I have heard much about healthcare reform from the people I represent," Chandler said in his statement. "In November, I voted against the House bill because it did not lower the cost of healthcare in the long term and did not adequately protect our rural hospitals, our seniors, and small businesses. After reviewing the new healthcare reform proposal and talking with Central Kentucky hospitals, physicians, healthcare providers, and citizens, I believe this legislation helps usher in much-needed reforms — like expanding coverage and eliminating the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. However, this bill still does not address the concerns I had about its effect on our seniors, rural hospitals, and the overall cost to taxpayers. Because of this, I voted against the bill today.”
Take him at his word and consider his "concerns." If the CBO is to be believed, then HCR will reduce costs to the taxpayers; if an endorsement by the AARP is any indication, then you'd think that this would be good for seniors. So there remains the point about rural hospitals, and I have no idea about that. But I'm skeptical. Indeed, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he is an idiot and a coward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elf
March 22, 2010 12:03 PM
The only thing inportant about this article is the thing you didn't address.
Why did each and every one of these people not support the bill? Why didn't you address that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boycottfaux
March 22, 2010 12:05 PM
My congressman McMahon voted NO . .
I emailed him and advised him that I'll remember his NO VOTE during the next election, as will my '7 brothers and sisters' and their families!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
March 22, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to boycottfaux
Mollohan (D-WV) voted for it despite only recently having an ethics investigation dropped and facing a tough primary challenge since I can't remember when. As much as everyone likes to call West Virginians hillbillies and dumb, the representatives know which side stands up for the common man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
March 22, 2010 12:06 PM
Imagine what progressives could have gotten had the POTUS took control of messaging from the conservatives since the beginning of the health care debate. Perhaps we would be arguing between Universal versus Public option and not consoling ourselves with "at least its a start." Some have asked, why do I put up that quote from Mark Twain (see below). The basic meaning of the quote is: that doing and supporting the right thing is a matter of conscience and not party affiliation. I am a progressive before I am a democrat.
The jingoistic, uber-patriotic rhetoric by the conservatives is just that, empty rhetoric. The republicans/conservatives don't care about human lives, concerning neither military operations nor domestic welfare. How can anyone support a party/ideology whose ultimate goal is political gamesmanship to keep the status quo? The same can be said when a democrat campaigns on progressive reforms but marginally implements them.
At least this debate on health care opens the eyes of the average lay person to realize how Senators have become the House of Lords and the House of Representatives is a bunch of small fiefdoms, and that this so-called aristocratic bunch believe they can play games while people are dying here and abroad. They have totally forgotten that they are supposed to be representatives of the people. People who support this type of buffoonery need to really look at what they are contributing too. This is the type of things that makes government so inefficient and that any real change moves at a glacial pace.
How can any true progressive call this current bill other than a sham? How can you consider; negotiating from universal/single payer to public option to Medicare buy in to mandating persons to buy a product that is known to be inadequate for consumers with few legal protections and on top of that still have to buy overpriced drugs, a success for Americans?
This is how the average progressive voter will view this and this is what the elected Democratic leadership is failing to realize who support this bill and who say in so many words "...it's a start and at least something". To the average progressive voter this looked like the negotiating skills of an 18 year old trying to buy his/her first car. No wonder it was easy for Bush to scam Democrats into the Iraq war. Voter apathy is the quickest way to lose a majority. Those who believed that some real change was going to happen will not come out in 2010 and possibly not even for 2012 if the POTUS continues this piecemeal attempt at reforms.
Progressives should begin to put these leaders to task if the Democrats cannot stand by their ideals. In short, progressives once again need to have hearts of gold and spines of steel. It is time to tell Democrats, just because you have a D in front of your name doesn't mean you can ignore the people who voted for you and if so, you will be primaried. So yes, this bill is a start and just that. Subsequent progressives democrats/republicans will need to improve on this until one day an average American can wake up and not have to worry if they got sick that day from something as mundane as a cold to as catastrophic as cancer how will they be able to support themselves.
Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master.
- "The Character of Man," Mark Twain's Autobiography
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
March 22, 2010 12:10 PM
I came to this site to express the same sentiments re Rep Davis. Even before Obama's election, Davis was viewed as one of the more intelligent members of congress and an expert at cross-examination witness. Watching him take apart members of the Bush administration, as they lied their way into war was a thing of beauty. He really turned out to be a big disapointment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
March 22, 2010 12:15 PM
Now that health care has passed, I expect the Troll population to decrease substantially; all those Lobbyists paid to spread Republican lies will stop getting paid to post nonsense. All the Trolls that remain will just be the hard-core nut-cases.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 22, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to condew
NOOOOO. WE WILL REPEEL U!@!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
March 22, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to condew
I wonder if they are not here because they have jobs. Can you believe that they are actually stupid enough to work. Good thing though, because if wasn't for them we wouldn't our Section 8 housing voucher, Title 20 daycare coverage, foodstamps, subsidized utilities, subsidized transportation, a free cellphone and this free computer with internet access (did I leave something out?)...oh, and now free healthcare!! Heaven forbid, we wouldn't be able to sit around and post all day!! Gotta go, Oprah's on!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CPM
March 22, 2010 12:54 PM
Has anyone noticed that all but one of the 34 Democratic House members who voted against the health insurance reform legislation are men? Hmmm. Nothing like sticking with a bunch of questionably celibate old guy Bishops against the nuns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to CPM
Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is pro-choice so her vote had nothing to do with abortion. She's from SD and thinks she has to vote like a right-winger to stay in office. I guess nobody informed Tim Johnson of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 22, 2010 1:30 PM
I find it much easier to understand the machinations of these politicians if they're viewed as proxy employees hired or supported by corporations to be installed in government positions to do the bidding for corporations.
The Democratic National Corporation and the Republican National Corporation are just the aggregated/centralized parent corporation for all the subsidiaries.
At least, that seems to be the way the Supreme Court sees things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
March 22, 2010 1:31 PM
The Gang of 34 Traitors are invited to a Welcoming Reception at Traitor Joe's tonight. Drinks on the house!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vincent F
March 22, 2010 1:37 PM
I will never understand "conservative" Democrats who think that Republican voters will actually vote for them. All these 34 have done is piss off their Democratic supporters and make their conservative voters dream of replacing them with real conservatives. I hope their next jobs have good health insurance plans...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
March 22, 2010 1:39 PM
I'm giving Stupak a pass. I vilified him before he saw the light but I do believe in the power of redemption and, anyway, I think it's probably a good thing to keep the doors open to the Blue Dogs to some extent even if we have to hold our noses a bit to do it. A grey area, I grant you, but if we bite our noses off we won't be able to hold them if we should need to do so. I've lived in and am now out of the do or die phase. Dying is so permanent and no fun can be had after.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
likembrave
March 22, 2010 1:44 PM
My question is: Now that this bill will be the law of the land, how can centrist Republicans vote against the reconciliation bill to make it better? (Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Bond, Brown, etc.) The bill is going to be singed by the President and be the law. How can these Republicans argue against the reconciliation fixes? Seems to me, that would not be prudent....OR is it just that they will vote against anything that the DEMS are "for" and stay in lock-step with what the GOP leadership tell them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
March 22, 2010 1:54 PM
Mike McMahon's from my district and for some background, he's a freshman congressman who was elected in the Fox News Central / GOP borough of NYC because of the Vito Fossella scandal. Obama lost the district. A yes vote would have put immense pressure on him in his reelection campaign. Regardless, he sent out an explanation of his vote that was not dismissive of the HCR bill or ant--reform. I think he's one of the reps who would have gotten a pass from Pelosi and the DCCC to vote no provided they had the votes elsewhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
March 22, 2010 2:05 PM
There is no stopping us now! We lost the last three key special elections, our President has the worst approval rating for time in office EVER, Congress has the lowest approval rating EVER and we just had to pass healthcare in which two of three registered voters opposed on a Sunday hoping all would be watching the NCAA tournament! November here we come!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
topsight
March 22, 2010 2:28 PM
The republican candidate in John Adler's district could well be John Runyon, a former NFL offensive lineman with no real experience in politics. Since Adler likely got elected to this traditionally republican district on Obama's coat tails, could a big honkin' lug with no experience be a better choice than to re-elect Adler? To quote Sarah, "You Betcha!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enough already
March 22, 2010 3:08 PM
i thought the president said to vote your conscience. The ones that voted against the bill seems they did. Why fault them ? If their distrcts werent happy with it then they did the will of the people. Thats democracy. They appearntly were not given an offer they couldnt refuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonyandoc
March 22, 2010 3:09 PM
"Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) is also an odd case. He's one of three House Democrats who opposed reform in November to have announced his retirement in the months since then. Tanner's opposition was easy to explain in November. But with nothing to lose, there had been some expectation that he would back the bill".
Maybe he and other retiring members, not needing re-election or party favors, did not want to loose their self respect and voted their conscience for once.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enough already
March 22, 2010 3:13 PM
why did president finish getting that prison with no one to house no gitmos my understanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
know_1_special2000
March 22, 2010 3:13 PM
By the way if anybody out there sees Sarah Palin, just mention to her that that "Hopey Changey" thing she was asking about is going well. Her grandson can have medical care now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enough already
March 22, 2010 3:26 PM
her grandson is being taken care of. ALthough she did some quetionable things . Most of her state liked her and so did enough of the people outside Alaska. Im not seeing the comment she has choices of how her grandson is being cared for . SHe does not anymore because of the bill. SHe will probably get less health care since now everyone is equal. LOts of doctors are going to retire. ITs 2 months here to get decent check ups because it not an emergency. now how long are you going to have to wait. It didnt need to be like this. REform needed but not such a shoddy bill. Have you read it or even the first one. any of you? SO your okay with the abortion part. THen you talk of her grandson
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to enough already
Being raised in a home with both your biological parents is the best option for a child. Her grandson is highly unlikely to have that.
Would you intentionally create a child unlikely to have two parents? Would that be moral?
With your apparent beliefs you have to answer that question before sex, while for those of us who recognize that a fetus is not a baby may have to face that question after pregnancy occurs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enough already
March 22, 2010 3:40 PM
The president didnt have experience. your right time to question lack of experience in public office. this is what you get. Before anyone spouts off the white rich people im not white nor rich. i am an American of the United States concerned that health care is not going to be for everyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
March 22, 2010 4:38 PM
Yes, you could call them statesmen, patriots and champions of the Constitution. The rest of their party are none of these things.
219 of the 253 House Democrats renege on their oath of office when they voted for the very unconstitutional H.R. 3590 Bill, add the 60 Democratic Senators that also renege on their oath of office when they passed H.R. 3590 on 12/24/2009 along party lines and what we have is a Democratic-Socialist Party with Obama as it’s dear leader, which has very little use for the “Rule of Law”, the Constitution, "Procedure" and our Constitutional Republic.
One can honestly say the majority of Democrats in Congress are practicing sedition against our Constitution, they are now embolden and believe nothing can stop them from socializing America and obliterating the Constitution forever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 22, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Good morning!
How about a nice warm cup of joe?
And just where was your Constitution championing attitude while George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were shitting all over the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention?
You don't have a dictionary do you.
Send me a PM with your address and I'll spring for a pocket Websters so that you can understand what the word "Socialist" means.
. . . or . . . you're just a poor misguided troll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
March 22, 2010 11:38 PM in reply to FreemanW
Let me get this straight......the health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.
What the hell could possibly go wrong????
Me thinks you are the one that is "misguided".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 22, 2010 7:58 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Kind of a sore loser, aren't you. Try taking a break & gearing up with some new talking points because you just described the GOOP. Honestly!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
March 22, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to Leftflank
If one loses a battle but wins the war history will record the outcome in due time...meanwhile the war rages on!
Obama and Stupak are the real losers last night, one is too arrogant to admit it and the other is too stupid.
If health care is a "Right" why does the Socialist Government of Obama fined Americans for not exercising that "Right" in ObamaCare?
51 votes or 51% of the vote and you democratic-socialists take my liberty and rights away from me, I hate democracy with a passion!
Within nine months the SCOTUS will indeed rule that ObamaCare is unconstitutional and put an end to this nightmare. The November election will reaffirm Americans dislike for all things socialist including the Democratic-Socialist Party and its slimy leaders that promote SEDITION against our Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 23, 2010 2:17 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
America: Love it or leave it, Buster. Since you hate democracy so much, you might go try protecting your rights in some place that doesn't have it.
You hate 51% of the voters having the power to tell the rest what to do but the only other alternative is to have 49% of the voters telling the 51% what to do.
You'll tell me that you have rights that the majority cannot invade under the Constitution and I will agree -- I'll note that the Republicans trampled all over the very same Consitution and you didn't say a word. I'll further note that nothing in the HCR goes much further than the requirement that you buy insurance for your car.
So stop scaring yourself silly with mental pictures of Cheney coming to force-feed you granola.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 23, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to DugFmJamul
Like I said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephen Crockett
March 22, 2010 8:44 PM
Michael Moore is a heavy hitter in political terms.He will have a huge impact in any race he decides to focus on and certainly in a Democratic Primary race.
His documentaries are very powerful. He has a huge following in every community in the nation. The Netroots loves him. The media will always give him a platform for his views. He has money and could raise far more for any candidate or cause he endorses.
In solidarity,
Stephen Crockett
Host, Democratic Talk Radio
Editor, Mid-Atlantic Labor.com
P.S.- Kratovil in Maryland has a real problem in the Democratic Primary if he gets a challenger. I live in his CD and was a devoted, prominent early supporter. I am looking for a challenger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 10:57 PM
Hey, at least I'm not an apologist for Stupak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 22, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to AJM
This is for Free Rider.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 22, 2010 11:47 AM
Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?